Blighty newsletter: Why Trump’s tariffs might spare Britain

BBCUSGDPCan Britain escape the direct impact of ? Optimists in Westminster have been thrown a few straws to clutch at this week. Mr Trump told the he had a “very good relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer, notwithstanding their philosophical differences. In a call, the president “spoke of his respect and affection for the Royal Family”, according to a buoyant Downing Street account. But perhaps less promisingly, the White House’s account of the conversation noted the desire for a “fair” bilateral economic relationship. And Mr Trump continues to be elliptical about the size and scope of the across-the-board tariffs he says he wants.A more substantial case for optimism can be found in “No Trade is Free”, by Robert Lighthizer (pictured), who served as trade representative in Mr Trump’s first term, and which I’ve been reading this week. It was published in 2023 as a part-memoir, part-manifesto, and amounts to a country-by-country charge sheet as to how America’s trading partners (above all, China, but also Germany, Ireland, Japan and other long-time American allies) have, in Mr Lighthizer’s view, undermined American security and taken Americans’ jobs through unfair or predatory trading practices.Against this often dyspeptic backdrop, Britain emerges in glowing terms. The Anglo-American trade relationship “may be the healthiest one in the world”, Mr Lighthizer writes. The logic is simple: if the sinners are those countries with persistent goods surpluses with America, then Britain (where goods trade has alternated between surplus and deficit in recent years) is a saint. “That is how trade is supposed to work,” he writes. He notes the high levels of direct investment and services trade between the two countries. “Economically, we really do have a ‘special relationship’.”The idea that Mr Trump is itching for a trade deal with Britain has become commonplace in Westminster—both among those who are enthused or are horrified by the idea. Hardly, says Mr Lighthizer. He admits to being baffled by the pro-free-trade Brexiteers that ran Boris Johnson’s government. “That never made much sense to me. To be in favour of national control of your institutions and government while being unconcerned about maintaining some level of self-sufficiency seemed contradictory.” The fruitless Anglo-American trade negotiations that took place in Mr Trump’s first term are described in the tone of one humouring a deluded friend; a ring-round of American manufacturing bosses finds most are happy with the status quo.Mr Lighthizer missed out on a job in the new administration. Does his benign view of Britain live on? Quite possibly: the nominee for trade representative, Jamieson Greer, is a Lighthizer protégé who describes Britain as a “like-minded country that believes in fair trade”. (He served as Mr Lighthizer’s chief of staff and had a hand in negotiations with China, Canada and Mexico.) But, as my colleagues in Washington note, it is possible that he reaches different decisions. Another reason for uncertainty is that , the nominee for commerce secretary, has been given a broad portfolio as trade czar.Of course, the outbreak of trade wars and rising protectionism—and that follow from that—is bad news for the British economy, regardless of whether it escapes Mr Trump’s tariffs directly. And there are plenty of other areas for flare-ups. One is , where the government appears in no hurry to meet a self-imposed target of 2.5% of . Another is tech regulation: the British competition regulator has previously for American giants. (Whether ministers’ demands in recent days that the agency take a more “pro-business” stance alters its approach to big tech is one to watch.) Best to take Mr Lighthizer’s account not as a predictor of future decisions, but as a baseline by which to judge whether a second Trump term proves to be even more uncomfortable for close allies than the first.