Government ministers and leading parliamentarians have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's negotiated accords with Donald Trump are "built on sand." This follows revelations that a much-touted deal on drug pricing, which pledges zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS paying more, lacks any detailed agreement beyond vague headline terms published in government press releases.
A Deal Without Detail
The arrangement concerning medicines, promoted as a "significant" achievement, remains an "statement of intent" without a signed legal text. It has been highlighted that the public statements from the UK and US governments present the deal in divergent terms. The British version celebrates securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a singular success, while the American announcement dwells on the agreement for the NHS to pay 25% more for new medications.
"The danger exists that the UK government has agreed to terms to increase medicine costs in return for little more than a verbal promise from President Trump," stated David Henig, a trade policy analyst. "It is documented he has a tendency for not honouring his word."
A Pattern of Unreliability
Worries have been heightened by Washington's action to put on ice the £31bn "tech prosperity deal", which was previously heralded as "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.
In a separate development, concessions promised for British farmers as part of an initial accord have still not been formally ratified by the US, despite a fast-approaching January deadline. "Our understanding is that the US has not finalized the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.
Private Ministerial Concerns
In confidential discussions, ministers have admitted unease that the government's deals with Washington are unstable and unpredictable. One minister reportedly said the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another described the situation as the "current reality" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "increased uncertainty and instability."
Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, remarked: "The only thing more surprising than the US approach is the UK government's credulous faith that his administration is a good faith actor. The NHS is not a bargaining chip."
A Mixed Picture of Success and Setback
Government figures have attempted to minimize the risk of the US withdrawing from the pharmaceuticals deal. One source suggested the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been lobbying for the agreement, seeking certainty on imports and pricing, making it less abstract than the paused tech deal.
Officials admit that unpredictability is inherent in dealing with the Trump administration. However, they argue that the UK has achieved real benefits for businesses, such as lower steel tariffs compared to other nations. "Our achievement of 25% steel tariffs, which is lower than the rate for the rest of the world, is a solid gain," one official said.
Yet, delays have surfaced in implementing the broader trade deal. Promised access for British beef have failed to be approved, and the assurance to "reduce steel tariffs to zero" has remains unmet, with tariffs fixed at 25%.
Moving forward, the two sides have agreed to resume talks on the paused tech prosperity deal in January, following what were described as "very positive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.
