The ‘special relationship’ now lies in tatters thanks to Trump

This week he hit car makers with tariffs. He also sunk hopes the UK might escape his tariffs, with UK car and pharmaceutical companies drawn into the Trump tariff net. This will add to the pressure on the UK government to decide whether to side with Europe or continue pursuing hopes of a trade deal and special relationship with Washington.

The only certainty is that regardless of business sector, including farming, food and drinks, tariffs are a game where action produces reaction and the inevitable outcomes are lower economic growth and higher prices for consumers. The bizarre inclusion of an anti-Trump journalist in a far from secure online chat group about bombing Yemen said a lot about poor controls.

The texts disclosed a real antipathy towards Europe from key members of the Trump administration. The cheer leader for a stance that smashes 80 post Second World War years of a special relationship is the vice president, JD Vance.

This makes it ironic that Trump is investing so much time on his road map for a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

The threat from Russia in Ukraine is not to the US, but to Europe, yet the Trump plan effectively excludes Europe from the debate.

An enduring peace in Ukraine is a worthy concept, but the big question is whether the motives of the US are either balanced or transparent. The latest twist is a possible cessation of action by Russia against Black Sea shipping. If this can be delivered it is the single action that could do most to return normality to Ukraine’s agricultural exports.

This would have global implications since it was the loss of trade through the Black Sea that created shortages after Russia attacked Ukraine three years ago.

However negotiations are never straight-forward and this deal raises questions about what the US wants to deliver to Russia as a reward.

This would be a reward for ending just part of the conflict and not for an enduring peace. Reading between the lines of what US officials are suggesting, Trump wants to help Russia and Putin escape from the diplomatic freezer the western world has put them in for their aggression in Ukraine. The talk is of easing sanctions on Russian agricultural exports, including fertiliser, with a long term vision of Russia even re-joining what was the G8, now G7, group of major economies. This has implications for agriculture, but any decisions should be based on sound analysis and not on a rushed Trump desire to save face for Putin. It is hard not to see American motives as more about business prospects in Russia than any real interest in Ukraine – beyond demanding some of its mineral wealth to pay for weaponry most believed the US has given to Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression. Trump actions on tariffs are being felt around the world and in the US. Farmers there have seen markets disappear because of retaliatory tariffs; they have also lost good export business to Canada and when the EU responds to the latest tariffs things will only get worse. This really is a situation where an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. This week the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was forced to cut welfare spending and the size of the civil service as part of her spring statement on the state of the economy. Her hopes are pinned on growth heading off further cuts and tax rises, but with every decision Trump makes to weaken global trade the odds for delivering UK growth get slimmer. Farmers along with the rest of society will feel the impact of an economy failing to deliver on even modest growth forecasts. Cuts to welfare payments and the public sector, both traditional sacred cows for Labour, have made it all but impossible for Reeves to back down over agricultural property relief. She cannot afford to show any political weakness. The case for a more family farm friendly APR mechanism is still there. It could still be sold if the Reeves focus shifted from family farms to the super-rich using APR to avoid inheritance tax. That should have been the demand from the outset, but politics has moved on. The hope now has to be that a future government eventually reverses this economically perverse decision.