Starmer handed five-week reprieve from Trump's steel tariffs
President Trump exempted British steel and aluminium exports from new 50 per cent tariffs while giving ministers five weeks to finalise details of a trade deal with the United States.
In an executive order, Trump said UK exporters would be spared from the doubling of tariffs that are due to come into effect on Wednesday, but appeared to set a new deadline of next month for the deal to be finalised.
The order stated that if the UK had not complied with 'relevant aspects' of the Economic Prosperity Deal signed last month, then the US 'may increase the applicable rates of duty to 50 per cent … on or after July 9'.
Trump said: 'I have further determined that it is necessary and appropriate to allow for the implementation of the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal of May 8, 2025, and to accordingly provide different treatment for imports of steel and aluminium articles, and their derivatives, from the United Kingdom.'
Trump's move came after steel manufacturers warned ministers that 'highly damaging' delays to implementing the trade deal were already costing them millions of pounds in lost business.
Trade from the US has dried up, they said, as American importers put orders on hold in the hope of escaping current tariff levels of 25 per cent, which is still being applied to UK exports.
Senior government figures have blamed the US side for delays in getting the deal over the line, saying that negotiations on the technical aspects of the steel and aluminium quotas have been 'complicated'.
Almost a month since Starmer and Trump agreed in principle to spare Britain's steel, car and aluminium industries from US tariffs, officials say they are still some way from completing the deal.
The government said ministers were 'pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs'.
It added: 'We will continue to work with the US to implement our agreement, which will see the 25 per cent US tariffs on steel removed.'
However, the Conservatives have accused ministers of 'misleading the public' over the deal.
Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, said: 'Labour told the British public we had a deal with the US, but one month on, there is no deal in sight, meaning British businesses and workers continue to suffer because of Labour's failed negotiations.
'After snatching the winter fuel payment, lying about not increasing taxes, and misleading the public by saying the US trade deal was done, the public will rightly not trust a word Labour says.'
Trump's move came after Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, held talks with his US counterpart, Jamieson Greer, to discuss the difficulties in finalising the agreement.
However, officials admitted it could take a number of weeks to get the agreement over the line.
Speaking after the meeting, a government spokesman said both sides agreed that they wanted to implement agreements 'on sectoral tariffs as soon as possible'.
'The pair agreed that businesses and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic must start to feel the benefits of the deal soon, with both sides committing to work closely to make that happen,' the official said.
Under the much-vaunted trade agreement announced last month, Britain could continue to export steel, aluminium and cars to the US free of tariffs, in return for dropping tariffs on American beef and ethanol exports.
However, exact quotas for different types of steel and aluminium products were not specified. There were also unanswered questions over whether steel products only partially made in the UK would be covered by the deal.
Speaking to MPs before the announcement, Russell Codling, a director at Tata Steel, said the firm currently supplied about £150 million worth of steel to the US that was now being hit by tariffs. 'The 25 per cent tariff was a big shock to us and the 50 per cent tariff is really quite devastating,' he said. 'Where do we go next? What is the future for our business?'
Codling added that his message to the government was to 'act as quickly as possible' to get the deal over the line.
Andy Richardson, the managing director of Special Melted Products, said that his firm had suffered a 'complete cessation of orders' since tariffs came into effect. 'We are losing business rapidly,' he said.
'Even if the trade deal was fully clarified tonight, I have significant concerns for the job security of people who work in my plant and other metal producers around the UK. It needs to happen really, really quickly.'
Chrysa Glystra, director of trade and economic policy at UK Steel, said: 'The delay in implementing the deal is highly damaging to UK industry.'
UK Steel welcomed Trump's decision to keep tariffs at 25 per cent on imports of British steel and aluminium for now, describing it as 'a welcome pause', but said that 'uncertainty remains' over the final rate.
Gareth Stace, its director general, said that Reynolds had acted swiftly, recognising that steel trade stability and security between the two nations is 'of utmost importance'.
Stace said: 'Continued 25 per cent 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.
'At an already crushing time for our steel industry, with global oversupply and weak demand, we must continue to work together to support sales levels in our second most important export market.
'It is also time for the UK government to take decisive action domestically on trade defence. There is plain evidence of trade diversion switching gears into the UK after the EU stepped up its trade defences, and now we must do the same.
'Imports are flooding into the UK market, depressing steel prices and taking away market share. We must not lose sight of our domestic market while battling to stabilise exports to the US.'
Trump confirmed the rise in import duties for the rest of the world, arguing the 50 per cent tariffs would stop 'foreign countries that continue to offload low-priced, excess steel and aluminium in the United States market'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
28 minutes ago
- NBC News
Transgender troops face a deadline and a difficult decision: Stay or go?
WASHINGTON — As transgender service members face a deadline to leave the U.S. military, hundreds are taking the financial bonus to depart voluntarily. But others say they will stay and fight. For many, it is a wrenching decision to end a career they love, and leave units they have led or worked with for years. And they are angry they are being forced out by the Trump administration's renewed ban on transgender troops. Active duty service members had until Friday to identify themselves and begin to leave the military voluntarily, while the National Guard and Reserve have until July 7. Then the military will begin involuntary separations. Friday's deadline comes during Pride Month and as the Trump administration targets diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, saying it's aiming to scrub the military of "wokeness" and reestablishing a "warrior ethos." "They're tired of the rollercoaster. They just want to go," said one transgender service member, who plans to retire. "It's exhausting." For others, it's a call to arms. "I'm choosing to stay in and fight," a noncommissioned officer in the Air Force said. "My service is based on merit, and I've earned that merit." The troops, who mainly spoke on condition of anonymity because they fear reprisals, said being forced to decide is frustrating. They say it's a personal choice based on individual and family situations, including whether they would get an infusion of cash or possibly wind up owing the government money. "I'm very disappointed," a transgender Marine said. "I've outperformed, I have a spotless record. I'm at the top of every fitness report. I'm being pushed out while I know others are barely scraping by." Some transgender troops decide to leave based on finances Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said this is President Donald Trump's directive and what America voted for. The Pentagon, he said, is "leaving wokeness & weakness behind" and that includes "no more dudes in dresses." Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, a veteran, and 22 other Democratic senators have written to Hegseth urging him to allow transgender troops to keep serving honorably. Already, more than 1,000 service members have voluntarily identified themselves as transgender and are slated to begin leaving, according to rough Defense Department estimates. Defense officials say there are about 4,240 active duty transgender troops but acknowledge the numbers are fuzzy. For many, the decision is financial. Those who voluntarily leave will get double the amount of separation pay they would normally receive and won't have to return bonuses or tuition costs. Those who refuse to go could be forced to repay reenlistment or other bonuses as high as $50,000. That was the tipping point for Roni Ferrell, an Army specialist at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington. Ferrell, 28, lives on base with her wife and two children and had planned to stay in the Army for at least another decade. But she said she felt "backed into a corner" to sign the voluntary separation agreement, fearing she would have to repay an $18,500 reenlistment bonus. "My commander basically said it was my only option in order to make sure my kids are taken care of," Ferrell said. The Marine, who has served for more than 25 years, said she had planned to stay and fight, but changed her mind. Lawyers, she said, told her an involuntary separation would put a code in her record saying she was forced to leave "in the interests of national security." That designation, she said, could mean those involuntarily separated could lose their security clearances, hurting future job prospects. In a statement Friday, a defense official said the code "is not intended" to trigger clearance revocations and that gender dysphoria is not a security reporting requirement, according to the director of national intelligence. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Cynthia Cheng-Wun Weaver, senior director of litigation for Human Rights Campaign, said it's important for troops to talk with judge advocates general in their services to ensure they understand the different procedures being implemented. Other transgender troops plan to stay despite the ban The Air Force service member and a transgender officer in the Army National Guard both said they plan to stay and fight. Lawsuits over the ban continue and could change or block the policy. For troops involved in the court battles as plaintiffs, leaving voluntarily now would likely hurt their standing in the case. For others, it's simply dedication to their career. "I've really embraced military culture, and it's embraced me," the Air Force member said. "It's not about money. It's the career that I love." The Guard soldier echoed that sentiment, saying he will stay on "because it is important to me to serve. Frankly, I'm good at it, I'm well trained so I want to continue." Others without bonuses to repay or who have been in the military only a short while and won't get much in separation bonus pay may opt to stay and see what happens. National Guard troops face a particular problem National Guard members who are heading to their monthly drill weekend or annual two-week drill in June could be required to go but serve as the gender they were assigned at birth. That means they would have to wear uniforms and haircuts of that gender, use that bathroom and be referred to as "sir" or "ma'am" based on that gender. For many, that could be close to impossible and create uncomfortable situations. "If I were to show up to drill this weekend, I'd be expected to use all female facilities, I would be expected to wear a woman's uniform," said the Army Guard officer, who transitioned to male about five years ago and says others in his unit know him as a man. "I don't look like a woman. I don't feel like a woman. It would be disruptive to good order and discipline for me to show up and to tell my soldiers, you have to call me 'ma'am' now." It's not clear if Guard units are handling it all the same way, and it could be up to individual states or commanders. Some may allow troops to postpone the drill or go on administrative leave. What happens next for transgender troops? The service members interviewed by The Associated Press said they don't know what will happen once the deadline passes to leave voluntarily. Some believe that unit commanders will quickly single people out and start involuntary separations. Others say the process is vague, may involve medical review boards and could take months. The defense official said Friday that as the Pentagon takes these steps, it "will treat our service members with dignity and respect." Under Hegseth's directive, military commanders will be told to identify troops with gender dysphoria — when a person's biological sex does not match their gender identity — and send them to get medical checks to force them out of the service, defense officials have said. The order relies on routine annual health checks — so it could be months before that evaluation is scheduled. "My real big sticking point is that this administration's whole push is to reform this country based around merit, and that gender, race, etc., should have no factor in hiring," the Air Force service member said. "If that's true, I'm solely being removed for my gender, and merit is no longer a factor."
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
As World Pride flows straight into the military parade, DC officials say they're ready for anything
Officials in the nation's capital generally express full confidence in their ability to handle large, complicated events and huge crowds. As Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith recently put it, 'We are really the experts in this space when it comes to crowd management.' Over the next eight days. in the sprawling city that is the nation's capital, that expertise will be put to the test. The District of Columbia is playing host to massive events on back-to-back weekends. Two wildly divergent events each carry the extra possibility of counterprotests or disruption, adding a layer of anxiety to the usual logistical hassles. June 7 and 8 brings the peak of the two-week World Pride celebration with two days of mass gatherings — a parade on Saturday and a rally and protest March Sunday. Both days culminate in a giant street party and concert covering a multi-block stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue. Then as cleanup from World Pride wraps up, preparations will begin for the much-hyped June 14 military parade to celebrate the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army (and the 79th birthday of a certain White House resident). And while D.C. officials can claim they have seen it all before in terms of mass events, June 14 will present some genuinely unique challenges — actual 60-ton M1 Abrams battle tanks and Paladin self-propelled howitzers rolling through the city streets. The cost of potential repairs is a concern D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has gone out of her way to stay on the good side of President Donald Trump, has not disguised her discomfort at the prospect of armored vehicles chewing up the downtown asphalt. And she is still openly leery, despite assurances from the military that it will cover the costs of all repairs, and a plan to install protective plates at intersections. 'I think that there has been time and attention paid to how to move this heavy equipment in a way that doesn't hurt (roads),' Bowser said last week. "I remain concerned about it. If they are rendered unusable, we have to make them usable and then go seek our money from the feds.' For each of these high-profile weekends, police and security officials are on alert for any sort of counterprotest or attempts to disrupt the proceedings. Trump's campaign against transgender protections and oft-stated antipathy for drag shows have fueled fears of violence against World Pride participants; at one point earlier this spring, rumors circulated that the Proud Boys were planning to disrupt this weekend's celebrations. Those fears have proven to be unfounded so far, although one D.C. queer bar was vandalized last week. With those fears in mind, organizers will install security fencing around the entire two-day street party. 'We wanted to provide some extra safety measures (based on) concerns from some people in the community,' said Ryan Bos, executive director of the Capital Pride Alliance. The bi-annual World Pride has, in the past, drawn as many as 1 million visitors to its host city. It remains to be seen just how large the final influx will be for the nation's capital. Early hotel reservation numbers had indicated that attendance would be down somewhat, a possible result of international participants staying away out of either fear of harassment or in protest of Trump's policies. But Elliott Ferguson, president of Destination D.C. — which tracks hotel reservations — told reporters last week they were witnessing 'a surge at the last minute' of people coming in for the final World Pride weekend. Protests planned for military parade The military parade, meanwhile, is expected to draw as many as 200,000 people, according to Army estimates. A large counterprotest against Trump — dubbed the No Kings rally — will march down 16th Street to within sight of the White House but isn't expected to get close enough to the military parade to disrupt things. Lindsey Appiah, the deputy mayor for public safety, acknowledges that longstanding plans for the Army's 250th birthday 'got a lot bigger on short notice' when Trump got involved. 'You have to be very flexible, very nimble. Things change and you have plans and then those plans change," she said. "I think we've really learned to do that.' Appiah points out an example of the District's capabilities from early this year, when the city hosted the congressional certification of Trump's electoral win, the state funeral for former President Jimmy Carter and then Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20 — all in the span of two weeks and in the midst of a huge winter storm. D.C. officials also point out that the logistical challenge facing the capital city doesn't actually end on June 14. The military parade will be followed by three matches for the FIFA Club World Cup starting on June 18 and running through June 26, which will then roll straight into preparations for the traditional July 4 fireworks extravaganza. Clint Osborn, head of the city's Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency, said the summer planning schedule "feels like Super Bowl after Super Bowl after Super Bowl.'
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Our politicians are the least serious in history – and that includes you, Nigel
This week an appalling case reminded us just how broken Britain is. We learnt that a 15-year-old boy killed elderly dogwalker Bhim Kohli while a female friend, aged 12, filmed it on her mobile phone. Both were laughing as the beloved grandfather lay dying in the street. How on earth can it have come to this? The case is emblematic of everything that has gone wrong – and continues to go wrong – in our fragmented, seemingly lawless society. We are led by complete incompetents: from police administering two-tier justice right the way up to our Prime Minister. It is little wonder there is a university course running in France on why the UK is such a failure. And Mayor of London Sadiq Khan's answer to our capital's woes, despite knife and other crimes soaring? Decriminalising cannabis. We knew Labour were not fit for purpose before they even took office, but this latest example of idiocy from City Hall really does sum up the problem with having hapless, careerist socialists anywhere near the levers of power. And now Reform UK appears to have imploded. Having abandoned the Conservative Party after an inept 14 years of governance, which left us with higher bills, higher taxes, higher NHS waiting lists and higher immigration, voters had hoped that Nigel Farage and his motley crew might bring the salvation Britain so desperately needs. Reform was meant to represent the alternative to 'uniparty' politics by ripping up the political rule book and restoring good old fashioned common sense. What we have learnt in the past 24 hours, however, is that the one thing uniting all four major parties in the UK (and I'm including the ludicrous Liberal Democrats in this, with their clown of a leader Sir Ed Davey) is just how thoroughly unserious they all are. Westminster currently resembles a cross-party circus act; what has the electorate done to deserve this? Let's take them one by one. We currently cannot believe a word slippery Starmer says after a string of Labour lies on tax, winter fuel, defence spending, relations with the EU, the Chagos Islands, immigration – you name it. They promised 6,500 more teachers with their vindictive VAT raid on private school fees and this week it was revealed teacher numbers are actually down since they took office. Millionaires are leaving, businesses are folding, more tax rises are on the way. We've got an Attorney General who wants to defend terrorists like Osama bin Laden's right-hand man while the justice system imprisons mothers like Lucy Connolly for 'hurty words' on the internet. The Left accuses Reform of being amateurs – and then run the country as if it's a university student union staffed by drop-outs. Yet the Right-wing opposition appears equally as childish. This week, we have had the shadow chancellor Mel Stride denouncing Liz Truss's premiership with some weasel words about the Tories 'never again undermining fiscal credibility by making promises we cannot afford'. The former prime minister – once famously compared to a lettuce – hit back with an excoriating statement on the political playground that is X, accusing Sir Mel of being a 'creature of the system' by siding with 'failed Treasury orthodoxy'. In what world does this blue-on-blue infighting help Kemi Badenoch as she struggles to cut through? Equally infantile was the typically boyish intervention of her former leadership rival Sir James Cleverly with a demand that the Conservatives stick to net zero – despite it being among the main reasons the party is now facing its own climate emergency. He's been invisible for months and then emerges with this sort of unhelpful Ed Milibandesque claptrap? Read the room, for pity's sake. All credit to Robert Jenrick for trying to find some grown-up solutions to some of the country's problems – like fare dodging, notwithstanding the self-serving nature of his attention-grabbing social media endeavours. Badenoch is trying her best to be a serious politician, with thoughtful rather than knee-jerk interventions on issues like our membership of the ECHR – only to have MPs in her ranks like Kit Malthouse spreading anti-Israel slanders like his declaration this week that Gaza is 'an abattoir where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at'. Along with other Tories, he's also been calling for the Prime Minister to recognise a Palestinian state. Harebrained student politics are clearly not just confined to the Labour Party. We had hoped Reform, led by streetwise Nigel Farage, a man of political wisdom and experience, might rise above all this. But even he has been dogged by infantilism. If Rupert Lowe's 'more people watch my X videos than Nigel's' bravado wasn't bad enough, Reform now has been badly damaged by the similarly petulant flouncing out of party chairman Zia Yusuf. I like Zia and think he deserves credit for all the hard work he has put into professionalising the party over the past 11 months. But what on earth was there to be gained from such a public tantrum? Just leave quietly, don't blow the whole thing up with spiteful talk of working to get the party elected 'no longer being a good use of my time'. Similarly juvenile was the language he used to describe Reform MP Sarah Pochin's Commons call to ban the burka (which provoked laughter from the front bench: that's the state of public discourse in this country, folks). Responding to Katie Hopkins, of all people, on X, he wrote: 'Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn't policy. Busy with other stuff. I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do.' At the age of 38 and having worked at Goldman Sachs and established his own hugely successful business, he should know this is not the way to behave in the public eye. Reform remains a party that cannot even govern itself, let alone the country. This simply isn't good enough. The Government is useless, the Tories are a busted flush; if Reform seriously wants to break the doom loom of despair then it cannot be part of the problem. The party must get its act together – and fast.
