Senior ministers and MPs have warned that the UK’s recent arrangements with Donald Trump are dangerously fragile after it emerged that the flagship deal to avoid US tariffs on medicines contains no detailed legal text other than high-level policy statements.
The “landmark” UK-US pharmaceutical deal announced earlier this month, under which the NHS is expected to pay more for medicines in return for zero tariffs on exports to the US, currently rests on little more than the key commitments set out in two government press releases. No underlying draft contract or legally binding framework has been created.
Concerns have deepened following Washington’s decision to suspend the £31bn “Tech Prosperity Deal”, which ministers had touted as a “generational change” in economic relations between Britain and the US. The US said the deal was suspended because the UK had made no progress in reducing trade barriers in other areas.
It has also emerged that concessions promised to British farmers under a previous tariff deal with Trump, which Sir Keir Starmer described as “historic” in May, have still not been formally approved by the US, despite a January implementation deadline looming.
The Health Ministry said negotiators are currently working on the detailed terms of the drug deal. When asked about the main agreed terms, the ministry referred to its own press release and a statement from the US government, which described the agreement as an “agreement in principle”.
Critics pointed out major differences between the two announcements. The UK described the deal as ensuring zero tariffs on medicines, 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 U.K. risked making concrete commitments in exchange for little more than political assurances from a president known for his unpredictability. He warned that pressure from US companies threatening to withdraw their investments could further undermine the integrity of the process.
Normally, preliminary legal texts would be agreed and examined before public announcements are made. No such document currently exists for the pharmaceutical deal.
Ministers privately expressed concerns about the stability of the agreements. One described the UK’s emerging 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 said was 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 failed.
Liam Byrne, chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, said restoring the suspended Tech Prosperity Deal must now be a priority.
Administration officials tried to downplay the risk of a U.S. violation of the drug deal, arguing that the U.S. drug industry itself wanted certainty. Officials also point to tangible benefits, such as the UK avoiding 50% steel and aluminum tariffs on other countries and securing a reduced 10% tariff on car exports under quotas.
However, problems remain in implementing previous commitments. Quotas for British beef exports to the US have yet to be signed, prompting farming leaders to warn that agreed access could be delayed or used as leverage in future talks.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, said it was important that promised reciprocal quotas were confirmed before the end of the year to avoid further uncertainty for producers.
As talks between British and U.S. officials are set to resume in January, critics argue that the lack of legal certainty surrounding recent announcements highlights the risks of relying on informal agreements with a government known for abrupt policy changes.
