🔗 Share this article

Elected officials have expressed alarm that the United Kingdom's series of deals with the US administration are "lacking a solid foundation." This follows revelations that a so-called "milestone" deal on drug pricing, which pledges zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS increasing its costs, lacks any underlying contract beyond vague headline terms published in government press releases.

An Agreement in Principle Only

The arrangement concerning medicines, described as a "generational" achievement, exists as an "agreement in principle" without a signed legal text. Observers point out 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 highlights the expectation for the NHS to pay 25% more for new medications.

"We face a genuine possibility that the UK government has made commitments to raise drug prices in return for little more than a assurance from President Trump," commented David Henig, a trade policy analyst. "It is documented he has a tendency for not honouring his word."

Broader Instability and a Paused Tech Deal

Concerns have been heightened by Washington's action to suspend the high-value digital accord, which was previously called "a huge leap forward" in the bilateral relationship. The US claimed a failure to advance from the UK on reducing other tariffs as the reason for the pause.

Furthermore, concessions agreed to for British farmers as part of an May trade agreement have not been formally ratified by the US, despite a fast-approaching January deadline. "It is our belief that the US has not finalized the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Anxiety Behind Closed Doors

Behind the scenes, ministers have voiced worries that the government's agreements with the US are unstable and unpredictable. One minister reportedly said the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another framed the situation as the "current reality" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "additional layers of volatility and unpredictability."

Layla Moran, a senior MP on the health committee, remarked: "Perhaps most shocking than the administration's tactics is the UK government's credulous faith that his administration is a reliable partner. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

Official Reassurances and Concrete Outcomes

Ministry sources have sought to reduce the risk of the US withdrawing from the pharmaceuticals deal. One source noted the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been lobbying for the agreement, wanting clarity on imports and pricing, making it less abstract than the paused tech deal.

Officials concede that unpredictability is part and parcel of dealing with the current US leadership. However, they argue that the UK has achieved real benefits 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 concrete advantage," one official said.

Yet, problems have surfaced in implementing the initial US-UK accord. Promised access for British beef have failed to be approved, and the commitment to "remove tariffs on British steel and aluminium" has is still pending, with tariffs staying at 25%.

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