Steel industry welcomes 25% tariffs but warns ‘uncertainty remains'
The US President has decided to 'provide different treatment' to the UK after a deal that was struck between Washington and London last month, as he doubled 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 is due to come into force from 12.01am Washington DC time on Wednesday, which is shortly after 5am in the UK.
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 that Mr Trump's decision is a 'welcome pause'.
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 and 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'.
🚨 @POTUS just signed the order raising tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50%.
Here is the text of the order:
1. On January 11, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a report on the Secretary's investigation into the effect of imports of steel… https://t.co/4uwBVmd4Zj
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 3, 2025
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.
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
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Leavitt escalates attacks against BBC over Hamas coverage
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has escalated her attacks against the BBC for its recent coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. Leavitt, 27, said that the BBC took 'the word of Hamas' after it reported on a shooting at an aid station in Gaza on Sunday. The Hamas-backed Civil Defense agency claims there were between 21 to 31 killed after Israeli forces opened up fire at an aid station near Rafah on Sunday. Over 170 were reported injured, though Israel denies it was involved. 'Unfortunately, unlike some in the media we don't take the word of Hamas with total truth. We like to look into it when they speak, unlike the BBC,' Leavitt said during a press briefing on Tuesday after getting questioned about the incident. She accused the British outlet of writing 'multiple headlines' that she took issue with. ' Israeli tank kills 26, Israeli tank kills 21, Israeli gunfire kills 31, Red Cross says 21 people were killed in an aid incident,' Leavitt said of the BBC's changing headline. 'And then oh wait they had to correct and take down their entire story, saying we reviewed the footage and couldn't find any evidence of anything,' the secretary charged. 'So we're going to look into reports before we confirm them from this podium or before we take action and I suggest that journalists who actually care about truth do the same to reduce the amount of disinformation that's going around the globe on this front,' she continued, rebuking the outlet. The tongue lashing was so fierce that BBC put out a statement refuting the Trump administration official's claims, calling them 'completely wrong.' 'The claim the BBC took down a story after reviewing footage is completely wrong. We did not remove any story and we stand by our journalism,' a BBC spokesperson wrote. Leavitt then hit back again at the BBC Thursday on X. 'Me: The White House doesn't take Hamas's word as total truth like the fake news BBC. Fake News BBC: We didn't do that! We just quoted the Hamas-run health ministry to run with our false claims,' Leavitt wrote. What originally set Leavitt off on her tirade against BBC's reporting on Hamas earlier this week was a question from the press corps on the incident. The administration is currently looking into the reports and the 'veracity of them,' Leavitt said addressing the substance of the attacks before ripping into the British outlet. Though the BBC admitted to changing its story's headline to reflect the updated totals from Hamas authorities, it claimed it later ran with the appropriate numbers. The report 'always clearly attributed, from the first figure of 15 from medics, through the 31 killed from the Hamas-run health ministry to the final Red Cross statement of 'at least 21' at their field hospital,' the company's statement says. Reports vary, with a Reuters headline indicating that over 30 were killed while a New York Times report indicates over 20 were slain. The BBC even admits in its statement that reports remain unclear about the exact death total resulting from the Sunday attack. The Gaza Health Ministry, which has consistently reported the numbers of those killed in the war with Israel since the beginning of the conflict, is run by Hamas, which is considered a terrorist group by the U.S.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Eradicating child poverty must become Labour's central mission
It is much more than a flip rhetorical cliche to say that if a nation thinks that fighting child poverty is costly, then it should try the alternative. It really should not be a matter of great controversy. The broadly warm welcome given to the government's expansion of the free school meals programme has been marred only by some noisy mumblings about how the policy will be funded. Of course, any item of public spending must be accounted for – but in the case of this and similar measures to alleviate child poverty, both sides of the ledger should be taken into account. Experience in Scotland, Wales and London – where free and nutritious meals are already available more widely – suggests that pupils perform better on a full stomach; something that surely accords with common sense. Academic studies go further, linking higher educational achievements with higher productivity and thus better living standards for those lifted out of poverty – with an obvious dividend for the nation as a whole. Official support for children, including the new breakfast clubs, a wider availability of free school meals, childcare, access to libraries, affordable housing and of course their education itself, should be treated less as 'current' spending and more like an investment. These are the kind of arguments The Independent has long put forward, as part of an award-winning campaign, and are compatible with fiscal sustainability. In essence, though it is not meant to be mercenary, money spent on rearing a healthier, more literate, more numerate and more intellectually able generation is, in the long run, as valid an investment as, say, building a new tramway or bolstering the national grid. 'Human capital' is, ironically, more precious than ever in a world where artificial intelligence will take over so many of the tasks currently undertaken by human beings. For people to enjoy socially useful and economically viable lives in the future, they will need to be smarter than the machines that will surround them. Soon enough, chancellor Rachel Reeves will be able to go further and faster, as the current ministerial catchphrase goes, in the Labour government's newfound mission to reduce child poverty. After years when the party seemed to be undeclared disciples of the austerity school of economics, Labour's conscience, albeit prompted by some shocking electoral setbacks, has been awoken. Eradicating child poverty by 2020 was the noble objective set by Tony Blair early in the last Labour government, enshrined in law during the last days of Gordon Brown's administration, revived in Jeremy Corbyn's time, but frankly neglected, beyond some necessary lip service, in more recent years. Now, it has rightly become a priority, and one that has lodged itself high on the long list of social challenges facing the chancellor. It now seems inevitable that the two-cap limit on child benefit, imposed by a Tory chancellor almost a decade ago, will be lifted, sooner or later, and perhaps 300,000 children in larger families lifted out of poverty immediately. That it will be partly under populist pressure from Nigel Farage does not make it a bad idea. Extending child benefit, like school meals, is not a total cure for child poverty. Where the Tories had a point as they downgraded the poverty targets in the past (which, to be clear, was a mistake) was when they stressed the importance of a healthy economy creating well-paid jobs. Child poverty is linked to general levels of poverty, obviously, and the creation of wealth still counts as the essential basis for a fairer society – and human capital is part of that. Even with these latest measures, continuing care will need to be taken to make sure the free school meals are nutritious and promote good physical and mental health. Other policy areas also need to be attended to. No level of child benefit or childcare will entirely compensate for being brought up in a cramped, overcrowded, mouldy, cold home. Other policies will thus have to contribute to giving every British child the best opportunities in life. In that context, the government's child poverty task force might consider how the SureStart centres could be restored. Arguably the most serious misjudgement of the coalition government of 2010 to 2014 was to scrap them. In any case, without much in the way of conscious effort, indeed almost by accident, Sir Keir Starmer's government has found itself endowed with a new, invigorating mission to pursue. For all the problems, disappointments, gaffes and missteps in their first year out of the wilderness, the Labour Party has rediscovered its raison d'etre.
Daily Mirror
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Elon Musk drops 'really big bomb' with huge claim about Donald Trump
Donald Trump and Elon Musk's bromance has come to a spectacular and petty end as the Tesla boss dropped what he has called a huge "bomb" about the President. Taking to his X (Twitter) account, the richest man in the world said it was "Time to drop the really big bomb" before claiming that Donald Trump "is in the Epstein files". Trump's name was released as previously sealed court documents were made public last year, in which he was named as an associate of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. There is no suggestion he knew of any crimes or participated in any criminal behaviour. The South African billionaire, who bought his way into Washington by pumping millions into Trump's campaign, has taken to X to add more fuel to the pair raging between the former pals. Once Trump's right hand man, Musk left his special government position as the Department of Government Efficiency - specially set up by the President for the Tesla CEO who seemed to be longing for a top job in Washington - a week ago. The fall out between Musk and Trump has gotten out of control in just a few days, spiralling into a series of petty online fights. The Tesla boss, on X, wrote: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate."
