The Kremlin hit back Thursday at a European aerospace chief in a feud over tactical nuclear weapons.  The board chair of Airbus, René Obermann, called Wednesday on Europe to develop tactical nuclear weapons to deter Russia’s arsenal in Kaliningrad, sparking a response from Moscow, which is no stranger to nuclear saber-rattling. “Kaliningrad is an integral part of Russia,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told journalists, adding, “of course, Russia will do everything necessary to provide its security, stability, and predictability today, and tomorrow.” Responding to Obermann, Peskov said: “Unfortunately, some allow such provocative statements, and call for further steps … to escalate tension.” Russia’s heavily militarized semi-exclave of Kaliningrad is located on the Baltic Sea, bordered by Lithuania and Poland, and is home to 1 million residents. According to a German Council on Foreign Relations memo, Russia deploys “numerous nuclear weapons” in the Kaliningrad region.  Moscow has engaged in veiled nuclear threats against the West since it launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, while both the U.S. and Russia have recently considered plans for further nuclear weapons testing.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday bemoaned the “absence of urgency” and “a fundamental lack of trust” between the military and defense firms, in the most substantive and unifying policy address of his tenure. The speech, delivered to industry executives at the National War College, kicked off a highly ambitious program of speeding up weapons delivery — an issue that has beguiled administrations for decades. Hegseth’s address, which dug into the weedy details of acquisition reform, resembled the kinds of talks given by previous Pentagon chiefs and was a stunning tone shift from the berating one he delivered in September to hundreds of generals and admirals. It was also a far cry from his usual focus on culture war issues, often aimed at the MAGA base and dedicated to the perils of diversity, equity and inclusion. “I’m not here to punish. I’m here to liberate,” Hegseth said. “I’m not here to reform, but to transform and empower. We need to save the bureaucracy from itself.” It’s unclear whether the Defense secretary will live up to his reform goals, which reflect entrenched issues within the Pentagon. While he pledged to get rid of layers of bureaucracy, many of the ideas entailed renaming existing offices under the new “Department of War” moniker, adding oversight functions and overturning decades of policy in a few short months. “You’re our only hope,” Hegseth told an audience of defense industry mainstays and upstarts, including representatives from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Palantir and Anduril. The reforms, which POLITICO first reported, are meant to cut bureaucracy and speed up how the military buys weapons and equipment. But they’re also a major test for Hegseth, a relative newcomer to the Pentagon who Vice President JD Vance vowed would prove an effective “disrupter.” The defense industry hailed the moves, which mirrored changes representatives have lobbied to get for years. Keith Webster, President of the Chamber of Commerce’s Defense Aerospace Council, called the reforms “bold, timely and forward-looking.” Aerospace Industries Association CEO Eric Fanning labeled them “an ambitious, long-needed overhaul.” The Pentagon aims to speed up U.S. arms sales to allies by moving the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which runs the process, and the Defense Technology Security Administration, which runs export approvals, directly under acquisitions leadership. This will allow the same officials who manage weapons programs to handle the approval for allies. Hegseth even invoked the words of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — hardly a hallowed figure in the MAGA world — and said the Trump administration planned to “rebuild the defense industrial base into an arsenal of freedom.” The Pentagon chief’s push at acquisition reform — alongside two other major initiatives moving on Capitol Hill — are seen as efforts to level the playing field in the industry, which has long been dominated by a handful of contractors with deep roots in Washington. Hegseth has encouraged the expansion of new legal authorities that allow the Pentagon to give billions to upstart contractors that have not yet competed for major Defense Department programs. The reforms also include the creation of powerful “Portfolio Acquisition Executives,” who will run point on Pentagon weapons acquisition and have performance incentives linked to deliveries. “The Department of War will only do business with industry partners that share our priority of speed and volume above all else,” he said, using the administration’s preferred moniker for the Pentagon. Hegseth vowed to work with Congress on the ambitious overhaul. His address comes as leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services panels weigh parallel proposals to slash bureaucracy and get weapons and new technology into soldiers’ hands faster. Compromise defense legislation that’s likely to pass before the end of the year will almost certainly include a synthesis of the reforms proposed by the House and Senate. Hegseth called out both bills in his speech. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said Hegseth’s endorsement of his legislation and the priorities his committee has pushed — including prioritizing commercial technology, expanding the industrial base and empowering acquisition leaders — “mark a pivotal moment for our national security.” House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) stressed the need for the Pentagon and Congress to work together to overhaul the system, calling Hegseth “a willing and enthusiastic partner in our efforts.” Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

NASA on Thursday pushed back against comments from U.S. celebrity Kim Kardashian suggesting that the 1969 moon landing was faked. During an episode of The Kardashians TV series that aired Thursday, the Skims founder questioned whether the space mission ever took place, and noted her fascination with conspiracy theories. “There’s no gravity on the moon. Why is the flag blowing?” Kardashian said. “The shoes that they have in the museum that they wore on the moon is a different print in the photos. Why are there no stars?” she continued. “They’re gonna say I’m crazy no matter what, but like, go to TikTok. See for yourself … ” Hours after the episode aired, acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy responded to Kardashian in a post including a clip of her remarks. “Yes, we’ve been to the Moon before … six times!” Duffy wrote. “And even better: NASA Artemis is going back under the leadership of POTUS [U.S. President Donald Trump]. We won the last space race and we will win this one too.” Kardashian has said her doubts stem from alleged past comments by Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon after Neil Armstrong, which have long circulated online in edited or misleading form, and that those videos led her to question the official account of the landing. (Aldrin, for his part, once punched a man who questioned whether the moon landings were real or not.) After Duffy’s post, Kardashian replied with a change of subject: “Wait … what’s the tea on 3I Atlas?!?!!!!!!!?????,” referencing an interstellar comet recently spotted passing through the solar system. Duffy, who was selected by Trump in July as acting boss of the space agency, responded that it was a “Great question!” said NASA’s current observations show that this is the third interstellar comet to pass through our solar system. “No aliens. No threat to life here on Earth,” he said, adding that he appreciated Kardashian’s excitement about the Artemis moon mission and invited her to attend the upcoming Artemis launch at Kennedy Space Center. The exchange comes amid growing tension between NASA and the Trump administration, which has proposed deep budget cuts and agency restructuring even as it touts a renewed focus on lunar exploration. Conspiracy theories claiming the moon landing was staged have circulated for decades. According to the Institute of Physics, “every single argument claiming that NASA faked the Moon landings has been discredited.” The institute points to photographic, radiation and physical evidence, including 382 kilograms of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts, all of which have been independently verified by laboratories worldwide.

BRUSSELS — Romania wants Europe’s rearmament push to benefit all EU nations, not just the largest ones. The massive increase in defense spending and weapons orders that is foreseen in the coming years should translate into new factories and jobs in his country, Romania’s Defense Minister Liviu-Ionuț Moșteanu told POLITICO. “If we spend people’s money on defense, it’s important for them to see that part of it is coming back to their country, for example via factories. It’s not just about buying rockets abroad,” he said in an interview at NATO headquarters. “We aim to have a part of the production in the country. We want to be part of the production chain,” he added. “Every country wants to have a big share, but so far only a few do.” Western nations such as France, Germany, Italy and Sweden have the bloc’s best-developed arms industries and are grabbing the majority of lucrative arms contracts. Former eastern bloc countries like Romania tend to have smaller defense companies without the technological know-how to produce the full array of weapons needed to rearm, meaning they are more dependent on external suppliers. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has opened the money taps for defense. NATO countries agreed this summer to boost their defense spending target from 2 percent of gross domestic product to 5 percent by 2035. According to the European Commission, reaching the new target will require an additional €288 billion spent on defense each year. Romania is spending 2.3 percent of its GDP on the military this year and plans to raise that to 3.5 percent by 2030. One of its main challenges is to modernize its armed forces, which have operated for decades largely with obsolete Soviet-era military kit. The country, which borders Ukraine, Moldova and the Black Sea as well as EU countries, is key to regional security in southeastern Europe and hosts a NATO battlegroup led by France that also includes American troops. LOANS FOR WEAPONS Bucharest is set to be the second-largest user of the EU’s €150 billion SAFE scheme, and is asking for €16.7 billion in low interest loans for defense. Moșteanu said two-thirds of that money will be spent on military equipment and the remaining third on infrastructure; it also includes military aid to Ukraine and Moldova. The condition for any procurement under SAFE — which is open mostly to European companies — would be industrial returns in Romania, the minister told POLITICO. The condition for any procurement under SAFE — which is open mostly to European companies — would be industrial returns in Romania, the minister told POLITICO. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images In one example of the country’s push to ensure some defense cash stays at home, an ongoing €6.5 billion tender for more than 200 tanks sets a condition that final assembly happen in the country. “It’s very important for the years to come that when we talk about spending money, we spread [the industrial return] evenly throughout the continent,” the minister said, referring also to countries further from the frontlines such as Portugal. “It’s a negotiation with the producers,” he said, adding that if European manufacturers don’t accept domestic production requirements, Bucharest will take its money to companies outside the EU that are willing to do so. “If some programs don’t look good under SAFE, we’ll move them under the national budget,” he stressed. The Romanian government is already a big customer of foreign weapons manufacturers, especially from the U.S., Israel and South Korea. It recently purchased American-made Patriot air defense systems and F-35 warplanes, as well as K9 self-propelled howitzers from South Korea’s Hanwha Aerospace. Last year, Hanwha Aerospace executives told POLITICO that Romania could become a weapons production hub for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. WHAT ROMANIA BRINGS TO THE TABLE Romania, which is one of Europe’s most industrialized countries, has assets to offer arms-makers, Moșteanu argued. Romania, which is one of Europe’s most industrialized countries, has assets to offer arms-makers, Moșteanu argued. | Andreea Campeanu/Getty Images It’s already luring in some of Europe’s largest defense companies: Bucharest and German giant Rheinmetall signed an agreement earlier this year to build an ammunition powder plant that will be partly funded by EU money under the Act in Support of Ammunition Production scheme. In the near future, manufacturers will need to open new factories to meet demand, and Romania could easily host some of them, Moșteanu said: “We have defense production facilities with all the necessary approvals. They’re not up-to-date but it’s a good starting point.” Another strength of the country is its robust automotive sector, which could help weapons manufacturers swiftly ramp up manufacturing. Defense companies across the bloc are teaming up with carmakers to benefit from their mass production expertise. “We have a very strong automotive industry in Romania that can switch to the defense industry,” the minister said, adding that the machinery, production lines, expertise and supply chains are already in place. Romania is also looking to cut red tape. “We’re looking to change the legislation to speed investments in the defense industry. I know there is the defense omnibus in Brussels,” Moșteanu said, referring to the European Commission’s simplification package, “but I don’t know when it’ll come, I prefer to have something quick.”

BRUSSELS — Crafty hacking groups backed by hostile states have increasingly targeted European public institutions with cyber espionage campaigns in the past year, the European Union’s cybersecurity agency said Wednesday. Public institutions were the most targeted type of organization, accounting for 38 percent of the nearly 5,000 incidents analyzed, the ENISA agency said in its yearly threat landscape report on European cyber threats. The EU itself is a regular target, it added. State-aligned hacking groups “steadily intensified their operations toward EU organizations,” ENISA said, adding that those groups carried out cyber espionage campaigns on public bodies while also attempting to sway the public through disinformation and interference.  The report looked at incidents from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025. Multiple European countries said in August that they had been affected by “Salt Typhoon,” a sprawling hacking and espionage campaign believed to be run by China’s Ministry of State Security. In May, the Netherlands also attributed a cyber espionage campaign to Russia, and the Czech government condemned China for carrying out a cyberattack against its foreign ministry exposing thousands of unclassified emails. These incidents underlined how European governments and organizations are increasingly plagued by cyber intrusions and disruption. Though state-backed cyber espionage is on the rise, ENISA said the most “impactful” threat in the EU is ransomware, a type of hack where criminals infiltrate a system, shut it down and demand payment to allow victims to regain control over their IT. Another type of attack, known as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), was the most common type of incident, ENISA said. DDoS attacks are most commonly deployed by cyber activists. ENISA said different types of hacking groups are increasingly using each others’ tactics, most notably when state-aligned groups use cyber-activist techniques to hide their provenance. The agency also highlighted the threat to supply chains posed by cyberattacks, saying the interconnected nature of modern services can amplify the effect of a cyberattack.   Passengers at Brussels, Berlin and London Heathrow airports recently experienced severe delays due to a cyberattack on supplier Collins Aerospace, which provides check-in and boarding systems. “Everyone needs to take his or her responsibilities seriously,” Hans de Vries, the agency’s chief operations officer, told POLITICO. “Any company could have a ripple effect … We are so dependent on IT. That’s not a nice story but it’s the truth.”

LIVERPOOL, England — Under U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the Labour government has made a big play of pouring money into the defense sector — and is changing the party, as well as the country, in the process. Labour’s change of heart when it comes to world affairs can be felt as members gather in Liverpool for its annual party conference, once the natural home of progressive internationalism and a fierce commitment to foreign aid. NGOs once flocked to Labour conference, holding rows and rows of stalls in the exhibition hall and attracting the great and the good to their fringe events. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown spoke loftily of Britain as a development superpower, and embraced the Make Poverty History campaign as well as the movement to enshrine foreign aid spending in law. This year, the presence of NGOs has noticeably diminished, with fewer events focused on international development and many charities deciding not to bother coming to conference at all.  In their place are defense companies and lobbyists, buoyed by Starmer’s commitment to ratchet up spending on the sector to 5 percent of gross domestic product by 2035 and his pledge to make the country “battle-ready.” On one level, the vibe shift reflects the reality of forces felt across the world, as Western countries adjust to war in Europe and a less beneficent United States. But it also marks a sea change inside Britain’s biggest center-left party, and one that is already shaping the way it governs. THE NEW CONSENSUS As delegates arrive in Liverpool hoping to influence the Starmer government, some are feeling less optimistic than others. Paul Abernethy of Bond, a network for organizations working in international development, said: “I’ve noticed a lot of our members choosing not to attend conference, or at least if they are attending, they’re certainly cutting down the amount of resources behind it.” The costs are “astronomical,” he added, and “I’m not surprised [fewer NGOs are attending] when political parties like Labour and the Conservatives are de-prioritizing international development and foreign policy.” The reason for their gloom is self-evident, as conference meets for the first time since Starmer announced he would slash spending on aid from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of GDP in order to boost defense coffers. Those cuts fall not just on the recipients of development grants but also on the charities dedicated to supporting them. At a fringe event on aid cuts, Flora Alexander, executive director of International Rescue Committee UK, said: “Our [Britain’s] standing and our influence has been affected — it’s what happens when you say you’ll commit a certain amount of money and then you don’t.” The picture is especially stark when placed alongside the mood in the Labour Party of 10 or 20 years ago.  Labour’s change of heart when it comes to world affairs can be felt as members gather in Liverpool for its annual party conference. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images Kevin Watkins, a professor of development practice at the London School of Economics and former CEO of Save the Children, said under former leaders Tony Blair and Gordon Brown “you had big hitters who were really leading on multilateralism and internationalism.” The aid movement of the early 2000s also gained currency as a supposed means of damping down terrorist radicalization and strengthening national security. However, as Watkins observed, its place in mainstream politics has now given way to a new “consensus” among Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK that “the U.K. should be stepping back from global leadership on poverty reduction.” DEFENSE ON THE MARCH The contrast with the mood among defense suppliers — who have at times been regarded with suspicion in Labour circles — could hardly be more marked.  Andrew Kinniburgh, director general of manufacturers’ body Make UK, said: “Certainly the message we get [from the government] is that defense is really at the heart of what they’re doing, and it’s probably at the front of the queue in terms of leading growth.” A representative of an aerospace company, granted anonymity to speak freely, described the cognitive dissonance experienced by some in the industry.  “Did I think Labour would invest in defense? Yes. Did I ever think one of our biggest export cheerleaders would be David Lammy? No.” Lammy, until recently the foreign secretary, is drawn from the “soft left” of the party, which is traditionally less hawkish and more skeptical of the arms industry — but defense is having a moment, as Labour’s quest for jobs and growth coincides with heightened external threats, particularly from Russia. Paul Mason, an economist and a fellow at the Council on Geostrategy, said at a fringe event “the whole party should be united” behind the defense agenda, as it would deliver high-skilled jobs as well as helping to repel Nigel Farage’s Reform.  Defense Minister Luke Pollard told POLITICO: “This isn’t something that is far, far away — there are hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs rely on defense today … That’s something that I hope the entire country will be able to get behind.” A LASTING CHANGE? Senior Labour figures insist the trade-off between investment in defense and progressive causes is not zero-sum.  Development Minister Jenny Chapman, speaking at a fringe event, said she was “optimistic” about the U.K. continuing to make a difference on the world stage despite the cuts to her budget.  Development Minister Jenny Chapman said she was “optimistic” about the U.K. continuing to make a difference on the world stage despite the cuts to her budget. | Leon Neal/Getty Images Yet it is hard to find anyone who believes that the golden era of overseas development could make a comeback and dominate mainstream politics in the way it once did. Instead, Labour insiders in Liverpool are unapologetic about their reinvention as the party of defense — once much more closely associated with the Conservatives — and want it to stay that way. “It’s been a long road,” said one Labour adviser, “to convince people we’re as strong on defense as we are on other international issues. We need to guard that now.”

LIVERPOOL, England — The U.K. Labour government has been “validated entirely” on its decision to engage with U.S. President Donald Trump’s “assertive” America First agenda, Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds has said. Speaking at the POLITICO Pub at the Labour conference on Monday, Reynolds said the government had the “best terms of trade” with the U.S. of any comparable country and had seen “tens of thousands of jobs” because of its trade agreement with the U.S. administration. His comments come after he was moved from his previous role as business and trade secretary, where he dealt frequently with the Trump administration. Reynolds also chastised the country’s opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats, who have called for the U.K. to distance itself from the Trump administration, saying: “You can say that if you’re the opposition, but that’s not serious. “The defense of our country, our economy, thousands of jobs depend on that relationship.” His comments come two weeks after Donald Trump’s state visit to Britain, which saw the two countries sign a tech pact that will see more than £150 billion of inward investment to the U.K. The two countries also signed a trade agreement in May that was partially implemented in June. Reynolds discussed some of the difficulties in engaging with the Trump administration, saying “there’s not always an alignment” between the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office and the country’s Commerce Department. He added that the decision to go ahead with automotive and aerospace tariffs was “so important” to the country in securing a deal, adding that while the U.K. had to concede on beef and ethanol liberalization, the former was “reciprocal” and granted the U.K. “tremendous” market access in the U.S. However, he did address the lack of agreement on lowering U.S. steel tariffs from their current rate of 25 percent, saying: “The offer was essentially not sufficient to justify moving away from having a 25 percent tariff.” He also said the U.S. was “making [its] own products more expensive on global markets” by charging a tariff on U.K. steel. Reynolds concluded his remarks on the U.K.-U.S. relationship by saying that neither country had secured everything it wanted, and that it was the “right thing to do” for the U.K. to continue to work with its ally.

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has hailed a “major win” as he prepares to sign a long-desired free trade agreement with India. But with key aspects of the deal still unresolved, he may want to keep the champagne on ice. Running to 2,000-plus pages, Indian and British lawyers were still plowing through the text on Wednesday ahead of a signing ceremony on Thursday overseen by Starmer and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is in London for a visit. The final deal — which the government estimates will boost U.K. GDP by £4.8 billion each year in the long-run — will see Indian tariffs on British goods slashed from 15 percent to 3 percent on average. Significantly, tariffs on whisky will be cut in half from 150 percent to 75 percent, with a further drop to 40 percent over the next decade. Tariffs of up to 110 percent on British automotives will drop to 10 percent under a new quota.  In a statement ahead of the signing, Starmer described the deal as a “major win for Britain,” creating “thousands of British jobs across the U.K.” Others will be in a less celebratory mood as they await answers on key issues. MISSING PIECES In its announcement on the deal, the government confirmed that it was still negotiating a Double Contributions Convention. The controversial side agreement would mean that neither Indian nor British workers would be required to pay national insurance contributions in both their home country and the one they are working in. This has been a major source of contention among the U.K.’s right-leaning political parties concerned about immigration.  These include a £30 million joint investment by the British aerospace firm Rolls-Royce and India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to expand their manufacturing plant in Hosur, India. | Hannibal Hanschke/EPA Instead of unveiling the agreement on Thursday, both sides will sign a letter that commits them to finalizing the text in the coming months so that it can come into force at the same time as the trade deal. A letter containing the core details will be published Thursday. Meanwhile, efforts have been foiled to secure a Bilateral Investment Treaty, a pact that would give firms the right to sue governments over policy changes they claim would harm their investments, through a mechanism known as an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).  Negotiators had hoped to get the deal over the line to coincide with the free trade agreement. However, talks have been hampered by legal questions over a sunset clause which is still in effect from their previous investment treaty. The U.K. government argues it couldn’t find a landing zone that worked for British firms, but is continuing negotiations. NEXT STEPS Alongside the trade deal, the U.K. and India have also unveiled a raft of new investments, totaling almost £6 billion. These include a £30 million joint investment by the British aerospace firm Rolls-Royce and India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to expand their manufacturing plant in Hosur, India. “The almost £6 billion in new investment and export wins announced today will deliver thousands of jobs and shows the strength of our partnership with India as we ensure the U.K. is the best place in the world to invest and do business,” Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said. In addition, the U.K. and India have signed a renewed Comprehensive and Strategic Partnership, which will see closer collaboration on defense, education, climate, technology and innovation. Both sides also agreed to step up cooperation to tackle corruption, serious fraud, organized crime and irregular migration.  The government said it would now prepare for the trade agreement to be ratified by parliament. Thursday’s signing kick-starts a process that will see the text of the deal published around midday and then reviewed by Britain’s agricultural trade watchdog, the Trade and Agriculture Commission over the coming months, before parliament returns in the autumn to scrutinize the deal.

LONDON — Britain’s trade chief hopes to push forward trade talks with Donald Trump’s Cabinet on a trip to Washington at the end of this month, two people familiar with the plans told POLITICO. The U.K. in May became the first country to secure a trade pact with the Trump administration, paving the way for a 10 percent tariff for most British goods, as well as tariff relief for British carmakers and aerospace firms. But executives working at the top of Britain’s steel, film and pharmaceutical industries remain alarmed by the uncertainty created by Trump’s trade war. The U.K.’s trade secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, plans to spend four to five days in Washington. The trip will begin in the week of July 28, said one of the people cited above, granted anonymity to discuss the plans. Reynolds is preparing to meet U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to discuss sectoral tariffs and seek to negotiate down Trump’s 10 percent “reciprocal” tariffs on U.K. imports. The trip will fall around the time that Trump is expected to meet U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer while on a private visit to Scotland. The president told reporters Tuesday night that he and Starmer “have a little to discuss” on the trade deal the two struck in early May when they meet later this month, but added the pact “is really very well done.” ‘10 PERCENT HERE TO STAY’ Britain’s ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, warned last weekend that he expects America’s 10 percent tariff on U.K. goods is “here to stay” despite the U.K.’s efforts. Experts say that it could also be difficult to secure promised further relief on U.S. imports of Britain’s steel and aluminum. Britain’s ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, warned last weekend that he expects America’s 10 percent tariff on U.K. goods is “here to stay” despite the U.K.’s efforts. | Pool photo by Bonnie Cash/EPA When the U.S. raised tariffs on the metal imports to 50 percent at the start of June, the U.K.’s tariff rate remained at 25 percent thanks to the trade deal Trump struck with Starmer in May. But further tariff relief for the sectors, promised in the deal, is yet to materialize. Getting Trump to cut both reciprocal and steel and aluminum tariffs will be difficult, said Maxime Darmet, an economist at Allianz Trade. The U.S. wants to keep the 10 percent tariffs “as a minimum” and warned that steel and aluminum “are two sectors they really want to protect.” “Negotiations are going to be tough on agri-food trade,” Darmet added, pointing out that Washington will push Britain to offer more market access for U.S. farmers in exchange for further tariff relief. London committed to aligning with EU food standards at a key summit with Brussels in May, he pointed out, making it tricky to open its market further. Reynolds acknowledged last month that it will be difficult to get the Trump administration to implement cuts to the 25 percent steel and aluminum tariffs promised in the U.K.’s trade agreement with the U.S. That’s because of the U.S.’s “melt and pour rules” that require steel imported to the U.S. to be manufactured in its country of origin, he said. Britain’s largest steel mill at Port Talbot is currently importing steel from India and the Netherlands as it transitions to new electric arc furnaces. Gareth Stace, director-general of industry lobby UK Steel, warned earlier this month: “It remains unclear whether, and when, our second-largest export market will fully reopen, and when our U.S. customers can confidently place orders knowing they will receive the agreed zero-tariff rate.” The Department for Business and Trade declined to comment.