🔗 Share this article

Elected officials have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's series of deals with the US administration are "built on sand." This stems from revelations that a much-touted deal on medicines, which pledges zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS paying more, lacks any detailed agreement beyond broad headline terms contained within government press releases.

A Deal Without Detail

The arrangement concerning medicines, described as a "generational" achievement, remains an "agreement in principle" without a signed legal text. It has been highlighted that the press releases from the UK and US governments describe the deal in sharply different terms. The British version emphasizes securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a singular success, while the American announcement dwells on the commitment for the NHS to pay higher prices for new medications.

"We face a genuine possibility that the UK government has agreed to terms to raise drug prices in return for only a assurance from President Trump," stated David Henig, a trade policy analyst. "History shows he has form for not honouring his word."

Broader Instability and a Paused Tech Deal

Concerns have been heightened by Washington's action to put on ice the major technology agreement, which was previously called "a transformative pact" in the bilateral relationship. The US cited a failure to advance from the UK on lowering trade barriers as the reason for the pause.

Furthermore, concessions secured for British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal have yet to be formally signed off by the US, despite a imminent January deadline. "We have been informed that that the US has not yet signed off the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Uncertainty Among Officials

Behind the scenes, ministers have admitted unease that the government's US-UK accords are flimsy and unreliable. One minister was quoted as stating the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another described the situation as the "new normal" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "increased uncertainty and instability."

Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, argued: "What is even more astonishing than the administration's tactics is the UK government's optimistic assumption that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

Government Downplays Risks, Points to Gains

Ministry sources have downplayed the risk of the US backing out of the pharmaceuticals deal. One source indicated the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been pushing for the agreement, seeking certainty on imports and pricing, making it less abstract than the paused tech deal.

Officials concede that instability is inherent in dealing with the Trump administration. However, they argue that the UK has obtained tangible results for businesses, such as preferential tariff rates compared to other nations. "Securing 25% steel tariffs, which is better than the rate for the rest of the world, is a concrete advantage," one official said.

Nevertheless, problems have emerged in implementing the broader trade deal. Promised quotas on beef exports have not materialized, and the pledge to "eliminate duties on UK metals" has is still pending, with tariffs staying at 25%.

Moving forward, the two sides have agreed to resume talks on the suspended digital agreement in January, following what were described as "productive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.