🔗 Share this article

Ministers and senior MPs have expressed alarm that the United Kingdom's recent agreements with the US administration are "lacking a solid foundation." This stems from revelations that a recently announced deal on drug pricing, which promises zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS increasing its costs, lacks any underlying contract beyond limited headline terms published in government press releases.

Lacking Legal Footing

The US-UK pharmaceuticals agreement, promoted as a "landmark" achievement, exists as an "broad understanding" without a signed legal text. Critics have noted that the public statements from the UK and US governments present the deal in markedly contrasting terms. The British version focuses on securing "duty-free access" as a singular success, while the American announcement highlights the expectation for the NHS to pay significantly more for new medications.

"The danger exists that the UK government has made commitments to increase medicine costs in return for little more than a pledge from President Trump," said David Henig, a trade policy analyst. "We know he has form for not keeping promises."

Wider Concerns Amidst a Suspended Agreement

Anxieties have been intensified by Washington's action to suspend the high-value digital accord, which was previously called "a transformative pact" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a lack of progress from the UK on lowering trade barriers as the reason for the pause.

In a separate development, concessions agreed to for British farmers as part of an May trade agreement have still not been formally approved by the US, despite a fast-approaching January deadline. "Our understanding is that the US has failed to approve the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Uncertainty Among Officials

In confidential discussions, ministers have voiced worries that the government's deals with Washington are flimsy and unreliable. One minister described the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another characterized the situation as the "prevailing condition" 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 optimistic assumption that his administration is a reliable partner. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

A Mixed Picture of Success and Setback

Officials have sought to reduce the chances of the US backing out of the pharmaceuticals deal. One source noted the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been advocating for the agreement, desiring stability on imports and pricing, making it less abstract than the paused tech deal.

Officials concede that volatility is part and parcel of dealing with the current US leadership. However, they contend that the UK has secured concrete outcomes for businesses, such as reduced duties on automobiles compared to other nations. "Our achievement of 25% steel tariffs, which is lower than the rate for the rest of the world, is a concrete advantage," one official said.

Nevertheless, issues have surfaced in enacting the broader trade deal. Promised access for British beef have not materialized, and the commitment to "reduce steel tariffs to zero" has is still pending, with tariffs remaining at 25%.

Moving forward, the two sides have planned to recommence talks on the paused tech prosperity deal in January, following what were described as "productive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.