LONDON — The British government is working to give its trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing higher tariffs on imports, as it faces pressure from Brussels and Washington to combat Chinese industrial overcapacity. Under new rules drawn up by British officials, Trade Secretary Peter Kyle will have the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) to launch investigations and give ministers options to set higher duty levels to protect domestic businesses. The trade watchdog will be required to set out the results of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations within a year, better monitor trade distortions and streamline processes for businesses to prompt trade probes. The U.K. is in negotiations with the U.S. and the EU to forge a steel alliance to counter Chinese overcapacity as the bloc works to introduce its own updated safeguards regime. The EU is the U.K.’s largest market and Brussels is creating a new steel protection regime that is set to slash Britain’s tariff-free export quotas and place 50 percent duties on any in excess. The government said its directive to the TRA will align the U.K. with similar powers in the EU and Australia, and follow World Trade Organization rules. It is set out in a Strategic Steer to the watchdog and will be introduced as part of the finance bill due to be wrapped up in the spring. “We are strengthening the U.K.’s system for tackling unfair trade to give our producers and manufacturers — especially SMEs who have less capacity and capability — the backing they need to grow and compete,” Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said in a statement. “By streamlining processes and aligning our framework with international peers, we are ensuring U.K. industry has the tools to protect jobs, attract investment and thrive in a changing global economy,” Kyle added. These moves come after the government said on Wednesday that its Steel Strategy, which plots the future of the industry in Britain and new trade protections for the sector, will be delayed until next year. The Trump administration has been concerned about the U.K.’s steps to counter China’s steel overcapacity and refused to lower further a 25 percent tariff carve-out for Britain’s steel and aluminum exports from the White House’s 50 percent global duties on the metals. Trade Secretary Kyle discussed lowering the Trump administration’s tariffs on U.K. steel with senior U.S. Cabinet members in Washington on Wednesday.  “We are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant told parliament Thursday, after meeting with EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Wednesday for negotiations. “We will do everything we can to make sure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the U.K.,” Bryant said. The TRA has also launched a new public-facing Import Trends Monitor tool to help firms detect surges in imports that could harm their business and provide evidence that could prompt an investigation by the watchdog. “We welcome the government’s strategic steer, which marks a significant milestone in our shared goal to make the U.K.’s trade remedies regime more agile, accessible and assertive, as well as providing greater accountability,” said the TRA’s Co-Chief Executives Jessica Blakely and Carmen Suarez. Sophie Inge and Jon Stone contributed reporting.

LONDON — The U.K. will break China’s stranglehold over crucial net zero supply chains, Energy Minister Chris McDonald has pledged. McDonald, a joint minister at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Business and Trade, told POLITICO he is determined to bolster domestic access to critical minerals. Critical minerals like lithium and copper are used in essential net-zero technologies such as electric vehicles and batteries, as well as defense assets like F35 fighter jets. China currently controls 90 percent of rare earth refining, according to a government critical minerals strategy published last week. McDonald said China’s dominance of mineral processing risks driving up prices for the net zero transition.  The U.K. has made a legally-binding pledge to reduce planet-damaging emissions to net zero by 2050. McDonald fears China has become a “monopoly provider” of critical minerals and that its dominant role in processing allowed China to control the costs for buyers. “We want to capture this supply chain in the U.K. as part of our industrial strategy. To do that … means, ultimately, we’re going to have to wrest control of critical minerals back into a broad group of countries, not just China,” he said. The government’s critical minerals strategy includes a target that no more than 60 percent of U.K. annual demand for critical minerals in aggregate is supplied by any one country by 2035 — including China. “So, if there is an investment from China that helps with that, then that’s great. And if it doesn’t help with that, or it sort of compounds that issue that isn’t consistent with our strategy, then we judge it on that basis ultimately,” McDonald said. Additional reporting by Graham Lanktree.

LONDON — Britain’s business and trade ministry is preparing to cut 600 roles from its overseas network, raising concerns about the government’s ability to support British exporters abroad. The ministry is also reeling from a sweeping Cabinet reshuffle, with all of its previous ministers moving into other departments or leaving government over the weekend. It comes as the U.K. navigates a rapidly shifting global trade order and battles to attract investment to drive the government’s growth agenda. The overseas cuts are part of a broader plan to reduce the Department for Business and Trade’s headcount by 20 percent — with most redundancies expected before April 2027. A figure familiar with the developments said staff are concerned about the pace and scale of the cuts.  While a Voluntary Exit Scheme ran in June, uptake fell short of the department’s target, according to the person. Permanent Secretary Gareth Davies is now refusing to rule out compulsory redundancies. James Manning, a former U.K. trade negotiator, said: “While efficiencies are clearly needed given the fiscal challenges facing the government, reducing the U.K.’s overseas trade policy and promotion staffing at a time when the global trade system is under extreme strain is a clear risk.” He added that “it will likely make it harder for ministers’ to deliver on their pledge to boost support to U.K. exporters, as set out in the Trade Strategy published earlier this year.” Some export promotion work is expected to shift to foreign office staff, with diplomats asked by former Foreign Secretary David Lammy to promote the U.K. overseas.  But Manning, now a director at FTI Consulting, warned: “Given the UK’s trade expertise has been highly concentrated in the Department for Business and Trade and its predecessor departments, it is also unlikely that the FCDO will be able to immediately plug the capability gaps this will inevitably create.” THREAT OF OFFICE CLOSURES  DBT is also threatening the closure of nine regional offices outside London — with planned consultations due to begin. These include Bristol, Cambridge, Glasgow, Guildford, Ipswich, Leeds, Newcastle, Nottingham, and Titchfield.  The Guildford office has already closed, while the Bristol and Titchfield offices are set to shut in early 2026, according to the person cited above. These regional offices help local businesses access government support and promote trade and investment in the region.  PCS General Secretary Fran Heathcote said the government has done this “without even a nod to union consultation and without offering any kind of rationale.” She called the 20 percent reduction of staff “a personal disaster for many of our dedicated members as well as for the effectiveness of the department.”  “Any agreed future changes must be transparent and implemented carefully to help allay the serious anxiety that DBT staff are feeling,” she urged.  The Department for Business and Trade said no final decision had been taken on where cuts would fall, adding it is standard practice to review agreements when office leases come up for renewal.  “As part of Government plans to reshape the state and deliver our Plan for Change, DBT will support a leaner and more efficient Civil Service, helping to reduce administration costs by 15% by the end of the decade and to avoid duplication across departments,” said a DBT spokesperson. “In line with these plans, we propose to reduce the Department in size, but we will look to avoid redundancies wherever possible.”

LONDON — The U.K.’s trade deal with Donald Trump was touted as a post-Brexit win. Months later, as America’s global tariff regime starts to take shape, Brits aren’t feeling quite so lucky — and some are downright cheesed off.   Under the Economic Prosperity Deal agreed with the U.S. in May, most British goods exported to America are subject to 10 percent “reciprocal” tariffs. This is in addition to existing tariffs — known to traders as most-favored nation (MFN) rates.  By contrast, the EU struck a deal with Trump in July that would see goods from the bloc hit with an all-inclusive 15 percent tariff — except where the existing MFN rate is higher. That means many U.K. products with an MFN rate above 5 percent will now be hit by higher tariffs than competing EU products — and cheese in the firing line. “Overall, U.K. goods will get somewhat better [treatment] than European Union products,” explained Ed Gresser, director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former policy adviser to the United States Trade Representative. “This also appears to be the case for the very top U.K. exports to the U.S. cars, medicines, oil — which bring in the most money, and for wines and liquors.” The U.K.’s trade deal with Donald Trump was touted as a post-Brexit win. | EPA/FRANCIS CHUNG / / POOL “However, there will also be many specific cases in which EU goods get better treatment than British goods,” Gresser added. “These include some probably emotive and visible ones, such as cheddar and Stilton cheese, and Shetland wool sweaters.” Under the current U.S. tariff regime, British cheddar exported to the U.S. would be hit by overall tariffs of between 20 and 26 percent — depending on the packaging and processing — while the EU would get tariffs of between 15 and 16 percent. IRISH COMPETITION The discrepancy has not gone unnoticed by British cheesemakers, who fear they could now be undercut by their European rivals.  “Overall, U.K. dairy — and cheesemakers in particular — have been presented with a worse deal than their EU competitors as a result of the U.S.-U.K. agreement,” said Rod Addy, director general of the Provision Trade Federation, which represents British cheesemakers. The difference between U.K. and EU tariff rates “suggests EU exporters, particularly [in] Ireland, may benefit relative to the U.K.,” he added. “Given that cheddar accounts for roughly three quarters of all U.K. dairy exports, that is highly significant.” The U.K. exported 9,855 metric tons of cheese and curd products in 2024 worth over £75 million, data from the Britain’s Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board shows. According to the latest data available for 2025, the U.K. exported around 4,365 metric tons between January and June worth over £36 million. Coombe Castle International, a major exporter of cheese to the U.S., is among the British cheese businesses feeling the strain. Currently, the U.S. market makes up around a third of its business. But they now fear tariffs could reduce demand for their cheeses, amid increased competition from the EU. “It does look like we are now disadvantaged compared to Europe, and that’s certainly going to hurt us when it comes to cheddar and butter, where we’ve got direct competition in the EU,” said Darren Larvin, Coombe Castle International’s managing director. “Tariffs have come at the wrong time. We have a relatively high milk price, a weak dollar and prices are high with the cost of living. All of those put together mean it’s quite tough at the moment. So we could really do without having any further costs.” Larvin said that like “most people” in the industry, Coombe Castle have “had to pass all of that on to the consumer in the U.S. … We’re just not in a position to share any of that [extra cost]. We’ll see how that goes through the chain and what effect that has on demand.” Shortly after the EU’s deal with the U.S. was announced, Larvin contacted the Department for Business and Trade to ask them how they planned to protect U.K. dairy exports to the U.S.  Their response left him nonplussed. In response, an official said only that negotiations to reduce the 10 percent tariff rate were continuing, making comparisons “difficult.” GOVERNMENT ‘MORE CONCERNED WITH LAND ROVERS’ British Stilton makers have also been left disappointed by the U.K.-U.S. deal, with the cheese now facing duties of between 22 and 27 percent, depending on the type of Stilton. “Effectively, it’s another 10 percent on the cost of the product which is very unhelpful for everyone,” said Robin Skailes, managing director of the family-run Stilton maker Cropwell Bishop Creamery, which exports around £2.5 million of cheese to the U.S. each year. “I can understand why the U.S. government are doing it. But what I don’t like necessarily is how our government advertises that as a success and a deal. It’s not a deal because we’re actually worse off than they are in Europe. “What our government should have done is factored in some of the existing tariffs that are already there. … But they may not have even known that. I mean, why would they bother with Stilton? They are more concerned with Land Rovers, that was the big thing. Food is never at the top of their agenda.” It’s too early to tell whether tariffs will reduce demand for British cheese in the U.S. | Til Buergy/EPA As a result of the additional tariffs, Skailes said the firm would take a “massive hit” to their margins and has already had to pass on some of the extra cost to the consumer. “We can share some of the pain, but there’s not a huge amount of margin in food. We’re not selling iPhones — we don’t make trillions of dollars.” For now, it’s too early to tell whether tariffs will reduce demand for British cheese in the U.S. but Coombe Castle’s Larvin is not optimistic. “It will certainly make us less competitive — and we’re certainly less competitive compared to Europe now.”   A spokesperson for the U.K.’s Department for Business and Trade said: “The U.K.’s landmark trade deal is the result of a pragmatic approach to working with the US. We will continue to work with the US to get this deal implemented as soon as possible to give industry the security they need, protect vital jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets through the Plan for Change.”

LONDON — The U.K. government is readying a plan to slash the country’s crippling industrial energy costs so British manufacturers can better compete with global rivals. Electricity prices for U.K. industry are 46 percent above the average for members of the International Energy Agency group of developed countries and four times higher than in the U.S, putting a big strain on British businesses regarding competitiveness. However, according to three people briefed on the government’s plans, cutting high energy costs will be at the heart of a new industrial strategy expected early next week. Alongside the strategy, which will prioritize growth across more than 30 industrial sectors, ministers will launch a consultation on “the structure of industrial electricity prices” to help cut running costs for factories and other manufacturing businesses. As part of the consultation, ministers are expected to consider recent proposals from industry lobbyists to exempt manufacturers from environmental and other taxes levied on electricity bills. The Industrial Strategy will also set out a more immediate boost to government financial support for the most energy-intensive manufacturing sectors, the three people said. Less than 400 businesses in sectors including steel, ceramics and chemicals currently receive a 60 percent rebate on energy bills under the so-called British Industry Supercharger. According to one of the people briefed on the government’s plans, the number of businesses that could be eligible may double or triple. At the same time, the support available could increase to 80 to 90 percent. “Government want to help people who run factories because they can see that energy costs are a real competitive disadvantage,” said one industry figure briefed on the plans, granted anonymity to share them. “Manufacturers are competing to win orders from businesses in France and Germany, where industrial energy prices are very low.” In addition to expanding the type of sectors that can benefit, plans are in the pipeline for around 40 industrial hubs around the U.K., where businesses will be encouraged to “agglomerate,” said the second person briefed on the plans, who was also granted anonymity. Businesses based at these hubs may benefit from further support to lower energy bills through backing from the government’s new public power company, GB Energy, the person said. That could come via the construction of on-site electricity generation or the procurement of lower-priced power supplies sold by GB Energy. A government official said this aspect of the plan has not yet been finalized. The Department for Business and Trade declined to comment.

LONDON — Britain’s Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds will meet with his U.S. counterpart Jamieson Greer next week in a bid to hash out a timeline for lifting tariffs on British auto, steel and aluminum exports to the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump announced the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal to great fanfare in the Oval Office three weeks ago. But British businesses fear it could be weeks — or longer — before the 25 percent sectoral tariffs hitting key sectors are finally lifted. Reynolds and Greer will hold talks on the margins of an informal gathering of G7 trade ministers meeting in Paris, shortly after an OECD trade ministers summit in the French capital. Many British firms either aren’t exporting to the U.S. or are being forced by their American customers to pay the duties as they await clarity on tariff relief. Trump first slapped extra tariffs on British steel and aluminum in March before issuing further tariffs on automotive imports. A federal court struck down Donald Trump’s tariffs on dozens of countries on Wednesday night, ruling the U.S. president overstepped his powers by implementing the measures without the approval of Congress. The court’s ruling, which the White House is set to appeal, nullified a 10 percent tariff imposed on all U.S. trading partners, including the U.K. But it does not cover the 25 percent sectoral tariffs. “The UK was the first country to secure a deal with the US in a move that will protect British business and jobs across key sectors, from autos to steel,” a U.K. government spokesperson said. “We are working to ensure that businesses can benefit from the deal as quickly as possible and will confirm next steps in due course.” ‘NOTHING HAS CHANGED’ Under the Economic Prosperity Deal agreed on May 8, the U.S. and U.K. agreed to establish new quotas for British steel and aluminum imports. They agreed that both countries would “coordinate the timing of their respective tariff reductions to be as soon as practicable, taking into consideration their respective domestic processes.” The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has told British firms the new steel quotas will be finalized within two to three weeks, said a senior business representative granted anonymity to speak candidly about private discussions. The Trump administration could potentially enact the measures through an executive order, they pointed out. Fully removing the tariffs will also require changes to rules of origin in the U.S., including for U.K. car exports and car parts. “We don’t have clarity on auto parts,” the senior business representative said, adding businesses have “not been told by DBT how many other areas would need work” in the deal. For now “nothing has changed,” they said, and “millions of orders are at risk” as the tariffs remain in effect.  “The devil is in the detail,” said Stephen Morley, president of the Confederation of British Metalforming, a business group representing 200 U.K. manufacturers. “Our members who are dealing directly with DBT are being told hopefully two to four weeks” for new steel quotas to be established. Right now, Morley added, his members are “patiently waiting” to resume their exports. Laurence McDougall, owner and managing director of All Steels Trading, a steel trader in North Yorkshire, said the firm’s U.S. customers have pulled back on orders since the tariffs came into effect. The company exports specialized steel and steel products used in shipbuilding, roller conveyor systems like those in Amazon warehouses and automotive manufacturing components. “When we heard the news that the duty had been removed on U.K. steel, we advised our customers, and then we started sending containers shortly after,” McDougall said. While the goods were on the water and about to arrive in the U.S. “that’s when we discovered that it was just a deal in principle” and yet to be ratified.

LONDON — The United Kingdom has been accused of undermining World Trade Organization rules through its trade pact with the United States, potentially straining Britain’s “reset” with the European Union. Washington struck an agreement with Britain earlier this month to reduce tariffs on U.K. auto and steel exports and to increase reciprocal market access on beef, while also leaving the door open for further deals in areas like pharmaceuticals. EU officials and trade experts, however, have now asked whether the agreement — and any future deals stemming from it — could violate WTO rules.  Because Britain’s pact was not a full free-trade agreement with the U.S., if London lowers tariffs for the U.S., it must do the same for all its WTO trading partners under the organization’s Most Favored Nation principle. The rules state that countries can’t discriminate — or show preferential treatment — among their trading partners. The questions come at an awkward time for the U.K., which has just struck a new trade pact with the EU, after an all-important summit in London this week aimed at overhauling its post-Brexit relationship with the bloc. Asked about the implications of the U.K.-U.S. pact for the Brexit reset in the European Parliament last week, the European Commission’s head of U.S. trade relations Matthias Jørgensen said that “the devil is in the detail” of the deal.  He added: “We would be very vigilant to ensure that the agreement we have with the U.K. is fully respected and also that the U.K. has respected its WTO commitments.” One of the key concerns he flagged was on tariff-rate quotas — which allow certain volumes of imports to enter the U.K. tariff-free or at reduced duties, after which higher tariffs kick in.  The new U.K.-U.S. pact reworks two quotas — allowing up to 13,000 metric tons of American beef into the U.K. tariff-free, and replacing a 19 percent tariff on ethanol with a zero-tariff quota for 1.4 billion liters.  “We have a bit of worries in that regard,” Jørgensen said. “[…] Who’s paying for that? Who is getting less access to the U.K. market if the U.S. gets more?” The new U.K.-U.S. pact allows up to 13,000 metric tons of American beef into the U.K. tariff-free. | Andy Rain/EPA The need for Britain to respect WTO rules was underscored in the new U.K.-EU trade pact signed at the reset summit. The two sides committed to “free, sustainable, fair and open trade, in line with [their] shared values, as well as … recognizing the role of the World Trade Organization in promoting certainty, predictability and fair trade practices.”  UK PARLIAMENT WEIGHS IN  EU officials are not the only ones asking difficult questions about the U.K.’s commitment to WTO rules.  Speaking before a U.K. House of Lords committee on Wednesday, experts warned that the U.K. risked a serious breach of WTO rules.  “There are elements [of the deal] which are clearly WTO incompatible, such as the announced changes in tariffs — although not much has been announced with regard to that — and the announced changes in tariff-rate-quotas,” said Michael Gasiorek, a professor of economics at Sussex University. “Countries have committed those sorts of offenses as it were in the past in relationships with the U.S. so it’s not the most egregious problem in the deal, but there is the potential in what has been outlined that any further deal could be quite highly WTO-incompatible,” Gasiorek added, commenting that this would be a “serious error on the part of the U.K. government.”  Dmitry Grozoubinski, founder of ExplainTrade, a trade and negotiations consultancy, agreed that the deal appeared to break WTO rules “a little bit.” In particular, he flagged the beef quota as a “new preferential quota for the U.S.” Liam Byrne, the chair of the U.K. House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, said the government should collaborate with the EU to uphold their “shared ambition to safeguard international trade globally.”  His committee has recommended that the U.K. join the WTO’s alternative dispute resolution system, an initiative whereby countries can dispute unfair trade practices through the organization. The current system has been paralyzed since the U.S. blocked the appointment of judges in 2017, meaning any disputes are endlessly appealed — and never settled.  The U.K. is currently not a member, even though the dispute system includes 27 WTO members, including the EU, Canada, Australia and China — but notably not the U.S. Two officials close to the WTO said the U.K. was keen to avoid irritating the U.S. by joining. As the MPIA, an interim solution to address the WTO impasse, was seen as a Brussels-led initiative, the previous government had been wary of any perceived alignment with the EU.  Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds previously told members of the House of Lords that the U.K. “should be looking to take forward” any moves to “strengthen the role of the WTO.” U.K. Ambassador to the WTO, Simon Manley, said Britain’s joining the alternative dispute system is “under active consideration.”  A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson, meanwhile, said: “We are strong supporters of the WTO, which plays a vital role in providing stability and predictability for businesses and consumers around the world. This is the first step towards a legally binding Economic Prosperity Deal with the US, with further talks planned to build on what we have already agreed.”

LONDON — Sporting a bow tie under the gold filigree ceiling of London’s 18th century Mansion House, Britain’s Jonathan Reynolds was in a good mood. Britain and India had sealed a (highly controversial) trade deal the previous day, and a pact with the U.S. seemed near. “This is not an easy time to be a trade minister,” the business and trade secretary told a banquet of ambassadors and business elite Wednesday night. “Weeks happen in hours.” He did not realize how right he was. At almost the exact minute Reynolds began his speech at 9:24 p.m., Keir Starmer took a surprise call from Donald Trump. The U.S. president had interrupted the second half of a football match between the prime minister’s team Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain, which he was watching on TV in his Downing Street flat. Trump made an “11th-hour intervention … demanding even more out of this deal than any of us expected,” U.K. Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson revealed Thursday in the Oval Office, where Trump gripped his hand. Trump asked Starmer to cut U.K. tariffs on American ethanol and pork, said three people familiar with the details. Like other officials quoted in this piece, they spoke on condition of anonymity. Yet after another call to Reynolds from his negotiating team — which he took while still in a Mansion House drawing room — the deal was sealed. Britain agreed to Trump’s demand on ethanol, but not on pork. The two leaders appeared on split-screen speakerphone calls Thursday to announce the U.S.’s first bilateral carve-out deal from sweeping tariffs that Trump announced on Apr. 2. The made-for-TV pact was announced with Trumpian bombast on the 80th anniversary of VE Day, prompting Starmer to redraw his carefully-laid schedule and visit a Jaguar Land Rover plant. So last-minute was the trip that Downing Street accidentally invited journalists to the wrong car factory. The deal will cut tariffs from 27.5 to 10 percent for 100,000 U.S.-bound British cars per year and slash 25 percent tariffs on British steel and aluminum to zero, while allowing 13,000 tons of U.S. beef to enter the U.K. tariff-free. White House demands for Britain to water down a digital services tax on technology giants came to nothing — for now, at least. (Work will soon begin on a further technology partnership). Never mind that the terms are still worse than those Britain enjoyed before Trump’s “Liberation Day,” or that the president — hit by a domestic backlash to his tariffs — was under pressure to announce a deal, any deal. Nor that questions are yet to be answered, and that opposition MPs are already demanding a full vote on the deal. It left Starmer jubilant. The prime minister said it proved “performative politics” were not the answer, while allies hailed victory for his “warm relations, cool heads” strategy — a months-long buttering-up of the president that began in earnest when Starmer handed Trump an invitation to a state visit in the Oval Office in February. Nine years ago, Barack Obama said Brexit would put Britain at the “back of the queue” for a U.S. trade deal. On Thursday Britain was at the front of that queue — although notably not for a full free trade agreement — and Trump said it had “Brexit in particular” to thank. “Normally after Arsenal lose you don’t see him grinning the next morning,” one No. 10 official said of Starmer Thursday. “But he was definitely grinning this morning.” WEEKS IN THE NEGOTIATING TUNNEL While the details went down to the wire, most of the deal was finalized on the U.K. side this week by three organizations: Downing Street, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the British Embassy in Washington. The softly-softly push came from across the government, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who made her case to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Apr. 25. But the DBT and embassy led the show, in weeks of talks where — at times — only about half a dozen people were fully in the loop. Industry figures suspected something was afoot on Apr. 30, when senior figures — including Bryant Trick, assistant U.S. trade representative, and Graham Floater, the DBT’s director for U.S. trade — failed to show at a dialogue for the two nations’ small and medium-sized businesses in Charlotte, North Carolina. Officially the reason was a transport hiccup, but one person with knowledge of the meeting said: “I thought it was one of the signs that significant progress was being made. It really, really tightened up over the last couple of weeks.” Several people said a key figure in sealing the deal was civil servant Amanda Brooks, the DBT director general for trade negotiations. She was visibly buzzing in a red dress at Wednesday’s Mansion House gala — speaking in excited but hushed tones to the business elite — after working on the deals with India and the U.S. at the same time. “She is the engine room of DBT’s trade negotiations,” said one industry figure. A second added: “Amanda is a very cool operator. She of course was having to multitask to get the India agreement over the line as well.” Another figure at the center of negotiations was Varun Chandra, the former boss of the secretive advisory firm Hakluyt who is now Starmer’s business adviser in No. 10. Chandra was in regular contact with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, as was Reynolds. The Guardian reported that Chandra was in the U.S. to seal the deal this week. Mandelson — who flanked Trump in the Oval Office Thursday along with Mungo Woodifield, the British Embassy’s minister counsellor for trade — was also at the center of talks. The smooth-talking operator from the days of Tony Blair’s government asked business groups in private what he could offer the U.S., and used his lavish residence to full effect, hosting three parties in four days over the White House correspondents’ weekend. Something, somewhere must have worked. When the USTR’s team spoke to British industry groups in March, the U.S. appeared to have three priorities, said the first industry figure quoted above — the digital services tax, carve-outs from the U.K.’s 20 percent Value Added Tax rate, and some agreement on agricultural exports. Britain offered nothing on the first two in the deal, although agrifood became “probably the top” U.S. ask in the last month, the second industry figure said. U.S. officials also began by saying the “U.K. has a trade deficit with the U.S. and it needs to be rectified. The language softened on that point, where it became more ‘we’re equals and there’s not so much of a problem to be dealt with,’” the industry figure said. “That change in messaging is probably a reflection that the U.K. team were doing a really good job on working on the White House and trying to put the U.K. in a better light.” But Britain cannot solely thank itself. Trump was also suffering a domestic backlash to his wave of tariffs, putting him under pressure to telegraph some movement on trade talks amid fears that empty ports on the country’s West Coast will soon translate to reduced supply and higher prices on shelves. The shift in U.S. position was partly due to “pressure Trump was feeling on some of the economic issues,” conceded the first industry figure quoted above. The president has also been eager to telegraph strength and notch a win before he departs next week for the Middle East, in what was supposed to be the first foreign trip of his second term before Pope Francis’ funeral was scheduled late last month.  THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP Nonetheless Britain still managed to insert itself — rather than another ally — at the moment the president needed that deal. Starmer spent their Feb. 27 meeting in the Oval Office careful to lavish praise on Trump, and after their White House meeting the president returned the favor. “You are a very tough negotiator,” Trump told him. It is the same tactic Starmer has employed on the Russia-Ukraine war, where he picked up the phone to Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after their clash in the Oval Office, instead of condemning the scene online. Critics and opposition MPs say this is a sign of weakness, and that the PM should be more robust in public with the president, like Canada’s new PM Mark Carney. Starmer’s backers insist it has paid off, with Ukraine and the U.S. reaching a minerals deal, though a Ukraine-Russia peace deal still looks some way off. All this is while Starmer struggles with tanking poll ratings and the rapid rise of Nigel Farage’s right-wing party Reform UK. The second industry figure above said: “Generally I think the government are playing a blinder internationally at the moment. Domestic, a bit more difficult.” Officials insisted Britain was clear on its red lines in private — namely that American food imported into the U.K. would have to meet British rules, and that it needed help for Britain’s stricken car sector and steel industry. One MP who spoke to car industry executives in recent weeks warned the 25 percent tariffs were “existential.” Officials were also on alert not to water down rules on pharmaceutical products coming into the U.K. Mandelson told POLITICO: “I am very happy with the outcome. We have secured all our main asks and the agreement will now open the door to a deeper long-term U.K.-U.S. technology partnership.” NOW FOR THE DETAILS For all the jubilation, the deal still has a long time to potentially unravel. Starmer tacitly accepted that tariffs on U.K. exports to the U.S. were still higher than in the Biden era. “The question you should be asking is, is it better than where we were yesterday?” he told a reporter. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, said: “We cut our tariffs — America tripled theirs … we’ve just been shafted!” Starmer’s rural MPs, still smarting from the blowback over cuts to inheritance tax relief for farmers, had been on high alert as news leaked of agri concessions, but helpful statements from the National Farmers Union following the announcement calmed nerves. “The NFU is content with this deal, hormone beef and chlorinated chicken are still banned and SPS standards upheld. So that makes my worries melt away,” one MP said. The NFU did, however, raise concerns about the decision to slash tariffs on U.S. exports of ethanol. And U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the deal would “exponentially increase our beef exports,” despite U.K. officials insisting standards would be upheld. The details will be studied closely. Many other questions will only be answered later, after Trump accepted the final details are only being “written up in the coming weeks.”  MPs will not get a vote on the whole deal, even though some individual measures will be voted on as a part of the current U.K. process to ratify trade agreements. The Liberal Democrats have already demanded a full vote, while Conservative MP John Whittingdale said: “Parliament should not just debate but vote on a U.S. trade agreement. Not least as I will want to be sure that we are not surrendering vital measures such as IP protection, the Digital Markets Act and the Online Safety Act in order to get a deal.” Reynolds insisted Thursday that Britain’s legislation on digital services taxes and online safety had not been touched. But it was not immediately clear that they would remain untouched in future talks on tech co-operation.  “Everything’s on the table,” said one U.K. official, asked about the digital services tax. “If it’s something fantastically attractive … if the sum that goes into the deal outweighs what goes with the digital services tax, then let’s do it.” Mandelson said in the Oval Office that Thursday’s deal will be “the end just at the beginning.”  He may be right in more ways than one. Starmer for now is savoring a hard-won victory, but on the Trump rollercoaster, there will be many more ups and downs to come. Annabelle Dickson and Noah Keate contributed reporting.

LONDON — The fifteenth time’s a charm, it would seem. After a series of false starts, missed Diwali deadlines and changes of government, the U.K. and India have finally put their differences aside to strike a free trade agreement. But the final pact — with some details set out Tuesday — is far from what negotiators imagined when they launched the talks back in 2022, with compromises made on both sides. From tariffs to visas and services, we talk through the key concessions in the long-awaited agreement, and what they could mean for U.K. businesses, as well as the big unanswered questions. WHAT WE KNOW Tariffs will be cut across the board The agreement will cut Indian tariffs on 90 percent of product lines, with 85 percent of those becoming fully tariff-free within a decade, according to basic details published by the U.K.’s Department for Business and Trade (DBT) on Tuesday. British alcoholic drink exporters look set to be big winners. Whisky and gin tariffs, currently set at 150 percent, will be halved to 75 percent before falling to 40 percent after 10 years. Mark Kent, chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, said the change would be “transformational” and create 1,200 jobs across the U.K..  There also appears to be positive news for another key sector: car manufacturing. DBT says automotive tariffs will be cut from over 100 percent to 10 percent — but crucially, subject to a quota. Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told reporters on Tuesday that the U.K. would get access to a quota to sell 22,000 higher-value electric vehicles to India at the lower 10 percent tariff rate. India would meanwhile get a quota to sell low- and mid-range electric vehicles to the U.K. The government says this quota will be phased in over time in discussion with industry in order to align with their production plans. Industry group the SMMT welcomed the deal but said the details “will likely feature compromises, and might not offer unfettered market access to all UK automotive goods.” Other Indian tariffs cut under the FTA include those on imported British cosmetics, aerospace, lamb, medical devices, salmon, electrical machinery, soft drinks, chocolate, and biscuits. The U.K. has in turn cut tariffs on clothes, footwear, and some food products — including, the government is keen to note, frozen prawns. On the flipside, tariffs remain in areas like dairy and milled rice where both sides wanted to protect domestic industries from competition. Together with the other changes in the agreement, the government expects a steep 59.4 percent increase in U.K. exports to India — worth £15.7 billion. This is matched by a smaller 25 percent increase in Indian exports to Britain, worth £9.8 billion.  This all adds up to a 38.8 percent increase in trade worth £25.5 billion — or 0.1 percent of GDP by 2040. The number is tiny when compared to the much larger expected 4 percent hit from leaving the EU single market, but looks a bit more impressive when compared to the 0.08 percent expected benefit from, for example, the FTA the last government signed with Australia.  India scores concessions on social security payments Visas have become the most headline-grabbing issue in the negotiations. After the Indian side talked up an “unprecedented” win on its workers being exempt from employee tax contributions in Britain, Starmer’s political opponents hit back at the deal. Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch said she refused to sign a deal on similar terms back when she was trade secretary, arguing: “When Labour negotiates Britain loses.” In the end, it’s a mixed bag when it comes to mobility concessions. Jonathan Reynolds said on Tuesday that an existing visa route for some temporary workers that’s not currently available to India — and capped at 1,800 people — will now be open to Indian employees. That list of professions includes musicians, yoga teachers and chefs. Indian applicants will still need to meet the usual visa requirements on salary and skills and the cap won’t be lifted. The U.K.’s visa concession is a long way from New Delhi’s first requests, with India originally proposing larger quotas for professionals, particularly in sectors like IT and healthcare. But there are already political fireworks over one big Indian demand in the talks — an easing of social security payments for Indian workers in the U.K. The U.K. and India have agreed to a Double Contributions Convention, which means that neither Indian nor British workers will be required to pay national insurance contributions in both their home country and the one they are working in — they will only pay it in one for the first three years of a placement.  The deal also covers employers, who do not have to pay social security contributions in the U.K. for three years.  This concession means “Starmer has hiked National Insurance on Brits while giving an exemption to Indian migrants,” Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick wrote as Tory MPs criticised the move in parliament Tuesday afternoon. There will be greater access to Indian government contracts “For the very first time British businesses will have guaranteed access to India’s vast procurement market covering good services and construction,” Trade Policy Minister Douglas Alexander told parliament on Tuesday. More than a decade ago, Indian PM Narendra Modi launched the country’s Make in India program, which prevents foreign competitors from accessing the government’s procurement market. India has since been pouring government stimulus into large infrastructure projects throughout the country. But in a major win for the U.K., Delhi has agreed a carve out allowing British firms to access some areas of the country’s procurement market and compete for tenders. British firms will now “be able to bid for approximately 40,000 tenders worth at least £38 billion a year,” Alexander said.  WHAT WE DON’T KNOW How will the UK and India resolve their differences over carbon taxes? India has been vocal about its distaste for the U.K.’s proposed carbon border tax. Wrangling over CBAM has at times seemed likely to sink talks.  In the end, the solution was to dodge the question entirely. The FTA won’t address the question of CBAM directly. Draft U.K. legislation for its CBAM anticipates that the levy will apply to imported goods from 1 January 2027, covering carbon-intensive industries like steelmaking, cement, aluminum and fertilizer. Some Indian sectors are expected to be hit hard. Dialogue is expected to continue on the issue, but not at the expense of doing this FTA.  Will the two sides sign a bilateral investment treaty? A key win for the City of London would have been a bilateral investment treaty, which appeared alongside the FTA text. But both sides weren’t able to get this over the finish line.  The proposed pact, controversial in India, would have given firms the right to sue governments over policy changes they claim would harm their investments, through a mechanism known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).  In 2016, India scrapped a number of its older treaties with other countries, after facing a wave of arbitration claims, which now total at 29 cases against its domestic regulations and policy measures.  Although talks on the investment treaty continue, there’s still no clear timeline for when — or if — a deal will ever be agreed. How much will services firms really benefit? The British government insisted Tuesday that the pact includes India’s most ambitious services commitments to date, but details were hard to come by and some sectors are less than impressed. Trade Policy Minister Douglas Alexander said it will ensure U.K. banks and finance companies are placed on an equal footing with Indian suppliers. “It also encourages the recognition of professional qualifications, so that U.K. and Indian firms can access the right talent at the right time, whether they are in Mumbai or indeed in Manchester.” Yet a trade body for Britain’s legal services sector — the second largest in the world — called it a “failure” and a “a missed opportunity” that the deal doesn’t give them more market access. The sector is “disappointed to see that the U.K.-India FTA has been agreed without reference to legal services,” said Law Society president Richard Atkinson. Changes to India’s regulations that would allow foreign firms to practice without a domestic partner were unveiled by the Bar Council of India in March 2023, but they remain in limbo following pushback from local legal firms. The digital trade provisions in the deal also “don’t go as far as we’d have liked to see,” said Julian David, CEO of techUK which advocates for tech giants. David said business groups in both countries are looking forward to working with the U.K. and Indian governments “to turn this deal into real momentum for the sector.” How long will it take to ratify?  Opposition parties are already calling for parliament to be given a vote on the new free trade agreement.  Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, was quick out the gate on Tuesday warning that not consulting MPs would set a “dangerous precedent for future deals” — particularly one with the United States.  Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), parliament only has the power to delay ratification of a treaty and to force the government to formally explain its rationale. But even this can only happen if the government actively chooses to set aside time for a debate and vote on the agreement, which it is under no obligation to do. The last government was criticised by a parliamentary committee for not giving MPs time to debate its post-Brexit FTA with Australia.  The Labour government has only said in relation to the U.S. trade deal that it is committed to the CRAG process.  Douglas Alexander on Tuesday said the House would “need time to scrutinize this deal before the ratification process” but notably did not commit to a vote. “My department will follow the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010,” he said, which requires the government to lay the treaty in parliament for 21 days. “The house will, of course, have the opportunity to scrutinize any legislation associated with its implementation.” Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told reporters that the ratification process would take “broadly” around 12 months. That gives the government’s critics plenty of time to find more they don’t like.

LONDON — The U.K. and India have wrapped up the latest round of talks in London without clinching a long-coveted trade deal. India’s top trade negotiator, Piyush Goyal, returned to the U.K. on Friday for unscheduled negotiations in an attempt to conclude the talks. The U.K. government said the two sides had held constructive discussions this week after negotiators tried to push the deal over the finish line following three years of talks. Ministers see securing a free trade agreement with India, as well as a separate bilateral investment treaty, as a key economic priority. A spokesperson for the U.K. Department for Business and Trade said on Saturday: “We have been clear we will only sign a deal that is fair, balanced and ultimately in the best interests of the British people.” “We are determined to improve access for U.K. businesses, ensure their fair treatment, cut tariffs, and make trade cheaper and easier,” the spokesperson added. Goyal returned after visiting Oslo and Brussels following a two-day negotiating sprint with U.K. Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds in London at the start of this week. There are “just a couple of issues left to resolve,” said a person briefed on the talks by Goyal. Nevertheless, it “appears like most of [the deal] has been resolved and it is likely there might be something announced soon,” they said. Goyal’s mid-week visits to Norway and the European Commission were focused on carving out exemptions for India’s high-emission commodities like steel and cement from new European carbon border tax regimes. India’s trade chief has also pushed for carve-outs from the U.K.’s forthcoming carbon border tax, which is due to come into effect in 2027. The U.K. and EU both argue that providing safeguards from these carbon taxes through a trade deal would breach the WTO’s Most Favored Nation rule, which requires all trade partners to be treated equally. “This government is committed to doing the right deal with India on trade and investment that delivers our Plan for Change,” said the Department for Business and Trade spokesperson.