Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks on the phone to US President Donald Trump at a car factory in the West Midlands, United Kingdom, on May 8, 2025.
US-UK trade deal a victory for Starmer, with some caveats
When President Donald Trump announced a trade deal that will reduce US tariffs on UK cars and plane engines in return for greater access to the British market for American beef and chemicals, he singled out Prime Minister Keir Starmer for praise.
“The US and UK have been working for years to try and make a deal, and it never quite got there,” said Trump. “It did with this prime minister.”
The president’s comment twisted the knife into the UK Conservative Party, which tried — and failed — to achieve a trade deal with the Americans during its 14 years in power. It took Starmer, the Labour leader, to finally clinch the deal less than a year after entering office.
Starmer isn’t the only winner. Brexiteers cited the prospect of a US trade deal to further justify exiting the European Union. The deal caps a stellar week for Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, after his party made extraordinary strides in the local UK elections last Thursday.
There’s a caveat. The scope of the deal was somewhat limited, with many goods still subject to the 10% tariff — Trump said this rate was “pretty well set.” The UK tariff rate appears to have dropped, while the US one has risen, although the White House numbers can sometimes be off.
What’s Trump’s strategy? With this deal — the first the US has made since “Liberation Day” — it’s not clear whether the president’s main goal is protectionism or winning concessions from America’s allies.
The US did nab some wins from the pact, including access to UK meat markets, but they inked it with a country with which they already have a trade surplus. Trump thus achieved both of these goals, making it unclear where his priority lies.UK Secretary of State for Business and Trade Jonathan Reynolds meets Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal for trade talks, in London, United Kingdom, on April 28, 2025.
UK, India finally cinch trade deal
The United Kingdom on Tuesday sealed its largest trade deal since leaving the European Union, inking a pact with India in a big political win for Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
The highlights: drink and drive. India’s tariffs on UK whisky and gin will halve from 150% to 75%, before falling to 40% over the next decade. Levies on UK auto products will also plummet from 100% to 10%, albeit with some quotas in place. The UK, in turn, will slash tariffs on Indian clothing, foodstuffs, and jewels.
UK-India trade surpassed $50 billion last year, and the deal is projected to add $35 billion a year by 2040.
Starmer succeeds where Sunak failed. Former PM Rishi Sunak had tried desperately to clinch a deal with India during his 20-month premiership.
The migration angle. The pact exempts Indians on short-term UK visas from paying social security taxes for three years – the UK right is already mad about that.
Mujtaba Rahman, Eurasia Group’s managing director of Europe, said the deal is “welcome news” for the UK government.
“However, the real test for Keir Starmer will be how far he can dismantle the trade friction with the UK’s biggest trading partner – the EU,” Rahman added. “That will require a bolder approach than we have seen so far.”
Street vendors stand on a pirogue with goods to be sold at Kituku market, on the bank of Lake Kivu, in Goma, which is controlled by M23 rebels, in North Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of Congo March 21, 2025.
Small Country, Big Story: How Rwanda’s trying to woo Washington
As Western nations adopt increasingly hardline stances on migration, Rwanda has positioned itself to capitalize on these concerns by offering to accept deportees in exchange for payment.
In 2022, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson struck a $385 million deal with Rwanda to house and process thousands of asylum-seekers. The controversial plan ultimately cost British taxpayers an estimated $949 million before it was scrapped in 2024 by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, following two years of legal challenges and widespread criticism over Rwanda’s status as an unsafe destination for migrants. The UK received no refund.
Now, with the Trump administration intensifying its crackdown on migration, Rwanda is exploring a similar arrangement with the United States. The potential deal comes as the White House faces mounting scrutiny for a series of hardline measures, including the high-profile deportation of 238 immigrants to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, proposals to reopen Alcatraz and Guantanamo Bay as detention sites, and even offering migrants $1,000 to voluntarily leave the country.
But for Rwanda, there’s more to gain than just money. These talks are unfolding as the US increasingly takes on the role of power broker in the simmering conflict between Rwanda and its neighbor, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Over the past year, Rwanda has backed the M23 rebel group, helping it seize control of vast territories in the DRC’s mineral-rich eastern provinces — home to an estimated $20 trillion in untapped natural resources.
The United Nations has labeled M23 a proxy force for Rwanda, accusing the group of being led by Rwandan officers and armed by the Rwandan military. President Paul Kagame has repeatedly denied any support for M23. Yet, according to numerous intelligence analysts, diplomats, researchers, and humanitarian workers, the presence of thousands of Rwandan troops in Goma and elsewhere in eastern Congo leaves little doubt about Rwanda’s role.
M23’s gains have included the capture of key mining hubs, giving the group control over significant reserves of gold, cobalt, and coltan – a mineral critical to the production of smartphones, medical devices, and explosives.
The US is now weighing a critical minerals agreement with the DRC, under which American companies would gain access to Congolese mines in exchange for helping secure the region against rebel forces. Washington has a strong incentive to expand its footprint in the DRC to counter China’s growing dominance: Chinese firms already hold a major share of mining contracts in the country, and the DRC produces roughly 70% of the world’s cobalt – a vital component of electric vehicle batteries. The world’s largest cobalt mine, located in DRC, is operated by a Chinese company.
As the US and other international actors broker peace talks between M23 and Rwanda, both sides are maneuvering for leverage. While the DRC courts American support by offering access to critical minerals, Rwanda may be betting that a migration deal with Washington could bolster its standing in the region.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets with US President Donald Trump alongside US Vice President JD Vance and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy in the Oval Office at the White House on February 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C., USA.
Vance ignites hope of much-coveted US-UK trade deal
The US trade deal that London has been chasing for years is closer to reality now, after US Vice President JD Vance told UnHerd on Monday that there is a “good chance” that an agreement is possible.
UK Business and Trade Minister Sarah Jones alsosaid the negotiations are in a “good position,” but refused to divulge any timeline.
One major reported focus of the talks is the UK cutting its “tech tax” on the revenues of major digital firms in return for lower tariffs, although the sides are reportedly negotiating terms that go beyond this.
Back to being “special.” The United Kingdom escaped Trump’s “liberation day” with only the Administration’s general 10% tariff, albeit only because the UK doesn’t have a trade surplus with the US. A free trade deal would leave few or no tariffs on its US-bound exports.
A win for a Remainer and the Brexiteers. A trade pact would mark a big victory for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer — his predecessors have failed to land a deal ever since Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016. The idea was to replace the UK’s continental trade partners with the US, the world’s largest consumer market. Pro-Brexit politicians like Nigel Farage had long promised that Brexit would result in just such a US trade accord.
The irony: it’s finally within sight, thanks, no less, to Starmer, a prominent Remainer.Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, France's President Emmanuel Macron and Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer speak during a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of a summit for "Coalition of the Willing" at Elysee Palace in Paris, France March 27, 2025.
The UK, the EU and a potential landmark post-Brexit defense pact
With Russia’s Vladimir Putin pressing forward on one side and America’s Donald Trump potentially stepping back on the other, curious new things are happening in the European defense sector.
The EU and the United Kingdom are now working toward adefense and security pact to be unveiled at a summit of European leaders hosted by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on May 19.
This will be the first such summit of EU and British leaders since “Brexit”. It comes at a time when the UK and France are leading an effort to form a “coalition of the willing” to safeguard any potential Russia-Ukraine ceasefire.
The new deal would allow British arms-makers, many with longstanding ties to German and other European defense companies, to participate in joint arms procurement to bolster European security.
The pact would also create a €150bn program that allows participating governments to borrow against a common fund to invest in critical military hardware, such as air and missile defense systems.
It’s not a done deal just yet. France in particular wants concessions from Starmer’s government on the hot political topic of fisheries access. But given the stakes, the right of French fishermen to catch sand eels in UK waters seems unlikely to stymie for long the broader progress towards a UK-EU security deal.
Is the US-Europe alliance permanently damaged?
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm, Sweden.
Is the transatlantic relationship permanently damaged by what we have seen during the last 10 days or so?
Well, there is no question that the last 10 days or so have been the worst by far for the transatlantic relationship in, well, modern recorded history. You can go through all of the details if you want. It started with the shameful vote in the UN General Assembly on the same day that was three years after the war of aggression that Russia started, where the United States turned around, lined up with Russia, and with primarily a bunch of countries that you would not normally like to be seen in the company of, in order to try to defeat the Europeans, and defeat the Ukrainians, and defeat the Japanese, and defeat the Australians, defeat all of the friends who have criticized the Russians.
It was truly shameful. It was defeated, needless to say, but it left deep marks there. And then it was downhill from there, with that particular week ending with the ambush in the Oval Office, with all of the details associated with that, with sort of a childish dispute about dress codes, and respect for whatever, and total disregard for the important issues that are at stake at the moment. And to that was added, the vice president seriously insulting the allies, primarily the British and the French, and then cutting of aid to Ukraine, including intelligence cooperation, which is unheard of, unheard of when it comes to these particular issues.
So, is damage permanent? Well, one would hope that... well, hope springs eternal, that there would be a way back. But this will be remembered for a long time to come. And the reaction in Europe, well, you have to keep a straight face if you are a political leader. And they do, they hope for the best, but they're increasingly preparing for the worst. What we might be heading into is Mr. Trump, President Trump lining up with President Putin in a deal that is essentially on Russia's term over Ukraine, then trying to force Ukraine into that particular deal, a repetition of Munich 1938.
Will that work? I think it's unlikely to work because the Ukrainians are determined to stand up for their country. And they have the support of the Europeans. Czechoslovakia in 1938 didn't have much support. So, whether it will work or not is debatable, but that is the direction in which things are heading at the moment. Can this be stopped or can the trajectory of things be changed? Let's hope. There's a flurry of meetings in Europe. There will be a lot of contacts across the Atlantic. There is a strong support for Ukraine in Europe, but then deep apprehensions of where we are heading. Further four years with President Trump. After that, (possibly) four to eight years with JD Vance. Well, well, there's a lot of thinking that needs to be done on this side of the Atlantic.
Can Europe broker a Ukraine ceasefire?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. The big news, everything around Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and Europe. The Europeans now with the ball in their court, a big summit, a coalition of the willing in London this week. And Zelensky very warmly embraced, quite literally, by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and by everyone in attendance. It was very different visuals, very different takeaways than the meeting between Zelensky, Trump, and Vance in the Oval Office, which couldn't have gone much worse if everyone tried.
Where we are right now, certainly this coalition of the willing had everyone that mattered in Europe. I mean, not the countries, not the leaders that have been skeptical, that have been more aligned with the Russians, or more, say, in a minimal position, like the Hungarians, like the Slovaks, but everybody else was there. So, you've got the Brits, you've got the French, you've got the Italians, and the Germans. You also have EU leadership, Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, and also you have all of the frontline leaders that have the most at stake from a national security perspective: the Nordics, the Balts, the Poles. You even have Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who doesn't spend very much on defense, but nonetheless going there to show he's aligned with the Ukrainians, whether or not the Americans, who the Canadians rely on completely economically, are not.
Does it matter? Does it matter? If you're asking does it matter in the sense that can the Europeans go it alone without the Americans? I'm still skeptical, though they're putting a lot more on the table now than they were a week ago, and they should have been doing that years ago. And that's going to remain a very big question, and I'm probably going to remain pretty skeptical. But very interesting that the Europeans do now have a level of ownership. Remember that Trump, both when he was running for president and once he became president, said that the United States was going to end this war, that he, Trump, would be responsible for the ceasefire, that he's going to do it himself with the Ukrainians, with the Russians, he could do it in 24 hours. That's obviously an exaggeration, but nonetheless, even as he realized it was going to take longer, he was the dominant actor. That's now changed. Keir Starmer has now told Trump that the Europeans, this coalition of the willing, is coming up with a ceasefire plan, and they are going to present it to the United States, and Trump is expecting it.
So for now, the Europeans don't just have a seat at the table, but they actually are in the driver's seat, in terms of the ceasefire on the back of the Ukrainian-US relationship having functionally blown up, and the Americans saying they're not going to do anything particularly more for the Ukrainians. They're not even prepared to sign the critical minerals deal that Zelensky now says he is prepared to sign. But if the Europeans are the ones that are going to be coughing up the money and providing the troops, then certainly they're the ones that are responsible for the terms of the ceasefire.
Now, that's interesting. And we're hearing certainly that there's going to be a lot more engagement, that potentially Starmer, Macron, and Zelensky will all three come together to the White House to meet Trump maybe later this week, maybe next week. Certainly Zelensky should not be attending meetings like that by himself anymore, I think he understands that, the Europeans understand that as well.
What they should do now, the Europeans, is present a UN Security Council resolution with the plan once Trump has seen it and is prepared to move forward. A simple thing, deciding nothing, just saying that the Security Council supports the path to peace as outlined from the UK summit. This will force Russian amendments, which the UK and France will veto, and then Russia will be forced to veto the resolution. And that's useful in a couple of different ways. First of all, it costs the French and the UK nothing, and they win a fair amount. The news will be all about how their Russian veto was used for the first time since 1989, and it places the Americans on the same side as the Europeans on the ceasefire issue, which is what the Europeans, the Ukrainians desperately need, and frankly, the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress as well.
The UK and France can then show Trump that they indeed don't need to be invited to the table, because they're at the table, they have the ceasefire plan and they're the ones that are driving it. Now, having a ceasefire plan is different from being able to implement the ceasefire and support the Ukrainians, and that is where there's still an awful lot that still needs to be accomplished.
Specifically the one piece of good news, surprising news, is that the Germans are now talking about 800 billion Euro package, outside of their debt break, that would support defense spending and infrastructure spending. They weren't talking about anything remotely like this even a few days ago. It would have to be done well before the end of the month because when the new chancellor comes in, then you are going to have the far left and the far right with the ability to block any constitutional majority. They don't have that capacity now, which means the debt break can be overridden by a vote in the Bundestag. That's really important, and would lead to German leadership in helping to finance this war.
You also have the 300 billion Euros that are frozen, the Russian sovereign assets that are mostly in the hands of the Europeans, the Belgians, as it turns out, and some others as opposed to the Americans, the Japanese. So, that could also be used to support Ukraine to buy more weapons, also to build up Ukraine's military industrial complex. In other words, while this situation is difficult and urgent, I would not yet say that it has fallen apart for the Ukrainians or the Europeans. They are still, as it were, in the game.
Now, the big question overlooking all of this is the United States and Russia, because they still want to do a deal, and that deal is not mostly about Ukraine, that deal mostly is about rapprochement between the United States and Russia over the heads of their NATO allies. This is what Trump is interested in, this is what Putin is interested. And frankly, it's a little easier to do that deal if you don't have a ceasefire, because the Russians don't really want one, than it is to do that deal if a ceasefire is a part of it. That's what has to be watched very carefully because of course, Trump and Putin are talking about where they're going to meet in person, Saudi Arabia maybe in May, Trump would even be willing to go to Moscow. This could include things like the United States taking unilateral sanctions off of Russia while the Europeans would still have them on. Could lead to a lot of business, a much bigger critical minerals deal than the one that was going to be signed between the Americans and the Ukrainians, and now, at least, is off the table.
Also note that the US Defense Department has at least temporarily suspended offensive cyberattacks against the Russians, which is quite something, again, in the context of nothing having been agreed to between the Americans and the Russians, but clearly Trump much more willing to be on Putin's good side right now than he is with Zelensky. So ultimately, that is a very big challenge for the Europeans, but they will be in far better shape if they're able to move on the ceasefire in the near-term, which looks likely, and on support for Ukraine in the medium-term, which looks like more of a challenge.
So, that's it for now. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivers a speech during a visit to the Manufacturing Futures Lab at UCL in London, on Jan. 13, 2025, as he prepares to launch a plan to harness AI to spur growth and efficiency in the country.
British PM wants sovereign AI
On Monday, the British government announced the AI Opportunities Action Plan, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s economic and technological development plan for artificial intelligence. Starmer’s goals include building a homegrown challenger to OpenAI, building data centers nationwide, and exploring renewable energy sources — including nuclear energy — to power the data centers.
Last year, Starmer canceled $1.7 billion of spending commitments meant for computing infrastructure as part of a broader set of budget cuts — nixing the promises made under the prior administration of Rishi Sunak. Starmer is now trying to leave his own mark with a play for “sovereign AI” in the country. “Today’s plan mainlines AI into the veins of this enterprising nation – revolutionizing our public services and putting more money in people’s back pockets,” the government wrote in a press release.
As part of the initiative, three companies — Vantage Data Centres, Nscale, and Kyndryl — committed $17 billion to build data centers, a plan the government says will create 13,250 jobs across the UK and increase compute capacity twentyfold by 2030. The ultimate goal: Starmer’s government wants to make the UK “irresistible” to AI firms.