LONDON — It was always going to be highly charged — but Britain’s debate over assisted dying is starting to get ugly. In a historic move last November, the House of Commons endorsed the second reading of a bill which aims to give terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live help to die. The legislation, introduced by backbench Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, passed by 330 votes to 275, clearing a major parliamentary hurdle. To some observers, that debate brought out the best of the U.K. parliament, with five hours of nuanced, moving speeches. Sarah Olney, a Lib Dem MP who opposes the bill, said the absence of party whips — with lawmakers voting on conscience — forced politicians to use their judgment. “Normally our thoughts and our words and our votes are shaped by what our parties [want],” she reflected. But, four months on, Leadbeater’s bill is facing intense scrutiny — and angry briefings are flying as the opposing sides dig into the fraught specifics. MPs vote again next month on legislation that will either deliver a truly transformative social change — or founder like previous efforts. ‘UNPLEASANT’ Since November’s vote, 23 MPs from across Westminster’s parties spent their Tuesdays and Wednesdays in a dusty room on the parliamentary estate painstakingly examining the bill clause-by-clause. The membership was weighted in favor of supporters by 14 to 9 to reflect the result at second reading. Thirteen of the scrutiny committee’s members were only elected to parliament for the first time last July — so it’s been a steep learning curve.  “I expected it to be a large commitment,” said Lib Dem MP Tom Gordon, a supporter of the bill. “It is probably even bigger than I thought it would be. And I thought it would be pretty momentous.”  The committee wrapped up its scrutiny after midnight on Wednesday. Such late-night sittings have themselves been controversial. Labour MP and bill critic Naz Shah had to leave one session early because her hearing aids needed recharging after 15 hours, in turn setting off a row about the treatment of MPs with impairments. Numerous committee members told POLITICO the atmosphere in the room had been largely collegiate and respectful. But tensions have risen to the surface, both in the sessions and in the hothouse of social media.  “It’s really very unpleasant and, as far as I’m concerned, completely unnecessary,” said Olney of online interventions by members of the public and campaign groups. She claimed both sides of the debate had been “misrepresenting some of what’s happening” — and “making life harder for MPs.” That was echoed by supporters, who felt the nuances of the assisted dying debate were rarely being reflected online. Bill-backer and Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville-Roberts accused some groups of “trying to be heavy-handed and influence parliamentarians through fear. That is utterly unacceptable.”  Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney, who opposes the bill, said online interventions were “very unpleasant” and “completely unnecessary.” | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images Leading Conservative critic of the legislation Danny Kruger welcomed online coverage of the committee process as “concerns start to rise” — but warned against “extremely unpleasant and unnecessary abuse.”  ‘FINE LINE’ Hundreds of amendments have been proposed to the bill in the name of strengthening its safeguards and preventing abuse. However, supporters of the assisted dying push have questioned whether skeptics have been simply trying to bog the legislation down in technicalities. “Some of the amendments are from people who do not want to see the bill moving ahead, and that’s part of their function,” claimed Saville-Roberts. “If we try and put in too many safeguards, which sounds like a sensible idea, actually, you make the whole thing unworkable,” said Labour MP Simon Opher, a support of the legislation. “There’s a really fine line between making it as safe as possible but also making it functional.”  Gordon concurred: “The purpose of a bill committee is to ensure it’s the most strong and robust legislation — not to try and kill the bill by the back door.” On the other hand, opponents of the legislation charge that their concerns are not being meaningfully dealt with. “The very strong practical objections that many of us are making … are not being addressed,” said Kruger. As the sole Liberal Democrat committee member who voted against the bill, Olney said she had felt an “obligation” to raise concerns at committee stage, proposing amendments to ensure “arguments are put on the record.”  In turn, the bill’s backers strongly reject the idea they were instinctively against any amendments coming from opponents. They cite approval of Labour MP Jess Asato’s amendment requiring medical practitioners involved in the process to undergo training to spot for signs of domestic abuse. FLASHPOINTS One major flashpoint in committee stage has been the shift by Leadbeater over the legal sign-off of assisted dying. Her bill had initially required a High Court judge to approve assisted dying applications. But, in a major change, in part fueled by concern about the impact on England’s already bogged-down courts, this work would now be done by a multidisciplinary, three-person panel — made up of a legal figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist. Supporters argue that a social worker would be able to address concerns about someone being coerced into dying, while a psychiatrist would assess a person’s capacity to make the decision — without needing to drag in one of the country’s most senior legal officials. One major flashpoint in committee stage has been the shift by Leadbeater over the legal sign-off of assisted dying. | Benjamin Cremel/Getty Images “I don’t see how any rational person can say that having an expert scrutiny and authorization panel supervised by a High Court judge or equivalent is less strong than a single High Court judge sitting alone,” said Tory backer Kit Malthouse. But 26 Labour MPs opposed to the bill said the committee stage change only reinforced their opposition. “It begs the question: Had this all been thought through and was it implementable?” asked Anna Dixon, a Labour MP not on the committee who has followed the legislation closely.  “The bill has become substantially less safe in the course of the committee,” argued Kruger. “I’m afraid our fears have been exceeded.” FINAL VERDICT The bill returns to the Commons for report stage next month, allowing MPs to propose amendments before the last substantial debate. Only 28 MPs are required to switch sides to halt the bill. So far, Reform UK’s Lee Anderson and suspended Reform MP Rupert Lowe have publicly changed their minds, and there’s concern more could follow suit after the tension of committee stage. “All MPs realize that we’re dealing with a very profound and sad issue,” said Malthouse. “I do think MPs will grasp the occasion.” Even if the bill passes, there have been fresh questions this week about its implementation.  In the past few days, Leadbeater put forward an amendment which could delay the rollout of the plan until 2029, two years later than originally planned. She insisted the delay meant the necessary time would be taken to implement the safeguards, stressing that setting up multidisciplinary panels will take longer than referring cases to the existing High Court. Opher said he was “disappointed” about the change — but felt the bill was more likely to pass because of it and so backed the amendment. But that timetable would bump up against the next U.K. election, leading even some of the bill’s backers to fear an ugly campaign fought on retaining or repealing the legislation. “Delaying implementation risks pushing it beyond the next election, where it could be abandoned altogether,” warned Gordon, the sole member of the committee to oppose Leadbeater’s change.  There’s some frustration too at the way the debate has been handled by the government, which has facilitated the process while staying officially neutral. One Labour MP opposed to the bill, granted anonymity to speak freely, said “errors” included Prime Minister Keir Starmer personally promising leading assisted dying campaigner Esther Rantzen that there would be a vote, claiming this skewed Labour parliamentarians. “If you are going to be leading the country, then it’s really important that on a free vote or conscience issue, you as the prime minister can separate yourself to some degree from the issue at hand,” they said. “There’s a tendency with some of the MPs … to treat it as a party political exercise and go at it as if the opposing side are opposition to the government,” said Olney. Looking ahead to report stage, she said: “The rubber will start to hit the road.” Dan Bloom contributed to this report.

The U.K. climate group Just Stop Oil has announced it will no longer pursue its campaign of disruptive and attention-grabbing stunts. “At the end of April we will be hanging up the hi vis,” a statement from the group said Thursday morning. The group emerged in 2022 with a series of high-profile protests, including road blockades and attacks on cultural icons such as Vincent van Gogh’s “Sunflowers,” Stonehenge and at snooker matches. Just Stop Oil originally pushed for the government to end new oil and gas exploration in Britain. The Labour government shared that policy goal and implemented it after they won the election last year. The group on Thursday claimed this made it “one of the most successful civil resistance campaigns in recent history.” The campaign garnered support from some Brits frustrated and concerned about the lack of global action to address climate change. But the majority of people thought their actions were disruptive, annoying or poorly targeted. The group became a bête noire of U.K.’s right-wing media and was criticized as being “zealots” by the Conservative and Labour governments. A crackdown by police and judges has led to some of the group’s most senior activists being jailed — in the case of one of the founders, Roger Hallam, for five years. The group largely failed in a high-profile appeal against the harshness of the sentences earlier this month. Hallam and other members of the group were previously involved in Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain, and have often said that campaign groups should only last for a few years before changing guise. The activists on Thursday vowed to return. “This is not the end of civil resistance. Governments everywhere are retreating from doing what is needed to protect us from the consequences of unchecked fossil fuel burning,” the statement said. “As corporations and billionaires corrupt political systems across the world, we need a different approach. We are creating a new strategy, to face this reality and to carry our responsibilities at this time. Nothing short of a revolution is going to protect us from the coming storms.”

LONDON — The U.K.’s digital services tax (DST) was never set in stone, Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said Wednesday, raising the prospect that Britain could pare back the levy to avoid looming U.S. tariffs. “We’ve always been of the view as a country that this has to be something ideally agreed on an international basis,” Reynolds said at the Chatham House Global Trade Conference in London. “But it’s not that DST has been put in place as something [that] can never change or that we can never have a conversation about it.”  The U.K. is racing to strike a trade deal with Washington ahead of April 2, when President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs will be unveiled. The U.S. has long expressed displeasure with Britain’s 2 percent tax on tech giants, arguing it unfairly targets U.S. firms.  But scrapping the tax would create a hole in Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ spending plans, as it’s expected to raise £800 million this year. “We are both committed to making sure tech companies pay a fair rate of tax in the U.K … but we understand the U.S. has cited, as it has to countries around the world, concerns about the specific structure,” said Reynolds.  In January Trump’s administration withdrew from an international effort to negotiate a tech tax deal under the auspices of the Paris-based OECD. As for a broader trade deal between the U.S. and U.K., Reynolds was cautiously optimistic. “It’s challenging, there’s no way to avoid saying that,” he said. “Particularly, our view would have been that we would not have any tariff applied to the U.K … we’re continuing an incredibly intensive set of negotiations and we will know pretty soon what the outcome [will be].” 

Over 10 million more people could be infected with HIV and nearly 3 million people could die by the end of the decade because of foreign aid cuts by Western governments, new research published today found. The study, published in The Lancet HIV, estimates the potential public health impact of planned or proposed cuts by the top five donor countries — the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Netherlands — which currently account for 90 percent of all international HIV funding. The greatest impact would be in sub-Saharan Africa and among vulnerable and marginalized populations who are already at a higher risk of acquiring HIV, such as people who inject drugs, sex workers, men who have sex with men and children. The U.S. slashed U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding, including HIV treatment and prevention programs. PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) is also at risk. In February, the U.K. announced it will cut international development spending, while the Netherlands also said it is cutting foreign aid by €2.4 billion. Germany and France rolled back foreign aid budgets last year amounting to another €3 billion cut. “The current cuts to PEPFAR and USAID-supported programmes have already disrupted access to essential HIV services including for antiretroviral therapy and HIV prevention and testing,” said co-lead study author Debra ten Brink of the Burnet Institute in Australia. If other donor countries reduce funding, “decades of progress to treat and prevent HIV could be unravelled,” she said. Global health leaders have urged the EU and member countries to step up and uphold their support for global health programs.

LONDON — Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the government will not do anything to “escalate” Donald Trump’s trade wars by retaliating to the U.S. president’s latest plan to slap a 25 percent duty on imported cars, as the U.K. holds out hope of an exemption. The new tariffs, announced on Wednesday night, are due to go live on April 3, when Trump also plans on unveiling reciprocal tariffs against U.S. trade partners. “This is the beginning of Liberation Day in America,” the president said from the Oval Office at the White House on Wednesday. “We’re going to take back just some of the money that has been taken from us.” Despite the escalation, U.K. Chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News on Thursday morning: “We are not at the moment at a position where we want to do anything to escalate these trade wars. “Trade wars are no good for anyone. It will end up with higher prices for consumers, pushing up inflation after we’ve worked so hard to get a grip of inflation, and at the same time will make it harder for British companies to export.” The chancellor added: “We are looking to secure a better trading relationship with the United States. I recognize that the week ahead is important. There are further talks going on today, so let’s see where we get to in the next few days.” British car exports to the U.S. are worth some £8.3 billion annually, making them (at 14 percent) the largest share of U.K. goods exported to the U.S. The U.K. already faces a 2.5 percent tariff on their passenger car exports to the U.S. and a 25 percent tariff on light trucks. Trump said his new duties would be in addition to those, raising the tariff rate for passenger cars to 27.5 percent and the rate for light trucks to 50 percent. “These are worrying times for U.K. vehicle makers,” Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said on Wednesday night. “Without substantive regulatory easements our manufacturing viability remains at risk and the U.K.’s transition to zero emission mobility under threat.”

KYIV — Russia’s assault on Ukraine is showing no signs of slowing down, two days after the White House announced that the sides had agreed on a partial ceasefire. The Russian military attacked the highly populated Ukrainian cities of Sumy, Dnipro, Kharkiv and Kherson with drones late Wednesday. More than a dozen Shahed kamikaze drones hit highly populated areas in Kharkiv in only one hour on Wednesday night, wounding eight people, including a 12-year-old girl, local Mayor Ihor Terekhov said in a statement. In Dnipro, an industrial city in the east of Ukraine, drones caused several massive fires and wounded three people, according to local Governor Serhiy Lysak. He said enterprises, educational and cultural institutions, and more than a dozen high-rise buildings were damaged during the latest attack. “Every day in Ukraine is marked by large-scale attacks with strike drones, mostly ‘Shaheds’ — it was Iran that taught Russia how to produce such drones. No country should have to go through this,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a post on X. “And against this backdrop, speaking about easing pressure on Russia, lifting sanctions, and so on, is definitely inappropriate and unhelpful,” Zelenskyy added. While Ukraine has agreed to an unconditional ceasefire under pressure from the United States, Russia has demanded that sanctions on its agri banks and shadow fleet be lifted. The Kremlin also wants to inspect Ukrainian vessels in the sea corridor Kyiv reestablished by striking Russia’s navy after Moscow exited the Black Sea Grain Initiative in 2023.     “After our meeting, the Russians detailed the number of conditions they want to see met to agree [to Black Sea ceasefire]. Some of those sanctions are not ours … We’re going to evaluate that … and then present to the president,” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said at a press conference on Wednesday.  “I think it is a good thing that we have both Ukrainians and the Russians talking about a ceasefire. The only way to make progress on those things is by engaging with both sides, understanding their demands and seeing what’s possible,” Rubio added. But Kyiv is afraid Russia is merely dragging out the war by issuing demands that could not be fulfilled by Ukraine as, in effect, they would amount to concessions and eventually Kyiv’s capitulation to Moscow. “The U.S. proposal for an unconditional ceasefire has been on the table for half a month now. Pressure on Russia is needed to save lives and to make diplomacy work faster and more effectively. Without pressure on Russia, there will be no result,” Zelenskyy said.

LONDON — Rachel Reeves’ power in the British government rivals even that of her boss. So how long can it last? Reeves, the U.K.’s top finance minister, has been at the center of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s project to remake the Labour Party and win back power at last year’s general election. The pair have moved in lockstep to convince voters that Labour can be trusted with the economy — and to hammer home the message that they must take “tough decisions” to restore fiscal credibility.  Those tough decisions were on full display Wednesday, as Reeves announced deeper-than-expected cuts to welfare, and swallowed a downgraded 2025 growth forecast.  Reeves’ spring statement was originally intended as a minor update. But it grew in importance as it became clear the chancellor was on track to breach tight fiscal rules she set herself before entering office. With the chancellor under increasing scrutiny against a gloomy economic backdrop, expect the Starmer-Reeves partnership to be tested like never before. One Labour frontbencher, granted anonymity to speak candidly like others in this piece, said they thought there had been “more fractures in recent weeks than there have been for a while… I’m not sure it’s as clear-cut as it once was.” REEVES’ RISE Starmer and Reeves present themselves very much as a double act. But their relationship it is not underpinned by as deep a friendship as has been the case for other famous chancellor-and-prime-minister pairings in recent history. Starmer met Reeves over breakfast shortly before he became party leader and decided she had to be in his shadow cabinet, according to Get In, a recent book on Starmer’s journey to Downing Street. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves present themselves very much as a double act. | Leon Neal/Getty Images Steve Richards, a journalist and author of several books on British political history, observed that they “really didn’t know each other” before he picked her as his shadow chancellor. That’s in stark contrast to the rapport built up between the Tories’ David Cameron and George Osborne — or Labour’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (whose own relationship would later veer off-course.) Starmer “soon decided that [Reeves] was a figure who needed little scrutiny,” said Richards. “He revered her and gave her more space than any equivalent shadow chancellor.” Rupert Harrison, who advised Osborne as chancellor, said it was essential to his boss’s time in office that Cameron and Osborne had “a strategy underpinned by the relationship between them.” Cameron was, he said, “incredibly personally committed to what we were doing on the economy.” Reeves’ rise has continued since Labour took office and she became Britain’s first-ever female chancellor. Luciana Berger, a Labour peer and former MP who served on the business committee with Reeves, said her determination could be traced back to her early days as a member of parliament, when she came across as “absolutely steadfast” and “data-focused.” In the months after the election, several insiders observed that she appeared to assert her authority more quickly than the PM, and that her message about the need to shore up the British economy dominated above all else.  One official claimed Reeves had become emboldened to take charge of domestic policy in a way that made her appear like “the real prime minister.” She was blunt with senior colleagues — and even overruled officials from Starmer’s office, the same person said. She has also established her own networks among MPs, hosting regular get-togethers in 11 Downing Street with backbenchers grouped by region and inviting back some seen as “friendly” to the Treasury, one invitee said.  ‘A big gamble’ As Reeves cemented her grip on power, her handling of the public finances has come under increased scrutiny. Her early move to withdraw cold-weather benefits from pensioners proved unpopular. Her first Budget — a pivotal moment for any new chancellor — raised taxes in a way her opponents charge has seriously hurt small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxes, increased borrowing and a large injection into public spending left Reeves with very little room for maneuver — and her options narrowed further with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the U.S. president bringing with him major uncertainty about tariffs on allies. Duncan Weldon, an economist and former Labour aide, described Reeves’ tax-and-invest strategy so far as “a big gamble which hasn’t paid off” because of a “combination of weaker-than-expected growth and higher-than-expected interest rates.” One official claimed Rachel Reeves had become emboldened to take charge of domestic policy in a way that made her appear like “the real prime minister.” | Pool Photo by Ben Stansall via Getty Images In order to ensure Reeves could meet her fiscal rules, the government last week announced a set of welfare changes focused on benefits for disabled people. These have made many Labour MPs deeply uncomfortable — with the anger only rising Wednesday as the government published an impact assessment laying bare the likely effect of the cuts on families. Reeves’ approach has caused disquiet in the ranks. One new Labour MP complained that cutting the winter fuel payment “is what people remember from our first six months” and voiced concern that further cuts would feed into the same narrative.  TOWARD INDEPENDENCE? As pressure mounts on the chancellor, there are hints that Starmer is beginning to assert his independence from his Downing Street neighbor.  Two people close to discussions over a recently announced rise in defense spending said the PM had insisted on the uplift taking place more quickly than Reeves had wanted. A government official insisted Reeves had independently reached the same decision on the defense budget shortly after Starmer. No. 10 Downing Street is also on a mission to boost its firepower by recruiting a senior specialist economic adviser, according to two people with knowledge of the process, aiming to fill a long-noticed gap in Starmer’s armory. Allies of both Starmer and Reeves strongly deny any tension between them, pointing out that they have been meeting bilaterally for an hour or more at least once a week since the election — sometimes with aides and sometimes one-to-one. A second government official said “you don’t ever see Keir voicing his displeasure with Rachel,” adding that he genuinely trusts her in forming economic policy. Any threat to Reeves’ position seems remote, precisely because of how closely Starmer has aligned himself with her. But that doesn’t mean their relationship won’t shift. Richards said it was “inevitable and unavoidable that, given the state of the economy, tensions are going to erupt” as painful negotiations over a major departmental spending review come to a head.  Rachel Reeves announced deeper-than-expected cuts to welfare, and swallowed a downgraded 2025 growth forecast. | Benjamin Cremel/Getty Images  Harrison predicted “a much more difficult moment” later in the year as Starmer “may decide his ambitions require higher taxes, pitting him against her personal promise not to raise taxes.” It is not all doom and gloom inside the Treasury, as some recent indicators give reason for cheer. Ministers remain convinced they are pulling all the right levers to stimulate growth and that they just need to stick to the plan. Berger said: “She will know that she needs to prove the doubters wrong, but I think she is doing that very robustly.” Yet, as Weldon spelled out, “the fear is that the growth forecast could be revised down again in October, and we end up back where we started doing this all again in six months’ time.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen responded quickly to a decision by United States President Donald Trump to slap a 25 percent tariff on auto imports. The tariffs, which Trump said will take effect April 3, are a heavy blow for the European car industry and represent the largest escalation yet in Trump’s multi-fronted trade war, which is expected to have severe global economic consequences. “I deeply regret the US decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports,” von der Leyen said in a statement released late Wednesday evening. “Tariffs are taxes — bad for businesses [and] worse for consumers equally in the US and the European Union.” She said Europe would assess the tariffs, and anticipated that further measures would arrive from the White House in the coming days. Trump has stepped back from implementing tariffs on America’s allies and adversaries several times since his Jan. 20 inauguration. “We’re signing today,” Trump said of the protectionist tariffs. “It goes into effect April 2. We start collecting on April 3.” While von der Leyen’s language was guarded, she left little doubt that the EU is prepared to retaliate. “The EU will continue to seek negotiated solutions, while safeguarding its economic interests,” she said. “As a major trading power and a strong community of 27 Member States, we will jointly protect our workers, businesses and consumers across our European Union.” The tariffs, which Trump said will take effect April 3, are a heavy blow for the European car industry. | Nicolas Maeterlinck/Getty Images The tariffs, if implemented, will be felt around the world. The United States imported $214 billion worth of passenger cars in 2024, including from non-European allies like Japan, Mexico and South Korea.

Countries in the European Union are likely to face a flat, double-digit tariff on all goods as part of the “reciprocal” tariffs President Donald Trump has promised to unveil on April 2. The final tariff rate is still fluid, according to three diplomats, who were briefed on European trade chief Maroš Šefčovič’s Tuesday meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and were granted anonymity to share details of the private briefing. The tariffs are expected to kick in at midnight on April 3, the people were told. EU ambassadors to the U.S. were also told there is little they can do to avoid the tariffs going into force, which the Trump administration views as the beginning, not the end, of trade negotiations. European diplomats expect Trump’s April 2 announcement to focus on what the White House has dubbed reciprocal tariffs. According to two of the diplomats, those duties will take the form of a flat percentage for the EU, calculated based on the trade barriers the bloc imposes on U.S. exports, including tariffs on goods and other non-tariff barriers. And those two diplomats suggested the tariff rate applied to the EU could be as high as 20 or 25 percent. All of the tariffs would be additive, meaning they would come on top of tariffs levied on specific industries like steel and aluminum and the 25 percent tariff Trump has ordered on any country that purchases oil and gas from Venezuela, which includes Spain and the Netherlands. Trump has also promised separate tariffs on five industries: steel and aluminum, automobiles, lumber, semiconductors and pharmaceutical products. The White House has already imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum and Trump plans to announce his tariff on automobiles Wednesday afternoon. The tariffs on the other industries could come later in April, as the administration focuses on reciprocal tariffs and the negotiations that ensue, the diplomats were told. “But it is not sure which of the big ones will be targeted at the EU,” one diplomat said. “Maybe they will give us the honor only with some of the sectors such as automotive.” Trump has been openly critical of the EU in recent weeks, after the 27 country bloc announced that it would respond to his steel and aluminum tariffs with its own tariffs on about $28 billion in U.S. goods. Trump has said the EU was created to “screw” the U.S. and has criticized their value-added tax, despite insistence from European countries — and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — that it’s evenly applied to sales in member countries and is not a trade barrier. “I think I’ve been very fair,” Trump told reporters Tuesday. “I’ve had, I have them set, but I think I’ve been very fair to countries that have really abused us economically for many, many decades.”

LONDON — For all Rachel Reeves tried to downplay her spring statement Wednesday, it walked and quacked like a full-blown government budget.  The U.K.’s top finance minister unveiled cuts to the state, (mostly) grim economic forecasts and the usual boosterish spin of budget time — although tax changes were firmly off the table. Since her October budget, Reeves has been promising a low-key spring “update” on her search for economic growth from the Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog (OBR).  But after the OBR slashed 2025 growth predictions, Reeves’ tight fiscal rules forced her to return with more cuts Wednesday. A full review of three years’ state spending will follow in June. The chancellor’s silver lining is that — after much twitchiness in the Treasury — the OBR is starting to count positive impacts of her growth pledges, notably on reforms to England’s creaky housebuilding bureaucracy. But 3.2 million welfare claimants will lose out by £1,720 per year in deep cuts to the sickness and disability benefit system, which have worried Reeves’ Labour MPs.  And the slightest change to the economy in future will force her to come back for more. If U.S. goods tariffs of 20 percent kick in next Wednesday, as threatened by President Donald Trump, they could wipe out Reeves’ work at a stroke. She sought to blame “increased global uncertainty” for what the opposition Conservative Party has dubbed an “emergency budget.”  POLITICO runs through the top lines so you don’t have to. 1) THE BRITISH ECONOMY HAS GROWING PAINS Expected U.K. GDP growth in 2025 has halved from 2 percent to 1 percent. The predicted cost of government borrowing has risen since October. And inflation is due to peak at a higher-than-expected 3.7 percent this summer. These factors (and others) meant that instead of having £9.9 billion of “headroom” to spare against her fiscal rules by 2030, Reeves would have run up a £4.1 billion deficit. Instead of ditching her “non-negotiable” rules, as some Labour MPs want, Reeves maneuvered cuts to foreign aid and welfare, OBR adjustments and the odd accounting trick to pull her headroom back to exactly £9.9 billion.  Yet nearly half that headroom is based on assuming that fuel duty will rise — which it almost never does. And it is well below the £30 billion that some aides believe Reeves would like. Public-sector debt remains near record highs — 96.1 percent of GDP in 2029/30 — forcing Britain to spend 3.8 percent of its GDP on interest payments. A 0.6-point rise in government borrowing costs would wipe out all of Reeves’ headroom. That means a slight dip in the economy would force Reeves to come back for more tax rises or spending cuts in her autumn budget. 2) BUT THERE’S A SILVER LINING (OF SORTS) The growth forecast is now higher than previously expected in each year from 2026 — which Reeves says will pump an extra £3.4 billion into public services by 2030.  This is partly because the OBR has measured Labour’s flagship piece of deregulation — planning reform. The watchdog believes this will add 170,000 homes on its own and lift GDP 0.2 percent (£6.8 billion) in 2029/30. Reeves called it the “biggest positive growth impact” of its kind ever scored by the OBR. But there’s a sting in the tail. The OBR forecasts 1.3 million net extra homes will be built between April 2025 and March 2030. This is short of Labour’s election promise to build 1.5 million, albeit over a different period (July 2024 to summer 2029). Treasury officials insist the 1.5 million target still stands and can be met, partly because some growth measures — such as a war on regulators, and forthcoming industrial, trade and small business strategies — haven’t yet been counted by the OBR. 3) WHITEHALL IS GETTING SQUEEZED AGAIN Detailed cuts to Whitehall departments will only emerge in Reeves’ June spending review, but Wednesday’s statement hints at what is coming. After a 3.1 percent boost this year, public spending had been due to rise just 1.3 percent in each of the following three years. This is now an even tighter 1.2 percent, due to a frontloaded £3.25 billion “transformation fund” taking up cash earlier. Reeves said it would cut government running costs by £2 billion a year in 2030. Reeves told MPs that apart from cuts to foreign aid (more below) the overall “envelope” for spending in these three years has not changed. But because some departments such as health are protected, others such as justice and local government may need to be cut by 0.8 percent a year in real terms from 2026/27, according to the OBR. Reports have suggested 10,000 civil service jobs will be cut. Reeves is planning voluntary exit schemes, more artificial intelligence tools and new tech in probation services. Together the plans bring public spending down from a peak of 45 percent of GDP next year to 43.9 percent of GDP in 2029/30 — hardly a Javier Milei-style chainsaw to the state. 4) THE IMPACT OF WELFARE CUTS HAS BEEN LAID BARE Wednesday brought a hotly awaited impact assessment of reductions in sickness and disability benefits — the biggest single cut in the spring statement and painful for many MPs. It will do nothing to allay their fears. It projects the cuts will push 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, into relative poverty by 2029/30. The changes will cost 3.2 million families — some current claimants, some future — an average of £1,720 a year compared to inflation (though 3.8 million gain by £420). The big hope to cling to is a £1 billion boost to employment support. Wednesday’s assessment does not factor that in, and it will only be counted at the autumn budget. But MPs will be alarmed at the fact that 800,000 current and future claimants will no longer qualify for Personal Independence Payments, a disability benefit unconnected with whether people work. Each will lose £4,500 a year on average. And of the £4.8 billion in gross welfare cuts, officials drew up £500 million at the last minute after the OBR said the package would raise less than ministers hoped. The OBR said information for some measures “was received late and without sufficient detail.” 5) THERE’S HOPE ON LIVING STANDARDS — WITH CAVEATS Labour is pinning its 2029 election hopes on showing voters that growth can end up in their wallets. Here Reeves had something to shout about. Wage growth will help real household disposable income (RHDI) grow by a projected 0.5 percent per year on average between 2025/26 and 2029/30, better than predicted in October. Reeves said: “People will be on average over £500 a year better off under this Labour government.” But nearly all of that growth is expected near the start of the five years, and it will slow to almost nothing from 2027/28. The OBR believes this for several reasons, including the impact of national insurance rises and welfare cuts approved by Reeves herself. 6) DEFENSE IS A WINNER — OFF THE BACK OF SHARP AID CUTS Reeves’ balancing act is aided by an accounting quirk in her decision to slash billions of pounds from foreign aid to pour into defense. Even though this is a pound-for-pound transfer, it gives Reeves £2.6 billion of extra headroom by 2030 because much of defense spending is capital, not day-to-day. Reeves said at least 10 percent of the Ministry of Defense’s equipment budget will be spent on “new novel technology” including drones. There will be a protected budget of £400 million for U.K. defense innovation. Reeves and Defence Secretary John Healey will co-chair a “Defence Growth Board” to monitor spending. But the small print makes clear just how sharp the aid cuts will be — £200 million in this financial year, soaring to £2.6 billion in 2026/27. Anneliese Dodds, who resigned as aid minister over the cuts, stood in a prominent position in the Commons for Reeves’ statement dressed all in black. The OBR also said the cuts “may drive spending pressures elsewhere,” particularly on asylum seekers.  7) THERE’S AN ORANGE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM All these carefully laid plans could be blown out of the Atlantic by Trump. If the U.S. president’s wide-ranging 20 percent tariffs hit the U.K. from April 2, the OBR believes they could reduce U.K. GDP by 0.6 percent in 2026/27 — or by 1 percent if Britain retaliates. This would almost entirely wipe out Reeves’ headroom. U.K. officials are working with the Trump administration to ask for a carve-out from tariffs, and still hope for a deal in the coming days. Reeves said Britain would be “an ally to trading partners across the globe,” and has not ruled out scrapping a U.K. digital services tax on tech giants to get a deal over the line. Even if she does, there’s no such thing as unbridled good news at the Treasury. Scrapping the digital services tax wouldn’t just anger some Labour MPs who want to fight big tech — it would also deprive Reeves’ Treasury coffers of £1.2 billion a year.