Senior ministers and MPs have warned that the UK’s recent agreements with Donald Trump are dangerously fragile, after it emerged that the flagship deal to avoid US tariffs on pharmaceuticals has no detailed legal text beyond high-level political statements.
The “milestone” UK–US pharmaceuticals agreement announced earlier this month, under which the NHS is expected to pay more for medicines in exchange for zero tariffs on exports to the US, currently rests on little more than headline commitments set out in two government press releases. No underlying draft treaty or legally binding framework has yet been produced.
Concerns have intensified following Washington’s decision to suspend the £31bn “tech prosperity deal”, which had been promoted by ministers as a “generational step-change” in the UK–US economic relationship. The US said the agreement was paused because of a lack of progress by the UK in lowering trade barriers in other areas.
It has also emerged that concessions promised to British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal with Trump, hailed by Sir Keir Starmer as “historic” in May, have still not been formally approved by the US despite a January implementation deadline looming.
The Department of Health said negotiators were now working through the detailed terms of the pharmaceutical agreement. When asked for the agreed headline conditions, the department referred to its own press release and a US government statement describing the arrangement as an “agreement in principle”.
Critics have pointed out stark differences between the two announcements. The UK described the deal as securing zero tariffs on pharmaceuticals, while the US statement focused on higher prices for medicines supplied to the NHS, suggesting costs could rise by around 25%.
David Henig, a trade expert, said the UK risked making concrete commitments in return for little more than political assurances from a president known for unpredictability. He warned that pressure from US companies threatening to pull investment could further undermine the integrity of the process.
Ordinarily, provisional legal texts would be agreed and scrutinised before public announcements are made. No such document currently exists for the pharmaceuticals deal.
Privately, ministers acknowledged unease about the stability of the arrangements. One described the UK’s emerging set of agreements with the Trump administration as “built on sand”, while another said volatility had become the “new normal” in transatlantic relations.
Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, said the NHS was being put at risk by what she described as a naive belief that the Trump administration would act in good faith. She warned that a deal already expected to cost taxpayers billions could become even more expensive if it collapsed.
Liam Byrne, chair of the business and trade select committee, said restoring the suspended tech prosperity deal must now be a priority.
Government figures have sought to downplay the risk of the US reneging on the pharmaceutical agreement, arguing that the US drugs industry itself wants certainty. Officials also point to tangible gains, such as the UK avoiding 50% steel and aluminium tariffs imposed on other countries, and securing a reduced 10% tariff on car exports within quotas.
However, problems persist in implementing earlier commitments. Quotas for UK beef exports to the US have yet to be signed off, prompting warnings from farming leaders that agreed access could be delayed or used as leverage in future talks.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, said it was essential that promised reciprocal quotas were confirmed before the end of the year to avoid further uncertainty for producers.
While talks between UK and US officials are due to resume in January, critics argue that the lack of legal certainty surrounding recent announcements highlights the risks of relying on informal agreements with an administration known for abrupt policy shifts.
