🔗 Share this article

Ministers and senior MPs have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's negotiated accords with Washington are "built on sand." This comes after revelations that a so-called "milestone" deal on medicines, which pledges zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS increasing its costs, lacks any underlying contract beyond broad headline terms published in government press releases.

Lacking Legal Footing

The US-UK pharmaceuticals agreement, described as a "generational" achievement, is still an "broad understanding" without detailed provisions. Critics have noted that the public statements from the UK and US governments present the deal in sharply different terms. The British version emphasizes securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a singular success, while the American announcement concentrates on the agreement for the NHS to pay significantly more for new medications.

"We face a genuine possibility that the UK government has made commitments to increase medicine costs in return for only a verbal promise from President Trump," said David Henig, a trade expert. "We know he has a record of not following through on agreements."

Broader Instability and a Paused Tech Deal

Concerns have been amplified by Washington's action to suspend the £31bn "tech prosperity deal", which was previously called "a transformative pact" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a lack of progress from the UK on reducing other tariffs as the reason for the pause.

Additionally, concessions secured for British farmers as part of an initial accord have yet to be formally ratified by the US, despite a fast-approaching January deadline. "It is our belief that the US has not finalized the reciprocal tariff rate quota," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Anxiety Behind Closed Doors

Privately, ministers have expressed concerns that the government's US-UK accords are unstable and unpredictable. One minister was quoted as stating the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another characterized the situation as the "new normal" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "greater risk and fluctuation."

Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, remarked: "Perhaps most shocking than the US approach is the UK government's naive belief that his administration is a reliable partner. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

Government Downplays Risks, Points to Gains

Government figures have downplayed the chances of the US withdrawing from the pharmaceuticals deal. One source noted 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 acknowledge that instability is part and parcel of dealing with the current US leadership. However, they maintain that the UK has secured concrete outcomes for businesses, such as reduced duties on automobiles compared to other nations. "The fact we have 25% steel tariffs, which is lower than the rate for the rest of the world, is a solid gain," one official said.

Nevertheless, problems have emerged in implementing the broader trade deal. Promised access for British beef have yet to be finalized, and the commitment to "eliminate duties on UK metals" has remains unmet, with tariffs remaining at 25%.

As negotiations continue, the two sides have scheduled to restart talks on the paused tech prosperity deal in January, following what were described as "constructive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.