The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers
Residents of the United Kingdom will get lower tariffs, while Americans are stuck paying higher ones.

The White House is hailing a new trade deal with the United Kingdom as "a great deal for America."
But is it a great deal for Americans? The specifics of the deal seem to suggest otherwise.
The agreement maintains the 10 percent universal tariff that President Donald Trump imposed on nearly all imports to the United States. But even the president admits this is a tariff hike on American consumers, rather than a reduction.
The point of comparison should be the average tariff rate on imports from the U.K. before Trump took office. In 2023, the most recent year for which full data are available, the average U.S. tariff on British goods was 3.3 percent.
That means this "deal" charges American consumers a 10 percent baseline tax on goods that were previously taxed at 3.3 percent. That's not a win for free trade or lower prices.
Meanwhile, it is British consumers who will benefit from lower tariffs. According to the White House, the deal means that American exports to the U.K. will now face an average tariff rate of 1.8 percent, down from 5.1 percent before the deal. (In 2023, average U.K. tariffs on American goods were 3.8 percent, so that 5.1 percent figure seems inflated).
The lower U.K. tariffs are certainly good news for some American businesses, which will have easier access to the U.K. economy. American cattle farmers, for example, stand to benefit from the elimination of a 20 percent British tariff on American beef.
But since tariffs are a tax on consumers, it looks like it is British consumers who are the primary winners here, as they will have lower taxes on and more access to American beef (and lots of other things). Meanwhile, American consumers are facing significantly higher taxes on machinery, pharmaceuticals, and other major imports from across the pond.
Take automobiles as an example. The White House is touting one part of the new deal that will supposedly lower tariffs on British-built cars to just 10 percent—for the first 100,000 vehicles imported each year. After that, a 25 percent tariff will apply. That 100,000 figure is based on the number of cars imported from the U.K. last year, so the new rules effectively lock in that level of imports and make any increase prohibitively expensive.
Trying to freeze markets into stasis is bad news for the dynamism that drives economic growth, of course. At a less theoretical level, this is yet another example of the White House claiming to be cutting tariffs on Americans when, in fact, the deal increases them. Before Trump hiked tariffs earlier this year, the U.S. charged just 2.5 percent on cars imported from Britain.
In other words, the "deal" means tariffs on British cars have been quadrupled for American buyers. That's hardly a win for Americans.
If the agreement with the U.K. was supposed to demonstrate that Trump is a master dealmaker who is wielding tariffs to bend the global economy toward Americans' best interest, it falls well short.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Too much TDS. Trump is a masterfaker.
Ok fag.
You're a grand old fag,
You're a high-flying fag,
And forever your penis I crave.
You're the macho man that I love,
The homo that’s free and the brave.
I should research this more thoroughly before commenting but I think Trump's strategy is to open markets to US exports which would seem to be the case here as even idiot Boehm admits. Trump's primary goal is to equalize the balance of trade. Simply calling tariffs a tax over and over again and claiming that the current trade deficits are either inconsequential or actually a good thing doesn't answer the bigger questions. Just more lazy crap from Reason.
Boehm will never understand secondary effects caused by his views. Such as the increasing welfare state from job loss, costs associated with supply chain risks from foreign markets, etc.
“ Such as the increasing welfare state from job loss”
You have some sort of evidence to believe poverty comes from trade? Because there’s a much stronger correlation between conservative governance and poverty, since red states dominate the poorest, least educated, and least successful states in America. So what’s your evidence that trade leads to poverty?
“ costs associated with supply chain risks from foreign markets”
Risk is factored in to landed costs. For example, insurance on the orders themselves as well as the delivery of the goods are both included in the landed cost of a product. So no, supply chain risks aren’t part of the “secondary effects” of trade. Plus, of course, the risk is exactly the same regardless of whether the tariff is 3.3% or 10%.
You keep showing how clueless you are about supply chains and international trade. Yet you keep saying stupid things. How many times do you have to smack your proverbial head on the metaphorical low spread before you learn?
But just for shits and giggles, since your first two examples were laughably false, what is the “etc” you are referring to and why would a 6.7% increase in tariffs change them?
Hey it's Nelson. He's back to be retarded.
Has welfare increased since the unilateral free trade mantra occurred, yes or no? What was share of GDP for the middle class in the 70s as compare to now? How many jobs have been off shored? What's the unemployment rate of able body men compared to the 70s?
It is amazing how ignorant you are buddy. Every job gains under Biden went to a foreigner for the most part. What happens when someone can't get a job?
It’s all Reagan’s fault!! Bring back Jimmy Carter!! 😉
Great no break down that poverty rate by county and tell me the demographics of the people on welfare.
The UK market is open to US products and the US has a large trade surplus with the UK. As the article notes, this is merely a tax increase designed to punish us.
Strategy my ass. He hasn't a clue about trade if he thinks foreigners pay the tax and that he can increase foreign investment at the same time he reduces the trade deficit.
He may think flailing and lying and being ignorant is a strategy. His fanbois may think so. But self-delusion is a piss poor substitute for an actual strategy.
“ Trump's primary goal is to equalize the balance of trade.”
Then he isn’t very knowledgeable about trade, because a trade deficit is an indication of a healthy and thriving economy. So not only are American companies paying more for anything they get from Britain, American consumers are also paying more for them.
The only way to view this as a win is to believe that trade deficits are bad. And that’s wrong.
“ Simply calling tariffs a tax over and over again”
Because it is. Do you think companies are going to say, “Oh, well. Our profit margins have been slashed, but we’ll just eat the cost.”? Or will they say, “We need to be profitable, so raise the price.”. If you think the former, you don’t understand the for-profit part of business.
“ again and claiming that the current trade deficits are either inconsequential or actually a good thing doesn't answer the bigger questions.”
That IS the answer to the bigger question. If the question is, “Are trade deficits bad?” ( which is about as big as a trade question gets), the answer is “No”.
A trade deficit just mean we bring in more goods from another country than we send out. It applies to everything, from raw materials to components for cars to finished products. So an American company (like, say, Tesla) will have to raise prices on their products (or lose profits) because many (if not most) components in the car are built elsewhere. This not only hurts American consumers, it hurts American companies as well.
Do you know what a country that doesn’t buy a lot of stuff is called? Poor. That’s the only reason companies and people don’t want bananas from Costa Rica and coffee from Sumatra and chocolate from Indonesia and cinnamon from Vietnam: because they can’t afford it. Trade deficits are a sign of economic activity, wealth, and a thriving market.
And you continue to be wrong again as your ideals are an inflationary policy lol.
Remember when your solution for inflation was to invade Iraq?? And it ended up costing $3 trillion and 4500 troops and exacerbated inflation??? Oops. 😉
You’re talking about your never Trumper allies again.
you don't want a Land Rover anyways 🙂
Would have been a Jaguar (had one back in the day), but they're all ugly electrics now so I'm good.
Remember when you supported invading Iraq and you didn’t care that Bush failed to kill Osama Bin Laden?? That was weird, right?
That was your neocon allies.
Well, Boehm has never been wrong before...
Damiksec is wrong about Boehm being wrong.
Were you wrong about Dick Cheney?? Didn’t you say he could shoot you in the face any time he pleased…or was that blow a wad in your face?? I forget.
Cheney is your ally.
"higher ones" - some world-class writing there Reason...
OMG! American consumerism will have to pay a little more taxes than nothing at all when buying "across the pond" but American makers/creators production will get a tax-deduction!
Why it's almost like Trump is trying to build a productive America instead of the pile of Debt-Riddled consumerism it currently is.
Course the "Where's my ?free? ponies..." crowd will certainly cry about it.
“Course the "Where's my ?free? ponies..." crowd will certainly cry about it.”
Especially the retarded drunks, and the morbidly obese pedophiles.
“ but American makers/creators production will get a tax-deduction!”
American companies buy things from overseas. Lots of things. Tariffs tax them, too. How much additional business would they have to get to cover the tariffs on the goods they import for their products?
You do understand that international supply chains mean that American companies are getting screwed, too. Right?
It's amazing how you can use 'American' to describe NOT 'American' goods and services (which is all Tariffs apply to).
And No. I don't consider not being Tax-Exempt in the face of Domestic Manufacturing rates as high at 85% screwing the importers. In fact I'd say the screwing is the other way around.
The tariffs chicanery has already cost us $500 billion in increased interest payments as Powell has delayed a rate cut. Tariffs won’t ever raise enough revenue to pay for several years of increased interest payments because uncertainty delays Fed rate cuts. People can think Biden was the worst president in history but the only path forward in 2025 was to continue what Biden was doing the last several years and then increase the top income tax rate to 39.6%. Republicans other than Trump are all starting to come to terms with this reality now.
INCREASE taxes on American Production!!! /s
DECREASE taxes on Foreign Production!!! /s
What could possibly go wrong.... /s
I nominate 'Sam' to be the basis of the next "What could possibly go wrong" Reason article.
3% deficit/GDP ratio is the only thing that matters right now. Obama had it at 3% and Trump hacked it up to record levels.
Otnos amazing watching the retard left demand regulations and taxes for all domestic industry while demanding full exemption for foreign ones.
You're not very smart are you buddy.
Trump is an absolute moron.
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I love it when the writers visit the comments.