
Reeves: Tariff-free deal with US still possible and Trump can ‘absolutely' be trusted
Rachel Reeves told ITV News Business and Economics Editor Joel Hills she understood some of the US' concerns and said a trade war is in "no one's interest"
The European Union and Canada are not taking tariffs lying down.
Both have responded to the trade war that US President Trump initiated by announcing tariffs on imports from the US.
The UK strategy has been quieter, more cooperative and peaceable.
The 'softly, softly' approach hasn't yet secured the UK better treatment from the Trump administration, but the chancellor seems to believe it is working.
'It's clear the United States do want to secure an economic agreement with the United Kingdom and we want to do likewise,' Rachel Reeves has told ITV News in an interview in Washington, although she wouldn't say how soon a deal could be reached.
Trump has set a baseline tax of 10% on imports from all countries, but the chancellor seems to believe that the US can be persuaded to lift all the tariffs that have been imposed on the UK since February.
'Discussions are ongoing, they're going well,' Reeves insisted.
The chancellor is scheduled to meet the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant while she is in Washington for the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) spring meeting.
On Wednesday, and not for the first time, Bessant was sounding more amenable and conciliatory than the president.
'America First does not mean America Alone,' he said in a speech at the Institute of International Finance.
'To the contrary, it is a call for deeper collaboration and mutual respect among trade partners."
If the government cannot secure a UK carve-out on tariffs, will it retaliate with tariffs of its own?
It's not obvious how the UK could do this without pushing up prices for consumers, and the situation is further complicated by the fact that we are currently dependent on the US for military equipment and share intelligence.
Speaking to the chancellor, you get the sense that retaliation is plan Z. It's not even a veiled threat.
'I don't think escalation is the right approach. We want to bring down trade barriers, not increase them. A trade war is in no one's interest,' Reeves said.
Trade discussions roll on, but there is a sense of urgency. President Trump's tariffs and the blizzard of uncertainty he has whipped up have weakened our growth prospects, pushing up the cost of borrowing and increasing the strain on the government's finances.
Annual borrowing in the year to the end of March came in £15 billion higher than the government's forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility, forecasted just a month ago.
Meanwhile, activity by companies in the private sector fell at its fastest pace for more than two years in April, according to a business survey by stock market index S&P.
Unless something changes, there is a risk the chancellor will be forced to increase taxes or cut spending again, later in the year.
'The fiscal rules [on debt and borrowing] are non-negotiable,' insisted Rachel Reeves on Wednesday morning.
And she insists the tax pledges Labour made in its election manifesto - not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance for working people - are sacrosanct too, whatever happens next.
'I understand the anxiety that many families still feel about the cost of living. And as a government, we will do nothing to exacerbate those concerns,' she told ITV News.
This commitment also limits the UK's ability to retaliate with tariffs of its own. It's hard to see how taxes can be imposed on US imports in any meaningful way without raising prices for UK households.
Even if the UK does secure an agreement with President Trump, is it confident he'll stick to it?
After all, Canada had a trade deal with the United States, one that Trump agreed to and signed in his first term as president, and look what happened there.
President Trump can 'absolutely' be trusted not to renege on a trade deal, the chancellor insisted.
She added: 'There's a good relationship between the President of the United States, Donald Trump and our Prime Minister, Keir Starmer.
"We saw that when the prime minister visited the White House recently, and also in the continued dialogue between our two leaders.'
There is an increasing sense that Trump's attempt to rewrite the global trade rules - and the aggressive way in which he going about it - is starting to bump up against constraints.
Trump slaps a 145% tariff on imports from China and then concedes they are unsustainable.
He threatens to sack the chair of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, for not cutting interest rates and then, days later, insists his job is safe.
A trend is emerging: when investors sell the dollar, when they sell US government debt and shares in US companies, the president always backs down.
Trump is powerful, but the markets hold sway.
Hashtags

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


North Wales Live
40 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
The £50m Brexit Border Post on Anglesey that could end up being a massive white elephant
A facility built to deal with extra red tape caused by Brexit could end up being redundant before it even opens. Leaving the EU in 2020 added bureaucracy on the border between the UK and the European Union. This included sanitary and phytosanitary checks on fresh produce from the EU. The last UK Government delayed implementing the checks over concerns that it would lead to price rises for businesses and consumers. But they did not scrap the checks and work continued on developing the border facilities to carry out the work. In North Wales, the UK Government allocated £47.8m to build the border control post at Holyhead. This would be operated by Welsh Government, as they are responsible for biosecurity, food safety and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls in Wales. Kier Group were handed a £41m build contract last summer and work got underway on the development at Parc Cybi, just outside Holyhead. Work is due to be completed by the autumn. But the site could now turn into an expensive white elephant before it even becomes operational. In May, the UK and EU reached a new SPS agreement as part of efforts to reset their post-Brexit relationship. This agreement aims to reduce trade barriers for food, plants, and animal products by streamlining processes and reducing checks, making trade between the UK and EU cheaper and easier. It should be good news for businesses and shoppers and Holyhead port overall. But it could mean the new facility will not be required as most of the planned checks will not be required. The Welsh Government said: 'We are considering the implications of a potential SPS agreement with the EU on the future implementation of the Border Target Operating Model in Wales. The Deputy First Minister will make a statement to the Senedd in the coming weeks." Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth, MS for Ynys Mon, said 'The chaotic situation regarding the need – or not – for border control posts is symptomatic of the chaos and costs surrounding Brexit as a whole. "Large sums of public money have been spent, Anglesey Council has faced significant pressures, and we even lost the very important truck stop that went to make way for post-Brexit border infrastructure.

Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Lammy says Middle East needs ‘diplomatic solution' after US talks
His remarks came after a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, held in the wake of US airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Mr Lammy also spoke with secretary of state Marco Rubio. 'Important discussion with @SecRubio this evening on the situation in the Middle East,' Mr Lammy wrote in a post on X. Important discussion with @SecRubio this evening on the situation in the Middle East. We will continue to work with our allies to protect our people, secure regional stability and drive forward a diplomatic solution. — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) June 22, 2025 'We will continue to work with our allies to protect our people, secure regional stability and drive forward a diplomatic solution.' In a Monday post on Truth Social, Mr Trump claimed the US strikes caused 'monumental' damage, although US officials have said they are still assessing the situation. 'The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' he wrote. Over the weekend, the US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme. The Tehran regime has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful, but its uranium enrichment process has gone far beyond what is required for power stations. Israeli military officials confirmed late on Sunday they had struck infrastructure sites in Tehran and in the west of Iran. Explosions could be heard in the city of Bushehr on Sunday, home to Iran's only nuclear power plant. Israel confirmed it had struck missile launchers in the city, as well as a command centre where missiles were being stored. Iranian media reported defence systems were firing in Tehran in the early hours of Monday morning, but Iran is yet to comment on the latest strikes. On Sunday night, Downing Street said Sir Keir and Mr Trump agreed Tehran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and called for Iran to return to negotiations. 'The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and reiterated the grave risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security,' Downing Street said. 'They discussed the actions taken by the United States last night to reduce the threat and agreed that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. 'They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement. 'They agreed to stay in close contact in the coming days.' Other countries endorsed the US strikes, with Australian foreign minister Penny Wong giving the White House her full backing on Monday. 'We support action to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon and that is what this is,' she said. In the hours after Mr Trump's phone call with Sir Keir, he again posted on Truth Social, saying: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The social media post marked a reversal from previous statements on regime change, including an earlier press conference from defence secretary Pete Hegseth, about the bombing on the three nuclear sites. Iran is yet to confirm how much damage was done in the US-led attack.


Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Only Trump supporters are surprised by the President's bombing decision
POOL/AFP via Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Over the weekend, President Trump's bombing of Iran's three nuclear sites has split his Make America Great Again supporter base. His normally outspoken and brazen acolytes have been learning to mid-air somersault as they seek to rationalise and excuse the President's decision. These commentators, after all, are the ones who have bleated an America First policy of non-interventionism. The bombing goes against everything the MAGA movement stands for. They say domestic policy, protectionist trade, and American nationalism are utterly incompatible with global interventionism and that spinning the Middle East roulette wheel and claiming you can foresee the outcome is utter madness. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But why are they surprised? The MAGA movement aspires to a status of selective global engagement. For most of the 19th century, Britain was diplomatically isolated, having what Lord Palmerston called "no eternal allies" to whom she owed favours. The obverse of this, of course, was that no other country owed favours to her. Trump's hostility to NATO lends credence to this ambition, but his unwavering allegiance to Israel continues to tie America's fate to the Middle East. His decision to strike Iran on the back of Israel's attack on June 13 can hardly come as a shock when the President has continued America's tradition of long-standing military and economic support for the country. American foreign policy has always been split: on the one hand, some believe the country should be an inspiring "Shining City on a Hill" example to others. Conversely, others are convinced that only intervention and a total military and economic global hegemony will liberate the world from despotism and fanaticism and shape it in America's image. The two dominant ideologies in the United States about foreign policy are interventionism, which encourages military and political intervention in the affairs of foreign countries, and isolationism, which discourages this. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is an old controversy dating back to the Founding Fathers, who struggled to reconcile the opportunities of continental security with the realities of a British, Spanish, and French imperial world. No president has ever managed to reconcile their ambition with what our own former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, called "Events, dear boy, events." In the American tradition, there has never been a clear demarcation between Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, on whether the US should embrace a global role. "America First," after all, was first deployed by Woodrow Wilson, who was reluctant for the country to enter World War 1 (it, of course, subsequently did in 1917). Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson's Republican bitter rival and predecessor, believed the country should "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Roosevelt's approach to foreign policy was to negotiate peacefully and maintain a strong military presence to back up one's words. In the 19th century, the United States transitioned from an isolationist, post-colonial regional power to a trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific power. Debates about restraint and international engagement are still the same as they were at the turn of the last two centuries and just as self-deludingly hypocritical. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad President James Monroe declared the eponymous Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It stated that further European colonisation or intervention in the Americas would be viewed as hostile toward the United States. Monroe nevertheless expanded trade and pacified relations with Great Britain while growing the United States at the expense of the Spanish Empire, including obtaining Florida with the Adams–Onís Treaty in 1819. Likewise, Dollar diplomacy, notably during the presidency of William Howard Taft, sought to minimise the use or threat of military force by using the United States' economic power to further its aims in Latin America and East Asia. With no loss of irony, Taft was a proponent of American imperialism in the early 20th century, and like his presidential descendant, he considered North American economic integration with Canada inevitable. More often than not, internationalism is forced upon leaders. America passed successive Neutrality Acts in the 1930s to keep the country out of the Second World War. By the time of the Pearl Harbour attacks on December 8, 1941, America had been involved in a Destroyers-for-bases deal in 1940, and this was followed by the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941, which allowed the U.S. to sell, lend or give war materials to nations Roosevelt wanted to support: Britain, France, and China. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 likewise promised unabated assistance to anti-communist allies. Security does not begin or stop, as Trump tends to forget, at a literal border. No one presumably ever wants war, but it is a house of cards to build a cult of personality, as Trump has done, around the notion that he is not an international adventurer, a NeoCon imperialist, or an American Caesar. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Iranian regime is one of the most awful the world has seen. Since the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, they have tortured and tormented their people more than any foreign power. The regime's clear ambitions have consistently drawn strong opposition from Western countries and neighbouring states in the Middle East. The Trump presidency cannot pretend this reality does not exist, and Israel certainly cannot. "Trust in Trump" is now an exercise in faith. The problem, as Trump supporters will soon discover, is that the central tenets of MAGA are contradictory and more at home in a pre-WW2 world where the world was less interconnected. Complexity begets complexity, and only the stupid believe that war is an Occam's razor. You can do nothing, you cannot do everything. This is the irony of superpowers. America has been, and very likely will always be, caught in a game of setting an example to the world and being the world's policeman. It is a question for history as to whether this example is a good one or not. To defend its interests, the US has engaged in extrajudicial, covert, and military engagements in the name of everything from security to humanitarianism.