
UK officials label trade documents ‘secret' to shield from US eyes amid Trump tariff war
UK officials are tightening security when handling sensitive trade documents to prevent them from falling into US hands amid Donald Trump's tariff war, the Guardian can reveal.
In an indication of the strains on the 'special relationship', British civil servants have changed document-handling guidance, adding higher classifications to some trade negotiation documents in order to better shield them from American eyes, sources told the Guardian.
The White House has upended global financial markets and torn up key relationships, with unpredictable and rapidly changing taxes on trading partners including China, the EU and the UK.
Officials were told that the change in protocols was specifically related to tensions over important issues on trade and foreign policy between Washington and London, sources said.
Keir Starmer has prioritised striking a trade deal with Washington, opting not to retaliate over Trump's decision to impose 10% tariffs on goods exported to the US, and 25% tariffs on UK car and steel exports, instead offering concessions on areas including digital taxes and agriculture.
JD Vance said on Tuesday he believed a mutually beneficial US-UK trade deal was within reach. The US vice-president said officials were 'certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer's government' on a trade deal, adding that it was an 'important relationship'.
'There's a real cultural affinity,' Vance said. 'And, of course, fundamentally, America is an anglo country. I think there's a good chance that, yes, we'll come to a great agreement that's in the best interest of both countries.'
However, behind the scenes concern is growing over the vulnerability of UK industries and companies to Trump's 'America first' agenda.
Before Trump's inauguration, UK trade documents related to US talks were generally marked 'Official – sensitive (UK eyes only)', according to examples seen by the Guardian, and officials were allowed to share these on internal email chains. This classification stood while British officials attempted to negotiate with Joe Biden's administration, even after a full-blown trade deal was ruled out by the White House.
Now, a far greater proportion of documents and correspondence detailing the negotiating positions being discussed by officials from No 10, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade come with additional handling instructions to avoid US interception, with some classified as 'secret' and 'top secret', sources said. These classifications also carry different guidance on how documents may be shared digitally, in order to avoid interception.
Companies with commercial interests in the UK have also been told to take additional precautions in how they share information with the trade department and No 10, senior business sources said. These include large pharmaceutical companies with operations in the UK and EU.
A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said: 'The US is an indispensable ally and negotiations on an economic prosperity deal that strengthens our existing trading relationship continue.'
Wider questions have been asked about whether the special relationship between the UK and US can withstand increasingly divergent policies on Russian hostility, as well as deep criticisms of Nato and defence collaboration. On trade, pressures are mounting in sensitive areas such as car manufacturing and pharmaceuticals.
Other reports suggest the European Commission has also changed its perspective on the risks of sensitive or secret information being intercepted by the US. Commission employees have been issued with burner phones if they are visiting the US, the Financial Times has reported.
So close has the UK and US position been on defence and security in recent years that secure government material is sometimes marked 'UK/US only', or given a 'Five Eyes' marking, in reference to the intelligence-sharing collective made up of the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. So far, the Guardian has only established a change in document-handling related to trade discussions.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Trump's plan to reboot domestic industry, including in automotive and pharmaceutical manufacturing, has caused consternation among foreign governments keen to protect domestic industries and jobs while trying to strike trade deals to protect against heavy tariffs.
Trump has sought to defend his decision to put vast tariffs in place, saying there would be a 'transition cost' from his policies.
The US president also said he would 'love' to make a deal with China and that, in his view, he and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, would 'end up working out something that's very good for both countries'.
In a move regarded by some observers as an attempt to soothe market reactions, including a rise in US government borrowing costs, Trump said last week that he would delay further tariffs for 90 days. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said the EU would also delay its response to US tariffs.
Until July, the EU will face a 10% duty on exports to the US, rather than the 20% 'reciprocal tariff' rate that was in force for a matter of hours, until Trump's reversal last Wednesday. US duties of 25% tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars are still in place, however.
Despite suggestions that Trump may be chastened by the markets' volatile response to his trade policies, the president's incremental steps have increased duties on Chinese imports to 145%. China responded on Friday by announcing it would increase tariffs on US goods to 125%. The announcement from the Chinese commerce ministry also suggested that it would not pursue higher tariffs in any further retaliatory steps against the US, adding that 'at the current tariff level, there is no market acceptance for US goods exported to China'.
'If the US continues to impose tariffs on Chinese goods exported to the US, China will ignore it,' it said, flagging that there were other countermeasures to come. Xi, meanwhile, urged the EU to resist Trump's 'bullying'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
31 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts new questions, concerns about politicization of military
WASHINGTON — Defense Department officials say troops who cheered and jeered Tuesday at President Donald Trump's political statements at a rally at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, did not violate military regulations, but a former military legal officer said they did just that. During the speech, uniformed soldiers yelled in support of Trump's political statements and booed former President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don't think so,' Trump said to boos about Biden. Trump made other comments about Newsom and about Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where protests against the administration's crackdown on immigrants have been taking place and where Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and active-duty Marines deployed in response. Other Trump comments about the 'fake news media,' transgender people, protesters in California and flag-burning also drew boos from the uniformed military members in attendance. Trump is known for his rallies at which he goes after and pokes fun at political enemies and other issues, but typically he makes those remarks at political events, not on U.S. military bases. Such overt political activity on a base is the prerogative of the commander in chief. But military leaders would typically frown upon troops' reacting the way they did as inconsistent with military good order and discipline, and, according to one expert, it is a violation of military regulations found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. Presidents of both parties often use troops as political props and put them and their commanders in difficult positions by doing so, but Trump's speech took that to a new level, said Geoffrey DeWeese, a retired judge advocate general who is now an attorney with Mark S. Zaid PC. (Zaid has represented whistleblowers on both sides of the aisle, including one who filed a complaint about Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019 that led to Trump's impeachment, and he was one of the people whose security clearances Trump revoked this year.) 'It's a sad tradition to use the military as a backdrop for political purposes,' DeWeese said. 'To actively attack another president or a sitting governor and incite the crowd to boo, that's a step in a dangerous direction, that really says we want to politicize the military, that sends a bad message.' DeWeese said there were likely to have been violations of the UCMJ. 'I would be cringing if I was a senior officer and it happened under my watch,' he said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly that he wants to take politics out of the military by removing diversity, equity and inclusion programs and banning service by transgender service members. Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who worked at the State Department and the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush and at the Pentagon under former President George H.W. Bush, said in an email that commanders at Fort Bragg should have done a better job preparing troops there. 'It's terrible,' she wrote. 'It's predictably bad behavior by the President to try and score political points in a military setting, and it's a command failure by leaders at Ft Bragg not to prepare soldiers for that bad behavior and counsel them not to participate.' The Pentagon said in a statement that there had been no violation of the UCMJ and suggested the media was against policies that Trump has championed. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also alleged in a statement that the media 'cheered on the Biden administration' and its policies regarding the Defense Department 'when they forced drag queen performances on military bases, promoted service members on the basis of race and sex in violation of federal law, and fired troops who refused an experimental vaccine.' 'Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,' Parnell said. 'Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.' On Wednesday, Army officials at Fort Bragg addressed the sale of some MAGA merchandise at the event, which was planned in cooperation with a nonpartisan organization, American 250. 'The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,' Col. Mary Ricks, a spokeswoman for the Army's 18th Airborne Corps at Bragg, said in a statement. 'The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents. The vendor's presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar circumstances in the future.' The Army's own new field manual, published recently, says the apolitical nature of being a U.S. soldier is what contributes to the public trust. The Army 'as an institution must be nonpartisan and appear so, too,' says the new field manual, 'The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms.' 'Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group. Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.' U.S. troops can participate in political functions, just not while on duty or in uniform, the book says. 'As a private citizen you are encouraged to participate in our democratic process, but as a soldier you must be mindful of how your actions may affect the reputation and perceived trustworthiness of our Army as an institution,' it says.


BBC News
32 minutes ago
- BBC News
The World Tonight Will voters feel better off from Chancellor's spending plans?
What would you do with a trillion pounds of public money over the next four years? The Chancellor says "renewing Britain" is at the heart of her plans. So when will voters start to feel better off? We ask a Treasury Minister. Also on the programme: After the US Ambassador to Israel told us that Muslim countries should give up their land to create a Palestinian state - we get reaction from a senior Palestinian official. And one of the most influential figures in the history of pop music, Brian Wilson - the creative genius behind the Beach Boys - has died. The veteran DJ Bob Harris - who knew him for more than five decades - pays tribute.


BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
Aukus: US to review submarine pact as part of 'America First' agenda
The US has launched a review of its multi-billion dollar submarine deal with the UK and Australia, saying the security pact must fit its "America First" the trilateral pact, widely seen as a response to the growing power of China, Australia is to get its first nuclear-powered subs from the US, before the allies create a new fleet by sharing cutting-edge Australia and the UK - which did its own review last year - have sought to play down news of the US probe, saying it is natural for a new administration to move comes as Australia faces pressure from the White House to lift its military spending, from 2% to 3.5% of GDP, a push so far resisted by Canberra. The agreement - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) - was signed in 2021, when all three countries involved had different leaders."The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda," a US defence official told the BBC."As [US Defense] Secretary [Pete] Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defense, and that the defense industrial base is meeting our needs."The review will be headed up Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus, in a speech last year questioning why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it".Defence Minister Richard Marles, speaking to local Australian media on Thursday morning local time, said he was optimistic the deal would continue. "I'm very confident this is going to happen," he told ABC Radio Melbourne."You just need to look at the map to understand that Australia absolutely needs to have a long-range submarine capability."Some in Australia have been lobbying for the country to develop a more independent defence strategy, but Marles said it was important to "stick to a plan" - a reference to the previous government's controversial cancellation of a submarine deal with France in favour of Australian government spokesperson told the BBC it was "natural" that the new administration would "examine" the agreement, adding the UK had also recently finished a review of the security pact between the long-standing allies. There is "clear and consistent" support for the deal across the "full political spectrum" in the US, they said, adding Australia looked forward to "continuing our close cooperation with the Trump Administration on this historic project".A UK defence spokesperson told the BBC it was "understandable" for a new administration to look at the deal, "just as the UK did last year". Aukus is a "landmark security and defence partnership with two of our closest allies", the spokesperson said, and "one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades, supporting peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic".