Did Starmer Just Sign Away Britain’s Economic Sovereignty to Trump?

What the US-UK trade deal reveals about the UK’s shifting loyalties — and why it matters for every democracy still resisting Trump.

Jun 19, 2025

📌 All posts are available to free subscribers one week after publication, for a 7-day window. If you’d like to read all future posts right away, you’re warmly invited to upgrade to a premium subscription.

What we’ll cover here:

Executive Order: “Implementing The General Terms Of The United States Of America-United Kingdom Economic Prosperity Deal”
Economic advantages for the US
Economic advantages for the UK
What’s not being said
Why this matters

Screenshot of Associated Press article. Click on image to link to the AP video.

Dear friends

On 16 June, Trump issued Executive Order “Implementing The General Terms Of The United States Of America-United Kingdom Economic Prosperity Deal”. This EO puts into motion a new bilateral trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, called the Economic Prosperity Deal. It was first announced on 8 May 2025 by Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Although Trump calls it “fair to both nations”, we should make no mistake — this is "America First".

That matters, especially in light of the recent G7 summit.

Because while Starmer presents the UK as a steady partner against authoritarian drift, the small print of this agreement suggests something different: a United Kingdom keen to keep every door open, even when that means accepting terms that its closest democratic friends would refuse.

This post traces how, and why, that quiet shift should concern anyone who is counting on the UK as an unquestioned ally.

Economic Advantages for The US

Economically speaking, this EO hands the United States a tidy bundle of strategic and financial advantages, even though it dresses itself as a mutual prosperity deal. Let’s walk through the economic advantages first.

1. Export gains

The most immediate leg-up lies in the "billions of dollars" of new market access for American agricultural exports — notably beef and ethanol. The UK has historically been cautious about American beef treated with growth hormones and US biofuels like ethanol, that don’t always meet the UK’s environmental or sustainability standards. This deal signals that the UK is now opening its gates. That’s a clear win for American farmers and the agri-industrial sector, especially in states where Trump’s political base resides. It also helps the US address its long-standing goods trade deficit, particularly in agriculture.

2. Reduced non-tariff barriers

The UK has agreed to dial down or remove a host of non-tariff barriers — things like labelling rules, health standards, and inspections — that have long frustrated US manufacturers. These barriers often keep American products off shelves without technically being tariffs. Their removal makes it cheaper and faster for US goods to enter the UK market, boosting exports and profits.

3. Tariff-free aerospace trade

This benefits American aerospace giants like Boeing, who rely on UK parts. Cutting tariffs here lowers production costs for US firms without much downside, as the UK’s aerospace exports largely support — rather than compete with — domestic US industry.

Economic Advantages for The UK

If we shift perspective and read the agreement with British interests in mind — especially through the lens of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s possible goals — there are a few points that are being spun as a strategic win for the UK, at least in political or economic terms:

1. Tariff-Free Access for Aerospace

The UK aerospace industry, particularly companies like Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, gets tariff-free access to the US market for civil aircraft and parts. That appears to be a substantial economic benefit for a high-value British sector, especially at a time when the EU–UK relationship still carries post-Brexit friction.

2. Automobile Export Quota

Although capped, access for British cars into the US market at a reduced 10% tariff is being presented as a major opening (although it’s nowhere near on equal footing with other most-favoured-nation trade partners who pay only 2.5%). Before this deal, UK carmakers were looking at the full 25% tariff under Trump's March 2025 Proclamation. Now, this is being framed as giving them access to the world’s largest consumer market with preferential treatment — supposedly providing a lifeline to UK auto manufacturing under pressure, even though the annual quota is capped at only 100,000 British cars.

3. Steel and Aluminium Quota “in Sight”

The UK doesn’t get immediate tariff relief on steel and aluminium — but the EO sets the terms for future preferential treatment, contingent on supply chain security and ownership standards. On the face of it, this leaves Starmer room to manoeuvre and meet those terms, which would then unlock a significant economic concession. It's conditional, but the door appears to be open.

4. Pharmaceutical Sweeteners (Potentially)

The UK pharmaceutical sector is being dangled a carrot: “significantly preferential treatment outcomes” if it complies with supply chain security requirements. Again, it’s not an immediate win, but it signals a high-value opportunity that can be touted domestically as a sign the UK is on the inside track of regulatory alignment with a major market.

5. Strategic Alignment with a Superpower

Starmer can frame this trade agreement as proof that post-Brexit Britain still matters on the world stage. Being granted a structured, sector-specific role in US national security trade assessments — especially on steel, aluminium, autos, and aerospace — suggests a privileged seat at the table.

This may have limited power in practice, but it carries weight — both at home and abroad — especially as it’s something successive Conservative Prime Ministers (May, Johnson, Truss, and Sunak) — failed to pull off.

So, from a British political lens: while this Executive Order is clearly America-first in tone and substance, the UK seems to have carved out a deal that protects core industries, opens high-value markets, and positions Britain as a preferred trade partner. And Starmer is presenting it as a sign of effective diplomacy and economic strategy in a difficult global climate.

But is the agreement all it's cracked up to be?

What’s Not Being Said

In the new trade deal, British access to US markets — especially for exports like steel, aluminium, and pharmaceutical products — is not being granted outright. It’s being made contingent on the UK meeting certain conditions. And here’s the key: those conditions fall under the umbrella of US "national security", so they’re being defined unilaterally by the United States.

What does this actually mean for the UK?

1. Ownership reviews of UK production facilities

The deal says the UK must meet “American requirements on the nature of ownership of relevant production facilities.” In plain terms, this means the US will assess who owns or controls UK factories or companies that want to export sensitive goods — like steel or pharmaceuticals — into the American market.

So if a British steel mill has investment from a Chinese firm, or even a hedge fund the US sees as a potential risk, the US could block its exports on security grounds. This is a powerful gatekeeping mechanism. The US isn’t just looking at product safety — it’s scrutinising corporate structure, foreign investment, and control within the UK.

Equally, as these requirements are framed as national security imperatives, they may not just be about excluding certain foreign investors (like China); they could also be about preferring or requiring ownership structures that are aligned with US interests.

This could very well mean:

Favouring US companies as majority stakeholders in sensitive UK sectors.
Conditioning market access on US investment or control, effectively using trade access as leverage to reshape ownership.
Encouraging British firms to “cleanse” their cap tables of non-aligned capital (e.g. Gulf, Chinese, or even EU investment) and replace it with US institutional or corporate ownership.

This goes beyond a passive review. It opens the door to active influence over who owns what in the UK, under the banner of “trusted supply chains”. And the mechanism here is subtle but strong: “If your company structure doesn’t meet our security standards, you don’t get tariff relief.” This creates an economic incentive to reshape British industries — not through regulation, but through access control.

What looks like a security screen could therefore, in effect, become a tool of economic colonisation by investment, especially if US firms step in to meet those "security" requirements by acquiring UK assets themselves.

2. Security of the supply chain

The US is also insisting that British supply chains meet American standards for security — which could include where raw materials come from, how goods are transported, what digital systems are used, and who has access to what data.

Based on the text of Trump’s executive order and the framing of the US–UK Economic Prosperity Deal, the supply chain security requirements appear to apply specifically to British goods exported to the United States — particularly in sensitive sectors like steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals, and possibly aerospace.

Even though it doesn't apply to all British supply chains across the board, the deal creates a strong incentive for companies operating in the UK to align more broadly with US standards, even beyond those exports. Here’s why:

1. Exports are the entry point — but the influence spreads

If a UK manufacturer wants to export steel, aluminium, or pharmaceuticals to the US under the deal, they’ll need to show that their entire supply chain meets American security standards. That could mean:

Where raw materials are sourced
Which shipping or logistics firms are used
What cybersecurity protocols are in place
Whether data is stored in “friendly” jurisdictions
Who has beneficial ownership or decision-making power anywhere along the chain

Even if this only applies to US-bound goods, it creates a compliance burden that may affect how UK companies structure their entire operations, not just a single export stream.

2. The chilling effect: US standards become the de facto norm

For firms with global operations — or UK firms hoping to scale — it’s often cheaper and simpler to standardise across all supply chains, rather than run two parallel systems (one for the US and one for everywhere else). That’s especially true for industries where supply chain fluidity is key, like pharma or aerospace.

So even if the US isn’t explicitly demanding changes to all UK supply chains, it’s setting up a system where many firms may feel they have no real choice but to align with American standards across the board—or risk losing access to the most lucrative market in the world.

3. Data access is the sleeper issue

One of the most under-the-radar elements of this agreement is who will have access to what data within those supply chains. If the US requires, for example, that British pharmaceutical or aerospace firms store data in US-approved clouds or under US jurisdictional safeguards, that could effectively place British industrial data under American oversight — especially if companies use US-based cloud infrastructure like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud, which are already under surveillance-friendly frameworks in the US.

So while the rules on paper apply only to certain exports, the practical effect could be much broader compliance — including changes to procurement, logistics, data architecture, and corporate governance.

3. The benefits for the UK are delayed and discretionary

Across this entire trade deal, key benefits for the UK — like preferential access to the US market for pharmaceuticals—will only kick in after the US completes a Section 232 investigation.

Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the President broad powers to restrict imports if the Department of Commerce finds that those imports threaten US national security.

This tool was originally meant for things like uranium during the Cold War. But under Trump (in both terms), it’s been reinterpreted and aggressively applied to cover everything from steel and aluminium, to cars and car parts, and now, potentially, pharmaceuticals.

It’s not a neutral health or trade review. It’s a national security lens — and that means the criteria are often vague, politicised, and wide open to interpretation.

So in this deal, the US isn’t automatically offering the UK better access for its exports. It’s saying: “We’ll first conduct a Section 232 investigation to determine whether your products or ingredients pose a national security risk to the United States.”

This could include questions like:

Who owns or funds the UK companies involved?
Are any ingredients sourced from countries like China?
Could reliance on British supply chains be seen as a vulnerability during a future pandemic or conflict?

And even if the UK passes that test, the deal doesn’t say the benefits automatically follow. It adds a second hurdle:

“Preferential access” will only be granted if the UK also complies with certain supply chain security standards, as defined by the United States.

And we don’t know what those standards are.

That means:

The threshold for approval is not fixed — it’s entirely discretionary.
The US can delay or deny access indefinitely based on shifting criteria.
The process is politically sensitive — subject to lobbying, bilateral tensions, or domestic US interests.

The takeaway

The market access Trump is offering the UK is not a guaranteed benefit of the deal. It’s a contingent promise, tied first to an opaque investigation, and then to undefined compliance.

So what looks like a “win” for British manufacturing may, in reality, be a lever for US influence — one that could shape the ownership, sourcing, data handling, and regulatory practices of British firms long before they’re ever allowed to export under the new rules.

Even if the products pass that test, the deal says the UK still needs to meet “certain supply chain security standards” before any preferential treatment is granted.

So we’re not talking about equal trade access. We’re talking about conditional access, with the US setting the terms, and no guarantee that the goalposts won’t move.

In practice, this means UK companies could be forced to restructure ownership, reconfigure supply chains, or comply with opaque American security demands just to stay eligible for market access.

It also raises the broader question of whether the UK is still negotiating trade policy as a sovereign equal — or whether it's accepting a junior role in a security-led economic framework defined by Washington.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just about trade — it’s about alignment.

On paper, the Economic Prosperity Deal is a bilateral trade agreement. In practice, it's

a test of what kind of world Britain is prepared to legitimise — and whether Keir Starmer’s government is willing to look the other way as Donald Trump dismantles democracy from within.

This deal comes at a moment when Trump is not only waging a cold war against the liberal international order — he’s working to replace it. What he’s building is a transactional, security-first, loyalty-based system that serves American interests and sidelines multilateral norms. And he’s exporting that system through deals like this, which offer preferential access in exchange for compliance—not just with trade rules, but with strategic submission.

So when Starmer signs on, we shouldn’t just be asking: Did the UK get good terms? We should be asking: What — and who — is the UK legitimising?

1. It signals acceptance of Trump’s authoritarian trajectory

At the very moment Trump is:

Defying court rulings
Detaining migrants in camps that defy international human rights norms
Deploying National Guard troops against protesters
Rewriting constitutional powers via executive orders and legal manipulation

…Keir Starmer has signed a deal that treats Trump’s administration as a normal, stable partner worthy of deeper economic integration.

This undercuts any claim that Britain is “standing up to Trump.” Quite the opposite. It sends the message that no matter what Trump does domestically — no matter how many rights are trampled, laws broken, or democratic institutions hollowed out — the UK will still do business as usual, so long as the exports flow and the quotas are set.

2. It forces the UK into moral and political compromise

By locking itself into a framework defined by Trump’s national security doctrine, the UK risks having to enforce — or at the very least tolerate — policies it should otherwise oppose.

For example:

If the US bars UK pharmaceutical exports due to Chinese minority investment, will Britain sever those ties or push back?
If Trump uses this framework to demand political loyalty or policy alignment in future (as he has done with defence spending or UN votes), what price will the UK pay to stay inside the “trusted” circle?
If new domestic crackdowns in the US are framed as “security matters,” will the UK be expected to remain silent to preserve economic access?

This deal doesn’t just open markets — it creates dependence. And dependence limits dissent.

3. It undermines solidarity with democratic allies

While countries like Canada, the EU, and Japan are trying to hold the line — on data sovereignty, platform regulation, Ukraine support, and democratic standards — Starmer’s deal breaks rank.

It carves out a privileged position for the UK under Trump’s rules, while others are still resisting. That may bring short-term access, but it weakens the West’s collective ability to set standards — and emboldens Trump to demand even more from others.

If the UK, a core NATO and Five Eyes ally, isn’t going to say no to Trump — even in this moment of visible democratic collapse — where does this end?

4. It contradicts Starmer’s own stated values

Starmer has positioned himself as a defender of rules-based order. He’s backed Ukraine, reaffirmed support for NATO, criticised authoritarian leaders, and promised a break from the chaos of the Johnson–Truss years.

But this deal is a step back into chaos, dressed in technocratic clothing. It institutionalises Trump’s discretionary, security-dominated approach to trade, while offering the UK nothing guaranteed, and plenty that’s conditional.

What does it say when a British Prime Minister who claims to be defending democracy signs a deal with a man dismantling it?

The bottom line?

The specifics of this deal matter because they are not neutral. They are tools of enforcement in a broader system that rewards loyalty and punishes resistance. They shift Britain from being a sovereign negotiator to a compliant participant in Trump’s economic and political architecture.

For Starmer, the cost of this deal isn’t just regulatory compromise. It’s moral complicity. Because you can’t stand up to Trump in press conferences, while standing alongside him in frameworks that demand silence and alignment.

If Britain wants to remain a democratic power among democratic allies, it has to do more than protect its exports.

It has to decide on the world it’s helping to build.

— Lori