LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump has U-turned on his threat to raise new global tariffs to 15 percent, sparing Britain and the European Union from higher rates. Tariffs on exports to the United States will, for now, remain at 10 percent under the White House’s new regime, which took effect on Tuesday morning. Trump’s decision not to follow through on the threat means continuity for British businesses. U.K. exports already faced 10 percent duties, plus Most Favored Nation (MFN) rates, under Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. It also sees a similar level of tariffs applied to exports from the European Union. Products coming from the EU previously paid 15 percent, or the MFN rate, depending on which was higher. The European Parliament froze ratification of the EU’s trade deal with the U.S. on Monday amid concerns that Trump’s latest tariff broadside breaches the terms of the transatlantic accord struck last summer. Speaking with USTR Jamieson Greer over the weekend, U.K. trade chief Peter Kyle “underlined his concerns about further uncertainty for business” and reinforced “the need to honor the U.K.-U.S. deal” reached last May, a No. 10 spokesperson told reporters on Monday. The deal lowered Trump’s sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminum, autos and aerospace. Trump’s new duties will apply to exports not covered by the Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD). Trump’s latest tariffs will be imposed for 150 days from today under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act as Greer and his department carry out further investigations using tools like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose additional sectoral tariffs. After the 150 days expire, Congress could also vote to extend the 1duties. “What will happen when the 150-day period allowed by the act expires?” asked Duncan Edwards, CEO of BritishAmerican Business. Congress, he said, “will have to decide whether the trade policies promised by this administration during the election become enshrined in law. Given the narrow margins in both houses of Congress, a definitive answer looks unlikely, so business would be wise to expect continued uncertainty.”

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he will increase his global tariff to 15 percent, up from the 10 percent he announced on Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his signature tariff policy. “Let this statement serve to represent that I, as president of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries … to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. The White House has not officially implemented the newly increased tariffs. Trump’s statement comes less than 24 hours after he invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs up to 15 percent to address a “large and serious balance-of-payment deficit,” which can remain in effect for no more than 150 days unless Congress authorizes an extension. No U.S. president had previously invoked Section 122. By immediately lifting the rate from 10 percent to 15 percent, Trump maxed out the authority available under the statute. Any further increase would require a different legal mechanism or congressional action. The Supreme Court on Friday dealt Trump a huge blow, handing down a 6-3 opinion rejecting the administration’s initial method of implementing tariffs via the International Emergency Economics Powers Act. The president asserted again Saturday that the high court had approved his use of the Section 122 power and other options he said he plans to turn to. While the court’s opinions issued Friday mention those possibilities, the court’s majority explicitly said it was not ruling on when it would be legal to deploy them. Trump teased further action on tariffs, writing in his Saturday post that in the coming months, his administration will “determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs,” but it was not clear how he plans to do so. In December, U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer told POLITICO the administration has a long list of plans ready in the scenario that the high court struck down his tariffs. “We’ve been thinking about this plan for five years, or longer,” Greer said. “You can be sure that when we came to the president at the beginning of the term, we had a lot of different options,” he added, noting that IEEPA was the “best tool” but maintaining there are other options to implement tariffs. A White House fact sheet released Friday announcing the initial 10 percent tariff laid out a list of exemptions similar to the tariffs struck down as illegal Friday, including products within sectors such as energy, pharmaceuticals, autos, aerospace and more. Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

Dalibor Rohac is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. As we approach the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum, the time has come to rebuild ties between the U.K. and the EU. In the words of European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, “in a world that has changed so profoundly,” the two parties must “exorcize the ghosts of the past.” They must work together on trade, defense, research and the many other matters disrupted by the U.K.’s withdrawal. But while letting bygones be bygones is certainly the right approach for the EU, the U.K. needs to have an explicit reckoning with the abysmal failure the Brexit project has been — both for the sake of improving its European policies but, more importantly, for the sake of getting its domestic politics on firm footing. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently received a lot of acclaim for citing Czech playwright and former President Václav Havel’s “The Power of the Powerless” in his speech at the World Economic Forum, inviting the world’s nations and businesses to stop living in the lie of the rules-based international order. And that lesson applies here too: For the U.K. to finally move on, it must choose not to live in lies — especially the ones that fueled Brexit. And yet, both of the U.K.’s main political parties, Labour and the Conservatives, are treating Brexit as a sacred cow rather than grappling with the enormity of its failure. The Conservative leadership that oversaw the U.K.’s shambolic withdrawal from start to finish, and purged any internal dissenters in the process, are now owning its dismal results. The current Labour government, meanwhile, is taking baby steps to reintegrate the U.K. into the eminently valuable parts of Europe’s architecture, like the Erasmus program. Mark Carney recently received a lot of acclaim for citing Czech playwright and former President Václav Havel’s “The Power of the Powerless” in his speech at the World Economic Forum, inviting the world’s nations and businesses to stop living in the lie of the rules-based international order. | Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images However, both groups are too afraid to explain why Brexit was a colossal mistake. And it leaves them vulnerable to the populist Reform UK party’s claim that the real error was opting for a departure that wasn’t sharp enough. It’s true that on all the fronts that motivated the vote in 2016, Brexit has failed to deliver: Britain’s departure was followed by a dramatic rise in immigration, reaching over 900,000 net in 2023. There’s no indication that extricating the U.K. from the EU’s regulations has injected the country with any economic dynamism. Since 2020, the British economy has grown more slowly than both the eurozone and the EU as a whole. And with a debt-to-GDP ratio over 100 percent, its fiscal outlook is just as depressing, if not more so, than its highly indebted European neighbors. Part of this is because during their time in power after the referendum, the Conservatives wasted precious political bandwidth on tertiary Brexit-related fights, like the Irish “backstop” protocol or the status of EU law in the British legal system. That was time that could have been used to undertake deep structural reforms, which would make the U.K. a more competitive economy. And of course, EU membership never prevented the U.K. from changing its zoning laws, cutting taxes, improving secondary education or pursuing any number of other supply-side reforms in the first place. To be fair, though, not everything was a lie. There were also some elementary miscalculations. The Brexit project of pursuing deep economic ties with rapidly growing economies in Asia and America did make some sense — in a predictable rules-based global trade system, that is. But that’s not the world we find ourselves in today. One would be hard pressed to find a worse time to embark upon a free-trade global Britain, turning its back on Europe to seize exciting opportunities overseas. The U.S. has gone from having paralyzed the World Trade Organization under both presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden to extracting extravagant concessions and “remuneration” — as the former puts it — from partners under duress. And instead of a coveted free-trade deal that would solidify the “special relationship,” the U.K. was pressed to accept 10-percent base tariffs just to access the U.S. market. All the while, rather than leveraging fast economic growth in Asia, the U.K. has been confronted with an increasingly predatory China, and a global rush to secure and onshore supply chains. Of course, the U.K. continues to play a constructive role in European security — especially when it comes to aiding Ukraine — but its absence from the bloc also makes it harder for British companies to take part in the defense build-up currently underway. For example, the U.K. stayed out of the first iteration of the EU’s loan scheme, Security Action for Europe, and it may need to pay to participate in the second. Metsola is right — Europeans have every reason to seek a closer relationship with the U.K. But the real obstacle to closer ties lies on the other side of the English Channel. It’s a chorus of deafeningly loud voices shouting that the real Brexit, like Communism, was never tried, on the one hand, and the pusillanimity of those who understand Brexit was a failure but won’t openly say so for fear of political reaction on the other. And as the U.K.’s political establishment — including its current government — continues to follow Reform UK’s factually inaccurate bad-faith framing, they’ll simply empower its far-right leader Nigel Farage and his followers. Paradoxically, while support for Reform UK is now surging, the modest popular majority that delivered the Brexit result almost 10 years ago is now gone — in the case of older voters, quite literally so. Instead of treating Brexit as axiomatic, Britain’s political elites must refuse to continue living in the lie fabricated by its advocates. The point here isn’t necessarily to get mainstream political leaders to advocate for the U.K.’s return to the EU — that’s a story for another day. It’s simply to acknowledge the reality of how much this political gamble made the U.K. a lesser country. And until that moment comes, one must fear Britain’s relationship with Brussels will continue to be precarious, and its national politics dangerously unhinged.

LONDON — Britain has signed a new critical minerals partnership with the Trump administration, as it seeks to diversify supply chains away from China. Foreign Minister Seema Malhotra signed the partnership in Washington with U.S. Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg on Wednesday night. “As demand for critical minerals around the world continues to rise, this Memorandum of Understanding with the United States underscores our commitment to working as close allies to build resilient, diversified global supply chains,” Malhotra said in a statement. Under the terms of the deal, the two countries have agreed to use economic policy tools and coordinated investment to secure supplies of critical minerals and crack down on subsidized imports that risk undercutting domestic production. They will jointly identify priority projects, mobilize financing for developments, and share intelligence on investments that could threaten domestic capabilities in either country. The partnership signals a tougher stance on market distortion, with both sides pledging to protect their industries from “non-market policies and unfair trade practices” — including by working with allies on a global approach to pricing challenges. The agreement also states both sides will use existing legislative and diplomatic tools to review, deter and potentially block critical minerals and rare earths asset sales on national security grounds. U.S. and U.K. ministers are expected to convene within the next six months to take the partnership forward. The Trump administration, which has announced similar agreements with Mexico, the European Union and Japan, ultimately wants to establish a critical minerals trading bloc, first floated on Wednesday by Vice President JD Vance to 54 countries. Speaking to reporters in London on Thursday, U.K. Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said the trading bloc with Washington “makes perfect sense.” “On critical minerals, the alliances make perfect sense, as long as they take into account the specific peculiarities of domestic markets,” Kyle said.  “In all of the alliances, all of us have different needs, and all of us are producing different minerals, so we have to make sure that it’s completely cooperative, but we should be approaching it with a ‘how do you make it work?’ — rather than how to avoid it,” he added.

ABOARD THE PRIME MINISTER’S PLANE TO BEIJING — Keir Starmer rejected his Canadian counterpart’s call for mid-sized countries to band together in the face of unpredictable global powers — and insisted his “common sense” British approach will do just fine. The British prime minister arrives in China Wednesday for a trip aimed at rebooting the U.K.’s relationship with the Asian superpower. He’s the latest Western leader to make the visit — which will include a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping — after trips by Carney and France’s Emmanuel Macron. Carney used a searing speech at the World Economic Forum last week to warn of the “rupture” caused by “great powers” acting in their own self-interest. While he did not namecheck Donald Trump’s administration, the speech riled the U.S. president, who insisted: “Canada lives because of the United States.” The Canadian PM had called for middle powers to work together to “build something bigger, better, stronger, more just.” Starmer was pressed on those remarks on board his flight to China Tuesday. Asked whether he agreed that the old global order is dead — and whether smaller powers need to team up to push back at the U.S. and China, Starmer defended his own policy of trying to build bridges with Trump, Xi and the European Union all at once. “I’m a pragmatist, a British pragmatist applying common sense, and therefore I’m pleased that we have a good relationship with the U.S. on defense, security, intelligence and on trade and prosperity,” he says. “It’s very important that we maintain that good relationship.” He added: “Equally, we are moving forward with a better relationship with the EU. We had a very good summit last year with 10 strands of agreement. “We’ll have another summit this year with the EU, which I hope will be iterative, as well as following through on what we’ve already agreed. “And I’ve consistently said I’m not choosing between the U.S. and Europe. I’m really glad that the UK has got good relations with both.” Starmer’s government — which faces pressure from opposition parties back home as it re-engages with China — has stressed that it wants to cooperate, compete with and challenge Beijing when necessary, as it bids to build economic ties to aid the sputtering U.K. economy. “Obviously, China is the second biggest economy in the world, one of our biggest trading partners,” the British PM — who is flying with an entourage of British CEOs and business reps — said Tuesday. “And under the last government, we veered from the golden age to the ice age. And what I want to do is follow through on the approach I’ve set out a number of times now … which is a comprehensive and consistent approach to China. “I do think there are opportunities, but obviously we will never compromise national security in taking those opportunities.”

LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade negotiators are pushing for the U.K. to adopt American standards in a move that would derail Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, two people familiar with the talks have told POLITICO. The U.S. is also pushing hard for the recognition of American accreditation bodies in the U.K., three other people with knowledge of the demands confirmed. The joint moves would have knock-on effects for safety-critical sectors like food, forensics, manufacturing and NHS testing, experts fear. “It’s this invisible infrastructure that no one really knows about but which keeps everyone safe — and that’s now under threat,” a person briefed on the talks told POLITICO. They, like others cited in this piece, were granted anonymity to speak freely. American negotiators have turned up the heat in trade talks with the recent suspension of the Technology Prosperity Deal, amid frustration over the pace of wider negotiations. U.K. negotiating asks on steel and Scotch whisky tariffs have also gone unanswered. Trump threatened a fresh wedge in the relationship over the weekend, vowing to impose tariffs on Britain and other European allies pushing back at his desire for the United States to own Greenland. The standards push comes as the Trump administration hollows out American watchdogs, with sweeping cuts to the Food and Drug Administration and the dismantling of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. While food standards remain a red line for the U.K. government, some figures familiar with the talks fear the U.K. could cave in on other U.S. demands. “My concern is that these red lines that have been red lines from the outset and for years are under increasing threat of being breached,” the person cited above said.   British negotiators have so far refused to back down, but U.S. negotiators “keep circling back” on these issues, another person who was briefed on the talks by both governments said. Peter Holmes, an expert on standards from the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, warned that accepting U.S. demands could lead to a “race to the bottom” with the U.K. regarded as a “wild west market” internationally. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “Our historic agreement with the U.S. has already delivered for the pharma, aerospace and auto sectors, while our deal with the EU will see the removal of trade barriers including SPS, saving hundreds of millions on U.K. exports.” “We have and always will be clear that we will uphold our high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals, and negotiations will continue with both the EU and U.S. on strengthening our trading relationship,” the spokesperson added. The U.K. says it will uphold its high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals. | Geography Photos/Universal Images Group via Getty Images A spokesperson for the United States Trade Representative said the claims came from “anonymous and irrelevant sources” with “no insight into the trade discussions between the U.S. and U.K.”  The spokesperson did not contest any specific aspects of this report. They added that the two nations had successfully implemented “numerous aspects of the U.S.-U.K. EPD,” including “mutually expanding access of U.S. and U.K. beef in each other’s markets.”  “The U.S. and U.K. continue to work together constructively on finalizing remaining aspects of the EPD, including the U.K. commitment to ‘improve market access for agricultural products’ from the United States,” the spokesperson said. IMPACT ON BREXIT RESET TALKS Giving in to the U.S. demands would upset Britain’s ability to trade more closely with the EU as part of ongoing Brexit “reset” negotiations with the bloc that include alignment on food standards and carbon emissions in manufacturing. The U.K. government has “very clear red lines around all of this because they are going to do certain things with the EU,” the second person quoted above explained. “You would have thought these matters had already been well ventilated and resolved,” the person added, explaining that in talks the U.S. side “keep saying ‘why can’t you do more food standards? Why aren’t you coming closer on our side of it? Are you really sure what you’re doing with the EU is the right thing to do?’” Negotiations with the U.S. are “pretty much [in] stasis at the moment,” the same person continued. As London’s Brexit reset talks with the EU progress this year, “the possibility to have the kinds of changes that the U.S. is putting forward become much diminished when those agreements with the EU start to get over the line.” RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITATION BODIES Multiple people briefed on the trade talks claim the U.S. proposals go beyond the terms of the original U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal agreed last May between U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer.  In addition to headline commitments to cut tariffs on cars, steel and pharmaceuticals, the wide-ranging deal included a promise to address “non-tariff barriers,” including a pledge to treat conformity assessment bodies — such as testing labs and certification groups from the other nation — in a way that is “no less favorable” than the treatment of its own.  This is an increasingly common commitment in U.K. trade deals and typically means that accreditation bodies would have the power to accredit a whole range of certification and testing providers from the other country. However, U.S. negotiators are now pushing for the recognition of disparate American accreditation bodies, which would give them the authority to approve certification, testing and verification organizations in the U.K., three people briefed on the talks confirmed. Accepting this demand would mean that the U.K.’s national accreditation body, UKAS, would no longer meet the basic requirements of membership in the European Co-operation for Accreditation, under which national accreditation bodies recognize each other’s accreditations.  U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the EU. | Leon Neal/Getty Images This would put the proposed U.K.-EU agrifood deal and plans to link U.K. and EU Emissions Trading Schemes “at massive risk,” should those deals require the EU to recognize U.K. emissions verification bodies and food control laboratories, the first person cited above explained. An industry figure familiar with the ETS linkage talks said an acceptance of the changes would amount to a “watering down” of the entire carbon pricing system, adding that “every single company falling under UK ETS” would be “absolutely furious.” It could also jeopardize any future alignment with the EU in other areas such as manufactured goods, a second industry figure briefed on the negotiations said.  The U.K. government has indicated a willingness to go even further in its relationship with the EU, with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the single market.  Beyond plans outlined in the Common Understanding last May, “there are other areas where we should consider if it’s in our interests to … align with the single market,” he told the BBC in a recent interview. “Now that needs to be considered on an issue-by-issue, sector-by-sector basis, but we’ve already done it with food and agriculture, and that will be implemented this year.” ‘RACE TO THE BOTTOM’ The U.S. operates a decentralized standards system in which accreditation is carried out by a competitive network of organizations, most of which are commercial. This is in direct contrast to the U.K.’s current model of accreditation, whereby a single, non-profit accreditation body, UKAS, oversees certification and product testing in the public interest. The UK Trade Policy Observatory’s Peter Holmes warned that adopting the U.S. system could lead to a “race to the bottom”, with UKAS pitted against American accreditation bodies. “They might have to cut corners and give up their legally-required public service obligations,” he said.  Accepting U.S. accreditation bodies would make the U.K. a “wild west market where you can’t trust anything that’s on sale in the U.K.,” he added. The U.K. government has repeatedly rejected the possibility of changes to British standards, including the possibility of accepting American chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef.  “We will not compromise on food standards,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant said in an interview with CNBC this month. “That is the beginning and end of everything I have to say on that subject. Food standards are really important. There is no compromise for us to strike there.”

LONDON — Chancellor Rachel Reeves has insisted that the government’s new trade deals will boost growth, after the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) snubbed a request to count them in its growth forecast. In its pre-budget forecast on Wednesday, the OBR acknowledged that new trade deals “have the potential to increase U.K. trade and GDP,” including the government’s Brexit “reset” deal with the EU and its free trade agreement with India. But the budget watchdog indicated that neither of the deals had met the criteria to be included in its forecast. As elements of the U.K.-EU reset deal were still under negotiation, the OBR said there was “not sufficient detail to assess their potential fiscal and economic impacts.” In the case of the India deal, the OBR said it could be seen to increase GDP by 0.13 percent, in line with the government’s impact assessment, but only once ratified. When it came to the U.S. trade pact — which saw the U.K. hit with 10 percent baseline tariffs on most goods — the OBR noted that some “details of the future trading arrangement are yet to be negotiated and confirmed.” The assessments came as a disappointment for Reeves, who had pinned her hopes on trade as a booster for growth. In an interview with the BBC on Thursday, the chancellor said she was “confident that the growth policies that we’re pursuing will grow our economy,” pointing to trade deals with the EU, India and U.S., as well as planning and pensions reforms. “Why do I say that?” Reeves added. “Because the OBR said in the spring our economy would grow by 1 percent this year. They revised it up yesterday to 1.5 percent. The IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England, also revised up their growth forecasts for this year.” “So I’ve defied the forecast this year, and I’m determined to defy them next year and the year after, because it is absolutely the case that the best way to fund our public services and keep taxes down is to grow the economy.” GLOBAL HEADWINDS While the U.K.-EU reset deal and India deal are not included in the OBR’s current forecast, it does offers some hope for the future. “The result of the UK-EU strategic partnership and the Youth Mobility Scheme are still being negotiated and therefore there is not sufficient detail to assess their potential fiscal and economic impacts,” it said. “We will consider whether any such impacts should be included in the forecast once the full details of the agreements have been finalised, published and agreed by both the EU and UK. This is the standard approach we have taken to assessing the fiscal and economic impacts of trade deals and other international agreements.” The assessments came as a disappointment for Reeves, who had pinned her hopes on trade as a booster for growth. | Neil Hall/EPA Once the U.K.-India free trade agreement is ratified by both countries, the OBR said it could increase real GDP by amounts rising to 0.13 percent by 2040, in line with the government’s impact assessment. But Reeves has less reasons to be cheerful about the state of trade overall, with global trade growth expected to slow from 3.7 percent in 2024 to 2.3 percent in 2026 in line with the IMF’s forecast. Speaking at a Resolution Foundation event on Thursday, OBR chair Richard Hughes said tariffs and global trade restrictions had played a part in their decision to downgrade productivity. “There are some new global headwinds in the global economy since our forecast in March — U.S. tariffs going up and also just wider global trade restrictions being put in place,” Hughes warned. “Trade wars are very bad things for everybody, especially an open economy like the U.K., which relies a lot on trade as a driver for growth so and for the first time that I’ve seen in my career, the IMF is actually forecasting over the next five years trade falling as a share of GDP.”

MUMBAI, India — Donald Trump’s tariffs are accelerating Britain’s dash to strengthen ties with India — even if that means putting trade before morals. Prime Minister Keir Starmer spent this week leading the U.K.’s largest-ever trade delegation to India, flying with 125 business chiefs to Mumbai to sign investment-driving agreements. It marked an all-singing, all-dancing bid to boost Britain’s stagnant economy — and help both countries diversify away from the United States. Dealing with New Delhi, however, isn’t straightforward. Two major diplomatic differences loomed in the background of the mutual charm offensive between the former British colony and its one-time imperial ruler.  First, and perhaps most significant, is India’s continued funding of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by buying of millions of barrels of oil from Moscow. Narendra Modi displayed his fondness for Vladimir Putin just as Starmer’s mission was preparing for lift off — writing a happy birthday message to his “friend,” and sending his best wishes for the Russian president’s “good health and long life.” That’s not a message Britain — a staunch supporter of Kyiv — would endorse. But Starmer, the progressive leader of the center-left Labour Party, displayed only reticence when it came to public grilling on these hot-button topics — with the quest for new avenues of trade getting top billing in the realpolitik era of Trump 2.0. As one high-ranking Downing Street official put it: “You don’t get to choose who your world leaders are.” They were, like others cited in this piece, granted anonymity to speak candidly to POLITICO during the delegation to Mumbai. STRINGING BRITAIN ALONG India spent years stringing London along over a free trade deal coveted by a post-Brexit Britain. First came Boris Johnson. Britain’s then-prime minister bullishly declared on a visit to India in April 2022 that the deal would be signed by the Indian festival of Diwali. It wasn’t. Later came Rishi Sunak, particularly revered in India for becoming the first prime minister of Indian descent to lead the former colonial power. Despite that, he never held much hope for striking a deal with the notoriously-difficult negotiators, and was booted out of office without clinching an agreement. Then came Trump’s return. When the U.S. president swiftly made good on his threats to hit nations, both friend and foe, with tariffs, it sent world powers scrambling for alternative markets. Just five months after Trump’s second inauguration, Modi dashed to Britain to ink a free trade agreement that the British government argued would mark a multi-billion pound export boost for the U.K. Trump has only highlighted India’s need for new trading partners with his imposition of steep tariffs on New Delhi over Modi’s refusal to stop buying oil from Moscow. Journalists traveling with Starmer to India pressed the British PM on whether he’d tell Modi to divest. He dodged the question.  India spent years stringing London along over a free trade deal coveted by a post-Brexit Britain. | Ashish Vaishnav/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images At a press conference after spending the day with his Indian counterpart, Starmer answered two questions on the subject in only the most opaque terms. When the cameras stopped rolling, aides clarified that the pair had indeed discussed Russian oil. It’s not the first time Starmer has played the global pragmatist, regardless of the moral matters at stake. Starmer held a landmark meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping last year, and twice declined to condemn the jailing of dozens of pro-democracy figures in another former British colony, Hong Kong, under authoritarian laws imposed by Beijing. The U.K. “mustn’t lose … the opportunity for our economy,” Starmer said, opting not to publicly rebuke Beijing over what is an affront to many in Britain. ‘HARD TO TAKE’ U.K. trade policy expert David Henig noted that trading relations between the U.K. and India had gotten off to a far better start for Starmer than his predecessors. But, he said, there’s “a long way to go” to ensure this leads to better government and business relations because of the challenging rules and politics of the country. “India’s relations with Putin are part of this picture and speak to a bigger issue — that it probably will never be an entirely reliable partner,” added the director at the European Centre for International Political Economy. For one, the Hindu nationalist is accused of overseeing democratic backsliding in India. Indeed, the second point of U.K. contention with New Delhi is the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British Sikh activist who has been jailed for eight years in India without a full trial. A United Nations panel described his detention as arbitrary as far back as May 2022. His family and supporters were pushing Starmer to take action on his trip. Starmer’s response to a question on whether he raised Johal’s ordeal was muted, with no public rebuke over the case. “Yes, we did raise proportionate cases,” he said. “We always raise them when we have the opportunity to do so.” Johal’s campaigning brother Gurpreet was disappointed that Starmer “didn’t even mention his name.” He added: “That is hard to take.” GRAND WELCOME Modi tried to court Trump but the pair have reportedly had a spectacular falling out in recent months. That may in part explain why Starmer’s welcome to India was so grand. Thousands of flags lined the streets of Mumbai with his and Modi’s face on, welcoming the British leader to the city. That will have been quite the shock for the prime minister who, if he tried to pull off a similar stunt back in Britain, would risk riots, or at least large-scale vandalism.   “My understanding is PM Modi said to the Maharishi government, please make sure that the prime minister understands how welcome he is in India,” said a second British official. “It is absolutely extraordinary,” they added. “I’m used to quite a level of welcome in Delhi for foreign leaders — I’ve never seen anything like this.” There were announcements from British universities, a defense deal — and a Bollywood studio committed to producing three new films in Britain, potentially representing thousands more jobs. British film industry leaders acknowledged the need to diversify partnerships away from Hollywood has only been heightened by Trump’s threat to impose 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made films. While in Mumbai, Starmer stayed in a palatial hotel overlooking the Gateway of India, built under the British Raj to commemorate the arrival of King George. After India won its independence struggle locals took to calling it the “Getaway from India,” because the last British troops fled from here in 1948.  Now it could symbolize quite the opposite — and much like under the British Empire, trade could end trumping most other values.

LONDON — British and American officials have restarted talks on steel tariffs in the run-up to U.S. President Donald Trump’s state visit next week. After months of radio silence over the summer, negotiations to implement new quotas lowering the duties on steel and aluminum exports to the U.S. began again earlier this month, two people close to the talks told POLITICO. It comes as Donald Trump prepares to travel to the U.K. for a historic second state visit, with British officials hoping to use the occasion to push for a breakthrough on tariffs as well as a long-coveted tech partnership. Britain’s steel and aluminum makers have faced 25 percent tariffs at the U.S. border since March. While U.K. firms dodged Trump’s doubling of those duties in the spring, negotiations to lower tariffs further — as promised in May’s trade pact — have been slow-moving. The talks are also politically sensitive for Britain’s governing Labour Party, which is facing pressure from the insurgent Reform UK party in the country’s industrial heartlands. “We know they’ve been talking about steel again and looking at the U.K.’s proposal on quotas,” said one of the people familiar with the negotiations. Like others quoted in this report, they were granted anonymity to speak freely about ongoing talks. Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images U.K. trade officials “really want to get something over the line,” said the second person familiar with the talks, noting that the discussions were “quite advanced before the pause over the summer began.” ‘RAPID DISCUSSIONS’ During a split-screen Oval Office phone call in May, Trump and Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced an agreement promising “rapid discussions” to secure a quota for U.K. exports of the metals. The deal would allow a certain amount of steel, aluminum and their derivative products to pass from the U.K. into the U.S. at tariff rates significantly lower than 25 percent. When Trump visited Scotland in July, he said a reduction in his tariffs on U.K. steel and aluminum would come “pretty soon.” But five months after the May deal was signed, the U.K. is still lobbying U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to get the White House to put those quotas in place. “The longer this goes on, the more uncertain it is, the more damaging it is, the less likely we are going to get growth, and the more threat there is to the jobs that are associated,” said Chris Southworth, head of the International Chamber of Commerce UK. There is “a great opportunity” to conclude the steel talks on the fringes of the state visit, Southworth added. “We need a solution quickly.” MELT AND POUR RULES The U.S. has strict rules on imports of steel and aluminum, meaning the metals must be melted and poured in their country of origin to qualify for tariff relief. But the requirements have been a tall order for Britain’s steel sector after its largest exporter to the U.S. — Tata Steel UK’s Port Talbot steel mill — shut last September. The firm is switching to greener arc furnaces which aren’t expected to start operating until 2027. In the meantime, the firm has been importing steel from its plants in India and the Netherlands. “I don’t think these are unmanageable issues,” said a person briefed by the White House. “If the U.K. can figure out how to agree to the ring-fencing demands of the U.S., then I think it should be pretty easy.” Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images One solution, they said, “could be they just have a lower … quota to protect against the Indian steel coming through, and then have an agreement to raise it automatically once [Tata’s Port Talbot site] comes back online.” Trump’s state visit is “exactly the kind of opportunity to make an announcement in front of the TV cameras,” the first person quoted above said. “If it’s not now, I worry about when it will ever happen.” “We are committed to going further to give industry the security they need,” said a U.K. government spokesperson. “We will continue to work with the US to get this deal implemented as soon as possible and in industry’s best interests.”

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.”