A new UK–US trade agreement takes effect, delivering a preferential tariff regime for British-made cars sent to the United States while keeping unresolved questions about the broader treatment of U.K. metal exports. The deal marks the United Kingdom’s first major post-Brexit pact with Washington in a landscape still shaped by tariff politics and industrial strategy. It is designed to support Britain’s automotive sector and other key industries by easing the pressure of penalties that had hobbled export prospects, while also signaling a longer-term framework in which tariff reductions could be accelerated on core steel products. As ministers and industry leaders welcomed the agreement, questions lingered over the pace and scope of further concessions on steel and other metals, as well as the practical implications for manufacturers facing complex supply chains and global competition. In a trip to a British car factory, Prime Minister Keir Starmer framed the outcome as a milestone that would safeguard jobs and critical industries, even as observers noted that the ultimate success of the deal would hinge on how enduring the concessions prove amid evolving global trade dynamics.
Deal Structure and Immediate Tariff Implications
The new UK–US trade arrangement begins operating on Monday, laying out a tailored tariff regime that affects British automotive exports and other goods heading to the United States. Under the terms, a blanket 10% tariff now applies to most U.K. goods imported into the United States, representing a meaningful reduction from prior punitive measures and a signal of renewed market access for British manufacturers. The most immediately impactful provision for the automotive sector introduces a tiered tariff on British-made cars: the first 100,000 vehicles exported to the United States each year will benefit from a 10% import duty, while shipments beyond that annual threshold will face a 25% tariff. This approach acts as a bridge between protection for U.S. domestic manufacturing and the long-term goal of stabilizing Britain’s vital export channel.
Industry data underpinning the policy’s rationale show that the United Kingdom has substantial exposure to the U.S. market. Figures from the influential automotive trade body, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), indicate that about 102,000 cars manufactured in Britain were exported to the United States in the prior year. Such volumes underscore why the pact’s car tariff structure matters deeply for automakers with a strong British footprint. In public remarks following the agreement’s implementation, Mike Hawes, chief executive of the SMMT, described the deal as a “huge relief for U.K. automotive companies that export to this critically important market.” He noted that the new terms immediately relieve the punitive tariffs that had effectively brought the U.S. export market to a standstill and threatened the viability of some of Britain’s most recognizable manufacturing brands.
From a broader perspective, the United States runs a trade surplus on goods with Britain, meaning the United States exports more to Britain than it imports in many categories. Cars are the United Kingdom’s largest export to the United States, reinforcing the strategic significance of any tariff adjustments for this sector. Last year, roughly a quarter of all U.K. car exports—about 27.4%—made their way to the United States, highlighting the market’s importance for UK automotive manufacturers. The 10%–25% tariff range negotiated for vehicles is notably lower than the 50% levy that has applied to car imports from other partners under different tariff regimes, underscoring the preferential treatment that the pact affords British cars in the U.S. market.
The deal’s broader tariff framework demonstrates a deliberate push to lower the cost of doing business for U.K. manufacturers in the United States, while preserving a measured approach to protect U.S. industry. The 10% blanket tariff on general U.K. goods, paired with the more favorable vehicle treatment, signals a strategic prioritization of automotive exports in the near term. The policy design appears to balance two aims: delivering immediate relief to a sector that has faced export barriers and creating a platform for more comprehensive negotiations on other goods down the line. In the immediate wake of the agreement, industry participants and policymakers will be watching closely to assess how the tariff regime translates into actual export volumes, price competitiveness, and investment decisions by British carmakers and their suppliers.
Yet negotiators and industry observers acknowledge that the deal does not resolve every friction point between the two economies. The scope is clear about cars and general goods, but the metal sector remains a focal point of ongoing discussions, with steel and aluminum tariffs presenting a distinct and more complex challenge. The U.K. government has indicated a willingness to continue pushing on tariff reductions for core steel products, signaling that the process of shaping a broader free-trade-like environment will continue beyond the car-specific commitments. The practical implications for manufacturers will hinge on how quickly and effectively the terms materialize across a wider range of materials and product categories, as well as how quickly supply chains can adapt to the new tariff landscape.
Within the automotive industry, manufacturers and suppliers must now navigate the transition from policy to practice. The 100,000-vehicle quota at a 10% tariff provides a predictable, though finite, relief, which may influence production planning, inventory management, and export strategy for the coming years. For brands with a strong British footprint, the potential cost advantage in the United States can support pricing decisions, channel strategies, and investment in local or near-shore production capabilities. The structural shift also offers a signal to investors and workforce planners: a more stable, predictable tariff environment in the near term for British-produced vehicles may support jobs and long-term manufacturing commitments.
Industry voices emphasize that the deal is a stepping stone rather than a final settlement. While the 10%–25% vehicle tariff framework represents a substantial improvement from prior conditions, stakeholders are attentive to how subsequent negotiations regarding steel, aluminum, and other core metals unfold. The melt-and-pour rules and other technical criteria used by the United States to determine whether a product qualifies as U.K.-produced can influence the geographic sourcing of inputs, affecting where manufacturers choose to locate processing and final assembly. As such, the agreement’s long-run impact will depend on its ability to translate tariff concessions into tangible competitive advantages for British automotive brands in a highly globalized supply chain environment.
The political and industrial leadership surrounding the deal has framed Monday’s implementation as a turning point. For Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the agreement is portrayed as a commitment to safeguard the industries that underpin the U.K. economy and support stable employment across regional economies. The administration’s messaging underscores the strategic importance of maintaining allied trade networks that can reinforce domestic manufacturing capabilities in a global context. Yet, the corridor of negotiations remains active, with steel policy and other sensitive sectors likely to take center stage in future discussions as both sides seek to align broader trade objectives with national industrial strategies.
Vehicle quotas and price dynamics
The practical consequences of the 100,000-vehicle threshold include the potential for vehicle manufacturers to prioritize exports into the United States up to the quota while adjusting production schedules to align with quota usage. Some observers anticipate that the quota could influence the timing of model introductions and the duration of export cycles, as automakers seek to optimize the balance between U.S. demand and tariff exposure. In addition, the differential treatment of early shipments at 10% versus later shipments at 25% could encourage a more steady flow of exports across the year, as companies calibrate their logistics and distribution plans to minimize tariff-related cost escalations.
From a pricing perspective, the 10% tariff on the first tranche of British-made cars is a meaningful reduction relative to prior punitive regimes, and it can help maintain price competitiveness in the U.S. market. However, the subsequent 25% tariff on vehicles beyond the annual cap remains a potential constraint on growth, particularly if U.S. demand expands or if competing manufacturers from other regions pursue aggressive pricing strategies. Auto industry analysts will be closely watching monthly export data and unit sales to gauge how much of the U.S. market aligns with the quota and whether additional U.K.-owner brands leverage marketing and product differentiation to preserve market share.
The broader trade balance and sectoral implications
Beyond cars, the blanket 10% tariff on all U.K. goods entering the United States will shape the trade balance and the competitive calculus for a wide array of sectors, including consumer electronics, machinery, chemicals, and other manufacturing inputs. The U.S. trade surplus in goods with Britain remains a fundamental characteristic of the bilateral relationship, and the tariff framework seeks to recalibrate that balance in ways that stimulate American consumption of British products while preserving U.S. domestic production incentives. From a macroeconomic perspective, the deal’s early impact will be measured in export volumes, orders backlogs, and investment commitments tied to the enduring reliability of trade access to the United States.
Industry stakeholders also highlight the potential for the agreement to serve as a springboard for broader economic cooperation. By delivering tangible benefits to the automotive sector—a cornerstone of British manufacturing—the deal can bolster confidence in U.K. industrial policy and in the capacity of allied nations to coordinate on standards, rules of origin, and regulatory alignment. Over time, these elements could influence how the U.K. negotiates subsequent rounds with the United States on metals, aerospace, and other critical sectors, reinforcing a pathway toward greater tariff harmonization and supply-chain resilience.
As the terms become embedded in business planning, manufacturers, suppliers, and trade bodies will assess the degree to which the tariff relief translates into lowered costs, expanded market access, and improved competitiveness. In the near term, the U.K. car sector can anticipate a more predictable export environment, while policy makers will monitor how the deal interacts with broader industrial strategies intended to keep Britain at the forefront of global automotive innovation, including electrification, advanced manufacturing, and high-value exports.
Steel and Metals Tariffs: Melt-and-Pour Rules and the Path Forward
A central dimension of the UK–US trade dialogue that remains unresolved concerns steel and other industrial metals, where tariffs and regulatory criteria continue to shape sourcing and manufacturing decisions. The United States currently maintains a higher tariff regime for steel with other trade partners, and Britain stands out for its special status in some metal export categories. While the deal includes progress toward reducing steel duties, the ultimate goal of near-zero tariffs on core steel products remains a subject of negotiation. The challenge lies in reconciling U.S. protections for its steel industry with Britain’s objective of maintaining a robust, globally integrated steel sector, particularly as Britain seeks to attract investment and maintain export momentum.
A key factor complicating steel tariff debates is the U.S. melt-and-pour rule. Defined under the prior administration, the rule classifies the origin of a product as U.K.-produced only if the material is melted and poured in Britain. This rule has created a gray area in the supply chains of many semi-finished steel products, which may be produced in one country, further processed elsewhere, and finally finished in Britain for a global market. The result is a classification that can frustrate attempts to claim U.K.-produced status for certain steel inputs, thereby maintaining higher tariff exposure despite the broader trade relationship.
Industry observers point to specific supply chains around major steel players, such as Tata Steel, which operates a large plant in Wales. Tata sources materials from other plants in countries like India and the Netherlands, creating a dynamic where much of the input material is not melted and poured in Britain at the final stage. This reality complicates a straightforward path to 0% tariffs on British steel products under the melt-and-pour framework and calls into question how future deals can accommodate global sourcing patterns while still meeting U.S. non-tariff and tariff-related objectives. The analysis from steel market experts emphasizes that adjustments to the rule or supplemental agreements with other nations could be necessary if Britain is to realize broader tariff reductions for steel.
Jon Carruthers-Green, a steel market analyst with MEPS International, has observed that the evolution of these rules will depend on the ability to find workable solutions that align with industrial realities. He notes that Britain’s imports of inputs into major steel-producing operations have a degree of complexity that makes it difficult to classify finished steel as U.K.-produced solely based on location of melting and pouring. The analyst suggests that the most viable path forward may involve forming broader or alternative agreements with other countries or sectors within Britain’s steel ecosystem, thereby enabling more flexible rules of origin that still satisfy U.S. concerns about domestic production.
The policy landscape around steel has broader implications for sectors that rely heavily on iron and steel inputs, including aerospace, automotive, construction, and heavy machinery. The melt-and-pour rule’s rigidity could slow the realization of zero-tariff ambitions if it prevents certain inputs from qualifying for favorable treatment, particularly when those inputs originate outside the United Kingdom yet are processed and finished within the UK under complex supply chains. In the meantime, the U.K. government has signaled its commitment to push toward zero tariffs on core steel products, signaling that efforts will continue in this area. The statement from the U.K. government asserts an ongoing willingness to advance toward 0% tariffs on core steel products as agreed, signaling a long horizon of negotiation and policy refinement.
The steel challenge also reflects a broader structural reality: the global steel market remains characterized by overcapacity, which has put downward pressure on prices in Asia and Europe. As these markets contend with supply gluts, any tariff policy that restricts or prioritizes particular streams of steel will have significant ripple effects for downstream industries. Industry participants and analysts emphasize that the price dynamics of steel—elevated prices after earlier tariff surges, followed by stabilization—continue to influence decision-making about where to source materials, how to structure plants, and where to locate future capacity. The interplay between policy, market dynamics, and supply-chain constraints means that steel tariffs in particular will continue to be a central area of focus in bilateral talks, as both sides seek to harmonize protectionist considerations with the benefits of freer trade for the broader economy.
The melt-and-pour issue illustrates how technical regulatory criteria can have outsized influences on trade negotiations. It shows that even with a general agreement on reduced tariffs, there are still structural details that require careful negotiation and practical compromise. The challenge for policymakers is to design rules that preserve legitimate domestic manufacturing protections while enabling British firms to fully leverage the benefits of a freer trade environment with the United States. The debate will likely include discussions about potential grandfathering arrangements, origin criteria relaxations, or sector-specific carve-outs that could provide the flexibility needed to accommodate complex, multi-country supply chains without undermining the broader objective of tariff reduction.
For government officials and industry executives, the steel debate is a test case for how far a bilateral agreement can bend toward zero-tariff objectives while maintaining domestic industrial interests on both sides. The evolving dialogue suggests that any meaningful reduction in steel tariffs will require not only technical adjustments to rules of origin but perhaps broader cooperation on standards, certification, and capacity-building that supports the long-term competitiveness of British steel producers. In this context, the talks about carbon intensity, recycling, and technological modernization may play an increasingly important role in shaping future tariff outcomes, alongside the structural considerations of global market dynamics and the evolving trade agenda between the United States and the United Kingdom.
The practical implications for Tata Steel and Welsh industry
Tata Steel’s operations in Wales sit at the heart of a complex supply chain that demonstrates how policy details—such as where metal is melted and poured—shape strategic decisions about production locations and procurement networks. The plant’s role within a broader network that sources input materials from multiple countries complicates the potential for automatic designation as U.K.-produced under the melt-and-pour framework. For Tata Steel and other major producers, the question is whether the bilateral agreement can be paired with targeted policy measures that recognize the international nature of modern steel production while still providing meaningful tariff relief for finished steel products produced in the United Kingdom.
The Welsh steel cluster, including Tata Steel’s operations, has long been a pillar of regional employment and industrial capability. Any prospective zero-tariff pathway for steel would need to account for the economic and social dimensions of these industries in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. The policy design will need to balance the competitive pressures faced by Welsh producers with the broader strategic goal of maintaining a resilient, globally integrated steel sector that can meet domestic demand and export opportunities. As negotiations continue, industry stakeholders will closely monitor how any agreements address not just tariff numbers, but also issues of energy costs, efficiency improvements, and workforce development that are integral to sustaining a high-value steel supply chain.
The debate around steel tariffs also intersects with broader concerns about energy policy, climate commitments, and the accelerating trend toward decarbonization in heavy industry. Decisions about tariffs and rules of origin may increasingly be linked to industrial policy instruments that incentivize lower-carbon steel production and higher efficiency. In this context, the broader policy framework could include support for modernization investments, catalyzing innovation in steelmaking, and encouraging cross-border collaborations that improve competitiveness. While the path to zero tariffs on core steel products remains contested, the ongoing dialogue signals a recognition of steel’s centrality to both the UK economy and its strategic relationship with the United States.
Aerospace, Core Industries, and the Broader Economic Canvas
Another key dimension of the agreement concerns exemptions and favorable terms for Britain’s aerospace sector and other core industrial industries. The U.K. government has stated that duties associated with aerospace will be removed, which could bolster Britain’s highly skilled aerospace supply chain and support manufacturers that rely on cross-border collaboration for advanced technologies. The aerospace sector, with its high value-added production and sophisticated engineering, stands to benefit from a more predictable tariff environment as it engages with global customers and procurement networks. By reducing tariff exposure for aerospace goods, the agreement aims to reinforce Britain’s position as a global hub for aerospace innovation while preserving access to the United States, one of the sector’s most important export destinations.
The removal of duties for aerospace, coupled with the ongoing effort to reduce tariffs on core steel products, reflects a broader strategic aim: to create a tariff landscape that is less punitive for advanced manufacturing in Britain and that supports the competitiveness of high-technology industries. This combination can contribute to greater investment in research and development, as well as the deployment of more sophisticated production capabilities within the United Kingdom. In turn, this has potential knock-on effects for employment, productivity, and regional development, given the sector’s role in high-skilled job creation across the country. The aerospace sector, because of its capital intensity and global supply chains, often benefits from stability in tariff regimes, enabling long-term planning and supplier collaborations that extend beyond a single market.
The economic rationale behind protecting and promoting aerospace and other core industries lies in the broader objective of preserving high-value manufacturing capacity within the United Kingdom. A stable, predictable tariff framework can help firms attract R&D investment, upgrade facilities, and develop capabilities that sustain competitiveness in a global context. By ensuring that aerospace products enjoy reduced or removed duties, the deal supports a sector that is central to national technology leadership, export earnings, and the creation of highly specialized jobs. The government’s position aligns with a strategy of concentrating resources on sectors with high multipliers for productivity and innovation, while balancing the need to maintain a broad-based industrial base.
This approach also has implications for complementary sectors that supply the aerospace industry, including mechanical engineering, precision tooling, and specialized materials. When tariffs are minimized for core industries, the entire ecosystem benefits through improved demand visibility, more stable pricing, and greater incentive for long-term supplier relationships. The net effect could be a more integrated and resilient national industrial base, capable of competing on the global stage with products that combine advanced technology, quality manufacturing, and sophisticated logistics networks. The challenge remains to ensure that regulatory alignment and standards across sectors support a seamless flow of goods across the Atlantic and beyond, reinforcing the United Kingdom’s role in global supply chains.
Economic, Trade-Balance Context, and Market Significance
The UK–US trade framework unfolds within a broader economic context characterized by longstanding interdependence in goods and services. The United States has consistently been a major destination for British manufactured goods, with cars representing a particularly important segment of bilateral trade. The new tariff structure recognizes this by offering a structured path to reduce pushback on U.S. import duties while preserving enough protection for sensitive sectors. The overall effect is a shift toward greater predictability for exporters and a potential re-energizing of investment plans that hinge on access to the U.S. market.
From a macroeconomic lens, the bilateral trade balance, including the U.S. preference for British cars, supports a narrative in which the United States remains a critical ally for the United Kingdom in terms of export markets and technological collaboration. The data indicating a substantial share of UK car exports to the United States highlights the strategic importance of maintaining favourable terms in this sector. The deal’s emphasis on a 10% tariff on a broad range of goods, together with a capped 10% tariff for cars and a stepped 25% after the quota, can be viewed as a pragmatic compromise designed to promote export growth while acknowledging domestic domestic concerns and policy constraints in the United States.
In terms of international trade policy signals, the agreement can be interpreted as an attempt to build a foundation for deeper economic collaboration. By delivering tangible gains for British carmakers and other core industries, the pact aims to foster a climate of trust and cooperation that can facilitate subsequent talks on metals, aerospace, and related sectors. However, the steel and metal dimension remains a potentially contentious area, with discussions likely to revolve around rules of origin, regulatory alignment, and the timing of any further tariff reductions. The dynamic between immediate tariff relief in cars and the slower, more complex progress in metals underscores the nuanced approach the United Kingdom is pursuing in its bilateral trade strategy with the United States.
Market observers also emphasize that the deal’s success will hinge on how well the Treasury and industry respond to the new tariff environment. The UK will need to ensure that the enhanced access to the U.S. market translates into real gains for manufacturers, including through investment in production capacity, workforce development, and supply-chain modernization. The extent to which the sector benefits will depend on the duration of the quota’s effectiveness, the ability to move beyond the 100,000 vehicles threshold, and the speed with which the steel and metals framework evolves toward reduced duties. The policy architecture, in other words, requires a careful balance between providing immediate economic relief and committing to a long-run strategy that supports Britain’s industrial base.
Economic policy discussions around the deal also intersect with broader questions about manufacturing resilience, energy costs, and climate-related considerations. As global markets face volatility and shifting demand, tariff arrangements that stabilize access to key markets can contribute to steadier investment climates. In the United Kingdom, where industrial strategy has long aimed to diversify the economy and bolster high-value manufacturing, the agreement’s emphasis on automotive export growth, aerospace, and core metals aligns with a policy objective of strengthening export-oriented sectors that offer high productivity and wage growth. The challenge for policymakers is to translate tariff concessions into durable, real-world gains that can be measured through job creation, capital expenditure, and the sustained competitiveness of British brands in the United States and beyond.
Political Context, Leadership, and Strategic Implications
From a political perspective, the trade agreement represents a milestone in the United Kingdom’s post-Brexit economic strategy. Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly framed the deal as historic, emphasizing its role in safeguarding key industries that are vital to the national economy and the employment it sustains across communities. The emphasis on protection for strategic sectors reflects a deliberate approach to trade policy that seeks to align international agreements with domestic industrial ambitions, including the maintenance of manufacturing capabilities, regional growth, and technology leadership. The narrative presented by the government highlights the long-term value of allied trade relationships with the United States, positioning the pact as part of a broader strategy to diversify export markets and secure stable growth avenues for British industry.
The political significance of the pact is also shaped by its timing and its status as the first major UK–US trade negotiation completed since the period of prominent tariff policy debates in Washington. The deal’s reception in Westminster, in industrial chambers, and among manufacturing associations reflects a cross-party consensus that such agreements can anchor Britain’s economic strategy, even as debates continue over the pace of tariff liberalization in sensitive sectors such as steel and aluminum. The broader commentary surrounding the agreement raises questions about how future negotiations with the United States will unfold and whether this deal will serve as a template for more comprehensive liberalization or whether it will remain a phased, sector-by-sector approach.
Industry advocates view the agreement as a catalyst for strategic alignment between policy design and the real-world needs of manufacturers. The emphasis on protecting jobs and safeguarding industries resonates with concerns across regions that rely on manufacturing and exports. In that sense, the pact is more than a tariff arrangement; it is a political signal about the priority placed on industrial competitiveness, technological leadership, and the ability to sustain high-skilled employment in a globally connected economy. The government’s messaging around the deal also hints at a broader confidence in the United Kingdom’s capacity to pursue a resilient, outward-facing trade agenda in partnership with long-standing allies.
However, the political landscape around trade remains nuanced. Critics may argue that while tariff relief for cars is welcome, unresolved metal tariffs could create friction for a broader recovery in manufacturing sectors heavily dependent on steel and other inputs. The practical outcome will depend on how future talks evolve, how rules of origin and classification are refined, and how the U.K. industry responds to evolving U.S. policies in a rapidly changing global trade environment. The government’s job is to manage these negotiations transparently, communicate progress to stakeholders, and demonstrate tangible benefits for workers and firms that rely on robust cross-border trade.
The road ahead and domestic implications
Looking forward, policymakers will need to translate the deal’s terms into concrete domestic policy actions that support competitiveness. This includes ensuring that the automotive sector can capitalize on tariff relief through investment in production capacity, workforce skills, and the adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. The broader metals dialogue will require careful negotiation to minimize disruption to essential supply chains while seeking to reduce tariffs in a manner consistent with U.S. industrial protections. The aerospace sector, already slated for favorable treatment, can be leveraged as a model for how high-technology industries might benefit from greater tariff predictability and regulatory alignment.
The domestic political calculus will also involve assessing how these tariff-related decisions influence regional development and employment strategies. With the automotive sector often concentrated in specific regions, any sustained improvements in export opportunities can contribute to broader economic revitalization and community resilience. The government’s challenge is to sustain the momentum, ensure policy coherence across departments, and maintain the confidence of industry stakeholders that the United Kingdom remains a credible and capable partner in global trade.
Conclusion: The Significance and the Next Chapter
This trade agreement marks a strategic inflection point for Britain’s industrial and trade policy. By delivering a preferential 10% tariff on the first 100,000 UK-made cars exported to the United States each year and a 25% tariff on additional shipments, alongside a blanket 10% tariff on U.K. goods, the deal provides tangible relief for a sector that has long emphasized the importance of U.S. access. The data underscore how central the United States is to Britain’s car export strategy, with a substantial share of production destined for American buyers. The deal’s long-term success will depend on the evolution of steel and other metals negotiations, the ability to implement rules of origin in a way that reflects modern, globalized supply chains, and the effectiveness of government and industry in translating tariff concessions into real, sustained investment, jobs, and growth.
Prime Minister Starmer’s portrayal of the agreement as historic positions it within a broader narrative of resilience and strategic cooperation. It signals an intent to preserve and strengthen Britain’s manufacturing base by leveraging alliances and creating a framework for continued tariff reform. At the same time, the steel and metals debate remains an essential test of how far the partnership can go toward reducing barriers in the most sensitive sectors. If the parties can align on a path to reduced tariffs for core steel products and resolve origin-related questions in a way that accommodates global supply chains, the bilateral relationship could be positioned for continued expansion in trade, investment, and technology collaboration.
Ultimately, the package represents both a relief and a roadmap: immediate tariff relief for British carmakers, a commitment to preserve aerospace and other core industries from punitive duties, and a clear acknowledgment that the full realization of a zero-tariff regime for steel and other metals will require continued negotiation, practical compromises, and a shared commitment to industrial resilience in an era of rapid global change. The next chapters will unfold in the coming months as negotiators translate these commitments into operational rules, industry champions advocate for continued reform, and businesses adjust to a rebalanced, more predictable tariff environment across the Atlantic. The stakes are high, the opportunities meaningful, and the trajectory set by this agreement will influence Britain’s economic trajectory for years to come.