What are Donald Trump’s tariffs, what is ‘liberation day’ and how does it all affect the UK?

Published

4 weeks ago

April 2, 2025

admin

If there is a word that has dominated Donald Trump’s second term, it’s tariffs.

Aluminium, steel, cars and champagne have all been in his firing line, while China, Canada and Mexico are the countries targeted with the heaviest costs.

Along the way, there have been threats, pauses and postponements.

So what are tariffs, what is in the pipeline – and what could all this mean for the UK?

What are tariffs and why is Trump threatening to use them?

Tariffs are taxes on goods imported into the US.

It is the importers buying the goods who pay the tariffs – therefore, American companies.

Ultimately, the intent is to protect US manufacturing and bolster jobs by making foreign-made products less attractive.

However, there is a knock-on effect: to compensate for tariffs, companies put up their prices, so customers end up paying more for goods.

Tariffs can also damage foreign countries as they make their products pricier and harder to sell.

In his second term, Mr Trump has frequently used them – or the threat of them – as a trade weapon.

They are a key part of Mr Trump’s efforts to reshape global trade relations, and he plans to impose a swathe of what he calls “reciprocal” taxes that would match tariffs levied by other nations.

Tariffs were also part of his playbook in his first term, when he imposed taxes on most goods coming from China and used them as a bargaining chip to force Canada and Mexico to renegotiate a North American trade pact.

On his first day back in office, the US president promised 25% tariffs on all products coming into the US from its nearest neighbours Mexico and Canada – ostensibly to force the countries to tackle illegal migration and fentanyl crossing the border.

What is liberation day?

Mr Trump has branded 2 April “liberation day”, when he could unveil the reciprocal tariffs on countries deemed to be giving the US a bad deal on trade.

The extent of potential tariffs and countries affected remains unclear, with Mr Trump at times sending mixed messages.

On 30 March, he said “all countries” could expect to be hit by tariffs.

Speaking from Air Force One, the US president rubbished a question from a reporter who asked whether it was true he was planning on targeting between 10 and 15 countries.

“Who told you 10-15 countries? You didn’t hear it from me,” he said.

When pressed on how many he was planning to hit, he said: “You’d start with all countries, let’s see what happens.”

Two days prior, he said he was open to carving out deals with countries seeking to avoid US tariffs, but that those agreements would be negotiated after 2 April.

He had previously said he “may give a lot of countries breaks, but it’s reciprocal”, adding: “We might be even nicer than that.”

How could the UK be affected?

The UK hopes an economic deal with the US will spare the country from some of the tariffs.

Sir Keir Starmer and Mr Trump have had “productive negotiations” towards a UK-US “economic prosperity deal”, Downing Street has said.

The two leaders discussed a possible deal in a phone call on Sunday and agreed negotiations will “continue at pace”, according to a statement released on Sunday 30 March.

The day before the so-called “liberation day”, Sir Keir told Sky News political editor Beth Rigby the UK was “working hard on an economic deal” with the US and said “rapid progress” has been made.

But, he admitted: “Look, the likelihood is there will be tariffs. Nobody welcomes that, nobody wants a trade war.

“But I have to act in the national interest and that means all options have to remain on the table.”

Sir Keir added: “We are discussing economic deals. We’re well advanced.

“These would normally take months or years, and in a matter of weeks, we’ve got well advanced in those discussions, so I think that a calm approach, a collected approach, not a knee-jerk approach, is what’s needed in the best interests of our country.”

Mr Trump has not explicitly said the UK is in his sights for further tariffs, though he has described VAT – a tax added on all goods and services in the UK – as unfair.

In deciding what is a reciprocal tariff for the UK, it’s possible Mr Trump could use the tax, typically 20%, to decide.

Data shows no great trade imbalances – the gap between what you import and export from a certain country – and UK figures show no trade deficit with the United States.

UK ministers have previously suggested this could be good news for avoiding new levies.

But the tariffs Mr Trump has already announced would have a big impact on the UK – particularly the car tariff.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business and trade secretary, told Sky News he is “hopeful” the tariffs can be reversed soon.

He warned: “The longer we don’t have a potential resolution, the more we will have to consider our own position in relation to [tariffs], precluding retaliatory tariffs.”

He added the government was taking a “calm-headed” approach in the hope a deal can be agreed, but said it is only “reasonable” that retaliatory tariffs are an option, echoing Sir Keir’s sentiments over the weekend.

What tariffs have already been announced?

Some tariffs have already come into effect, while Mr Trump has confirmed some that will come in on 2 April.

He has said a 25% tariff on all cars imported to the US will come into effect, with a similar tariff on car parts expected to follow in May.

This could prove even more complicated for American car makers, who source components from around the world even if the vehicle is made in the US.

But Mr Trump has insisted the move will “continue to spur growth”, pointing to plans from Hyundai – the South Korean car maker – to build a $5.8bn (£4.5bn) steel plant in Louisiana.

The tariff could have a huge impact on the UK’s car industry, including on manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Aston Martin and Rolls-Royce.

Official data shows the US is the UK car sector’s largest single market by country, accounting for £6.4bn worth of car exports in 2023 – 18.4% of the total.

Trump has also said he will place a 25% tariff on all imports from any country that buys oil or gas from Venezuela, which includes the US itself – in addition to imposing new tariffs on the South American country.

On 12 March, a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminium imports to the US came into effect, affecting UK products worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

The move came after he placed a 10% tax on all imports from China, which he later doubled to 20%.

He placed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, but paused them for a month two days after they came into effect, meaning they are set to resume on 2 April.

The pause did not fully cover a tariff of 10% on Canadian energy products.

What has been the global response to tariffs?

There has widely been condemnation of the tariffs, especially from countries worst affected like Mexico and Canada.

Some have imposed, or threatened to impose, retaliatory tariffs.

China has already hit back with retaliatory tariffs covering a range of US goods, including a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas products, a 10% tariff on US crude oil and tariffs of up to 15% on key US farm exports.

Canada imposed tariffs of its own on US products, including a 25% reciprocal tariff on US steel and aluminium products and tariffs worth an estimated C$29.8bn (£16bn) on a wide range of US products including orange juice, peanut butter, alcohol, coffee and clothing.

The European Union has said it will impose retaliatory tariffs on the US, but when they will come into force is unknown.

The European Commission initially threatened to impose “countermeasures” affecting €26bn (£21.9bn) of US goods from 1 April, but later delayed this until the middle of April.

The bloc said the delay was because it wanted “additional time for discussions” with the US after Mr Trump threatened a 200% tariff on EU alcohol – including wine and champagne – if the bloc imposed duties on US whiskey.

Any tariffs imposed by the bloc would not only impact US steel and aluminium products, but also textiles, home appliances, agricultural goods and whiskey.

Why tariffs could cost you – even if Trump spares UK

Even if no tariffs are put on all UK exports to the US, consumers globally will still be impacted by the wider trade war, particularly in the US.

Economists believe that tariffs will raise costs in the US, sparking a wave of inflation that will keep interest rates higher for longer. The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, is mandated to act to bring inflation down.

More expensive borrowing and costlier goods and services could bring about an economic downturn in the US and have knock-on effects in the UK.

Forecasts from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) predict lower UK economic growth due to higher global interest rates.

It estimated that UK GDP (a measure of everything produced in the economy) could be between 2.5% and 3% lower over five years and 0.7% lower this year.

The Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy thinktank said a 20% across-the-board tariff, impacting the UK, could lead to a £22bn reduction in the UK’s US exports, with the hardest-hit sectors including fishing and mining.

Business

Chair candidates battle to check in at Premier Inn-owner Whitbread

Published

8 hours ago

April 27, 2025

admin

Chair candidates battle to check in at Premier Inn-owner Whitbread

Two chairs of FTSE-100 companies are vying to succeed Adam Crozier at the top of Whitbread, the London-listed group behind the Premier Inn hotel chain.

Sky News has learnt that Christine Hodgson, who chairs water company Severn Trent, and Andrew Martin, chair of the testing and inspection group Intertek, are the leading contenders for the Whitbread job.

Mr Crozier, who has chaired the leisure group since 2018, is expected to step down later this year.

The search, which has been taking place for several months, is expected to conclude in the coming weeks, according to one City source.

Ms Hodgson has some experience of the leisure industry, having served on the board of Ladbrokes Coral Group until 2017, while Mr Martin was a senior executive at the contract caterer Compass Group and finance chief at the travel agent First Choice Holidays.

Under Mr Crozier’s stewardship, Whitbread has been radically reshaped, selling its Costa Coffee subsidiary to The Coca-Cola Company in 2019 for nearly £4bn.

The company has also seen off an activist campaign spearheaded by Elliott Advisers, while Mr Crozier orchestrated the appointment of Dominic Paul, its chief executive, following Alison Brittain’s retirement.

It said last year that it sees potential to grow the network from 86,000 UK bedrooms to 125,000 over the next decade or so.

Mr Crozier is one of Britain’s most seasoned boardroom figures, and now chairs BT Group and Kantar, the market research and data business backed by Bain Capital and WPP Group.

He previously ran the Football Association, ITV and – in between – Royal Mail Group.

On Friday, shares in Whitbread closed at £25.41, giving the company a market capitalisation of about £4.5bn.

Whitbread declined to comment this weekend.

Business

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

Published

1 day ago

April 26, 2025

admin

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.

Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.

The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.

Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.

It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.

In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.

“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.

“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”

Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.

His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.

While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.

The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.

Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.

The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.

Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.

More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.

Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.

Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.

In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.

The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.

Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.

“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.

“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.

“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.

“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.

In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.

The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.

HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.

“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.

“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”

The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.

Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.

Business

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

Published

2 days ago

April 25, 2025

admin

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.

Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.

Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’

The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.

Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.

Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.

The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.

In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.

A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.

Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.

A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.