UK steel industry welcomes Donald Trump decision not to impose 50% tariffs but ‘uncertainty remains'
UK steel industry welcomes Donald Trump decision not to impose 50% tariffs but 'uncertainty remains'
Donald Trump has decided to 'provide different treatment' to the UK with a trade deal still to be finalised
Levies will remain at 25% for imports of steel from the UK into America
(Image: Getty Images )
The steel Industry has welcomed Donald Trump's decision to keep tariffs at 25% on British steel and aluminium for now, but warned that "uncertainty remains" over the final tax rate.
The US president has decided to "provide different treatment" to the UK after a deal that was struck between Washington and London last month, despite him doubling tariffs on imports from elsewhere to 50%.
Levies will remain at 25% for imports of steel from the UK into America, however Britain could still be subject to the higher 50% rate from July, or the quotas in the agreement could come into force, effectively eradicating the tax.
The 50% tariff rate for imports of steel and aluminium from other nations came into force at 12.01am Washington DC time on Wednesday, shortly after 5am in the UK. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here
The Government said on Tuesday night they were "pleased" that the industry "will not be subject to these additional tariffs".
Gareth Stace, the director general of UK Steel, said Mr Trump's decision was a "welcome pause".
Article continues below
He added: "Continued 25% tariffs will benefit shipments already on the water that we were concerned would fall under a tax hike.
"However, uncertainty remains over timings and final tariff rates, and now US customers will be dubious over whether they should even risk making UK orders. The US and UK must urgently turn the May deal into reality to remove the tariffs completely."
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's trade deal with the US, struck last month, included relief on the steel and aluminium tariffs, but it has not yet come into force.
Officials have been working to try to finalise the details of the agreement.
According to the text of the order, published by a White House X account on Tuesday, Mr Trump has "further determined that it is necessary and appropriate to allow for the implementation of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal of May 8, 2025 (EPD), and to accordingly provide different treatment, as described below, for imports of steel and aluminium articles, and their derivatives, from the United Kingdom".
The order later says that rates will for now stay at 25% and adds: "On or after July 9, 2025, the Secretary may adjust the applicable rates of duty and construct import quotas for steel and aluminium consistent with the terms of the EPD, or he may increase the applicable rates of duty to 50 percent if he determines that the United Kingdom has not complied with relevant aspects of the EPD".
The Government has pledged to keep working with the US to get the agreement up and running, and the 25% tariff rate "removed".
A spokesperson said: "The UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US earlier this month and we remain committed to protecting British business and jobs across key sectors, including steel as part of our Plan for Change.
"We're pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs. We will continue to work with the US to implement our agreement, which will see the 25% US tariffs on steel removed."
The Conservatives have said that Labour's "botched negotiations have left businesses in limbo".
Shadow business and trade secretary Andrew Griffith said: "Keir Starmer stood in front of the nation and insisted to the British public that his Labour government had achieved a trade deal with the US – and now one month later our industries face a fresh tariffs blow.
"So once again it seems that Keir Starmer's promise was just like the rest: hollow and broken. Labour's botched negotiations have left businesses in limbo and this country simply cannot afford their continuing failure."
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds met White House trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday.
According to the Department for Business and Trade, Mr Reynolds and Mr Greer discussed a desire to implement the deal struck between London and Washington as soon as possible, and committed to working closely to make it happen.
The general terms for the agreement between the UK and US were published in May when the deal was announced, and outline the intended plans.
Article continues below
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked if there was a text of the full deal ready to be released, and told reporters on Tuesday: "There 's most definitely text with this deal, there is language that this side has seen.
"You'll have to ask the UK Parliament why they haven't seen it from their own Government, I obviously can't answer that question."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
24 minutes ago
- Sky News
Diplomatic win for UK hosting US-China trade talks
Sky News understands that the Trump administration approached the UK government to ask if it would host round two of the US-China trade talks. This is a useful 'diplo-win' for the UK. The first round was held in Geneva last month. News of that happening came as a surprise. The Chinese and the Americans were in the midst of a Trump-instigated trade war. President Trump was en route to Saudi Arabia and suddenly we got word of talks in Switzerland. They went surprisingly well. US treasury secretary Scott Bessent and his Chinese counterpart He Lifeng, met face-to-face and agreed to suspend most tariffs for 90 days. But two weeks later, the Trump administration accused Beijing of breaking the agreements reached in Geneva. Beijing threw the blame back at Washington. On Wednesday, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping spoke by phone. The Chinese claimed this call was at the Americans' request. Either way, the consequence was that the talks were back on track. "I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, trade deal," President Trump said this week. From that call came the impetus for a second round of talks. A venue was needed. In stepped the UK at short notice. Beyond being geographically convenient, UK government sources suggest that Britain is geopolitically in the right place right now to act as this bridge and facilitator. The UK-China relationship is in the process of a "reset". Other locations, like Brussels or other EU capitals, would have been less workable. Crucially too, for the UK, this is also potentially advantageous as it seeks to get its own UK-US trade agreement, to eliminate or massively reduce tariffs, over the line. 5:08 Talks on reaching the "implementation phase" have been near-continuous since the announcement last month, but having the American principals in London is a plus. Sideline talks are possible, but even the presence of the US team in the UK is helpful. For all the chaos that President Trump is causing with his tariffs, he has instigated face-to-face conversations as he seeks resets. Key players are sitting down around tables - yes, to untangle the trade knots which Trump tied, but this whole episode has pulled foes together around the same table; it has forced relationships and maybe mutual understanding. That's useful. And for this next round, between superpowers, the UK is the host. Also useful.
South Wales Argus
30 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
LTA announces commitment to equal prize money by 2029
For the first time this year, all the LTA's grass court events will feature both men and women's tennis as part of a commitment to give British fans the opportunity to watch the best players, men and women, on home soil and bring women's tennis to a larger audience. The HSBC Championship at Queen's Club will stage a women's WTA 500 and a men's ATP 500 event, whilst the Lexus Eastbourne Open will stage a women's WTA 250 and a men's ATP 250, both tour events of the same level. This year, the events will be providing not just the same experience for fans and players, but a move to true equal prize money over time for the players involved. There are currently material differences between the prize money levels on the women's WTA and men's ATP tours. Whilst the minimum prize money levels are set by the tours themselves, the LTA, with the full support of the WTA, has chosen to significantly uplift the WTA prize money at Queen's and Eastbourne in 2025 and will fully close the gap between WTA and ATP prize money at these events no later than 2029. This year the WTA 500 prize money at the HSBC Championships will rise to a record $1.415m. The HSBC Championships will be the highest paying WTA 500 event, of its draw size, in the world this year. The WTA 250 prize money at the Lexus Eastbourne International will rise to $389,000 – making this the highest paying WTA 250 event anywhere on the tour. Scott Lloyd, LTA Chief Executive said: 'We are making significant increases this year to the women's prize money at Queens and Eastbourne and want to achieve equal prize money as soon as possible. 'The LTA is committed to growing women's tennis, both at professional and grass-roots level and this move is an important part of that commitment. This year fans will be able to enjoy both men's and women's tennis on the biggest stages that we can offer and we want to develop the tournaments so that the women's events deliver a path to profitability and greater visibility for the sport. 'We aspire to play a leading part in the growth and development of women's tennis globally, and we'll continue to explore new ways in which we can do this.' Portia Archer, WTA CEO said: 'We fully support the LTA's initiatives to increase the women's prize pot at its events, with a goal of achieving parity in the longer term. WTA athletes deliver consistently engaging and powerful games on court to entertain courtside fans and worldwide audiences. 'This move sends a powerful message that the women's game is valued and will inspire new generations of girls picking up racquets to know their endeavours will be recognised.'
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
