At the Jaguar Land Rover factory in northern England this past May, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood before a crowd of workers and executives, touting what he described as a “world-leading” trade deal with US President Donald Trump. The centerpiece of his announcement was a much-anticipated cut in US tariffs on British steel—supposedly dropping to zero—heralded as a move that would boost British industry and jobs. Yet, as of August 17, 2025, the relief that many had been waiting for remained elusive. Steel lobbyist Peter Brennan, among others, was still holding out hope that the promised tariff break would materialize, according to reporting by BBC.
But steel was only one part of the equation. The broader impact of the US-UK trade agreement, finalized earlier this year, is now coming into sharper focus—and not all of it is positive. In fact, the deal’s consequences are rippling across Britain’s economy, with some sectors facing existential threats while others reap potential rewards. Nowhere is this more visible than in the bioethanol industry, which, as Reuters notes, is teetering on the brink of collapse after being left out in the cold by the government’s refusal to offer financial support.
Under the terms of the US-UK trade deal, the UK’s 19% tariffs on US ethanol were slashed to zero, with the agreement allowing up to 1.4 billion liters of American ethanol—roughly the size of the entire UK market—to enter Britain tariff-free. The intention was clear: open up the market, encourage competition, and, in theory, offer consumers and businesses more choices. But the reality, for many in the UK’s bioethanol sector, has been devastating.
“We … have taken the difficult decision not to offer direct funding as it would not provide value for the taxpayer or solve the long-term problems the industry faces,” a government spokesperson told Reuters, acknowledging the pain but insisting that the trade deal had protected hundreds of thousands of jobs in the auto and aerospace industries.
For Associated British Foods (AB Foods), the calculation was stark. The company’s Vivergo plant in northern England, one of the country’s two major bioethanol facilities, announced on August 17 that it would begin an orderly closure process, with production of both bioethanol and animal feed ceasing by August 31. “It is deeply regrettable that the government has chosen not to support a key national asset,” an AB Foods spokesperson said, lamenting the loss of Britain’s sovereign capability in clean fuels and warning, “Jobs in clean energy will now move overseas—principally to the US but also to other countries with a more sensible regulatory environment.”
The closure of Vivergo is more than just a business setback. The plant’s demise will reverberate through the supply chain, impacting British farmers who supply the sector, animal feed producers, and even the market for carbon dioxide—a crucial byproduct used in everything from soft drinks to nuclear facilities and hospitals.
Ensus, the other major bioethanol producer in the region, remains operational for now. The Ensus plant, owned by Germany’s Sudzucker Group, plays a critical role in the UK’s industrial ecosystem, producing up to 60% of the country’s annual carbon dioxide needs. Grant Pearson, chairman of Ensus UK, told Reuters that “urgent discussions will be taking place to provide a level of assurance to the Sudzucker and CropEnergies Boards that there is a very high level of confidence that an acceptable long term arrangement can be reached.” Still, the future is uncertain, and the government’s consideration of increasing the ethanol content in UK fuel from the current 10% may come too late for Vivergo and possibly others.
The bioethanol industry’s collapse is shaping up to be an embarrassment for Prime Minister Starmer, who had promised that the trade deal would protect jobs and attract investment. Instead, it has become a cautionary tale of the unintended consequences of opening up domestic markets without adequate safeguards for homegrown industries. As Reuters highlights, the failure of this sector could also serve as a stark example of the global impacts of President Trump’s reordering of world trade.
Meanwhile, the trade deal’s ripple effects are being felt far beyond the factory floor. British farmers, represented by the National Farmers Union (NFU), have been in close discussions with ministers throughout the trade negotiations. Their concerns are not limited to ethanol or steel; they extend to food standards, animal welfare, and the very fabric of rural life in Britain. The NFU’s President, Tom Bradshaw, has been vocal about the risks of granting greater market access to food imports produced in ways that are illegal in the UK—especially in light of reports suggesting that a proposed deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) could allow uncapped poultry exports to the UK, provided only that hygiene requirements are met.
In a letter to Prime Minister Starmer, Bradshaw stressed, “Hygiene standards are distinct from welfare standards. The GCC trading bloc has general animal welfare provisions in place, but these fall well short of the standards expected of the UK poultry sector in areas such as housing requirements. British poultry farmers are proud to produce to some of the highest welfare and environmental standards in the world.” He continued, “It is unreasonable for the agricultural sector to be continually expected to make sacrifices on behalf of other sectors of the economy—the burden must be shared.”
Starmer, for his part, has responded with assurances. “I can assure you that we will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage and the impact this may have. Where necessary, we will be prepared to use the full range of powers at our disposal to protect our most sensitive sectors. Any agricultural imports coming into the UK will always have to meet our high sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Nothing we agree with the GCC, or any other trade partner, will alter this,” he wrote in a personal reply to Bradshaw.
The NFU, however, remains vigilant. Bradshaw emphasized, “The NFU will always fight to make sure the government only signs balanced and mutually beneficial trade deals.” He noted that after ethanol was included in the US trade deal, he sought direct guarantees from the prime minister regarding the GCC agreement—and, by his account, those guarantees were given. Still, he warned, “I have been clear that the UK farming sector can shoulder no more pain on behalf of other sectors of the economy,” underscoring that “the details agreed will be important.”
As the UK navigates this new era of global trade, the experiences of the steel, bioethanol, and farming sectors serve as a reminder: the fine print of international agreements can upend livelihoods, reshape industries, and test the promises of political leaders. What’s clear is that the stakes are high, and the outcomes—intended or not—are already being felt in communities across the country.
