Ozempic didn’t work for me

Danielle Griffin grew up as a self-ascribed “chunky kid,” bullied for her weight, always hungry, and struggling with her self-confidence.

So when she saw that celebrities were suddenly shedding dozens of pounds using new diabetes and weight loss drugs, she felt like finally she had the answer she’d always dreamed of. She went online, got a prescription for Ozempic, and waited for her life — and body — to change.

Except, Griffin seems to be one of the estimated 20 percent of people who don’t find success on the GLP-1 drugs.

“It was the new craze; everybody was having these amazing results on it, and I wasn’t,” Griffin told The Independent.

She lost a small amount of initial weight (13 pounds) in the first two months, and then plateaued. Months went by, and the scales didn’t change. Griffin felt like she’d failed at weight loss, again.

More than two in five U.S. adults have obesity. The chronic disease is multifaceted — and doctors say it’s not uncommon for patients to not lose weight on the GLP-1 drugs, even if others may have profound success. Recent research out of the University of Pennsylvania has found that between 35 and 50 percent of patients do not lose 5 percent or more of their body weight.

That means there are a lot of people not getting the results they’re expecting. Dr. Marc Bessler, the chair of surgery at New York’s Northwell Lenox Hill Hospital and a bariatric surgery specialist, said that the U.S. needs to alter its approach instead of treating obesity “like we were treating cancer 70 years ago.”

“Which is, ‘Oh, it’s one disease, it might show up in different organs, but it’s one disease.’ We don’t treat cancer that way anymore. Each cancer is treated with its own separate understanding about its natural history and its cells that are involved in the chemotherapy that it might respond to,” he said. “We still look at obesity as: it’s one’s disease. It almost certainly is not one disease.”

Griffin, a 38-year-old information technology worker from New Mexico, started on Ozempic and then moved to Wegovy – another semaglutide drug that helps to control blood sugar levels in the body – because the drug was more widely available.

Her initial weight loss had gotten her hopes up — “I was like, ‘Oh, this is great. It’s gonna work,’” she said. “And then I didn’t lose anything after that.”

Despite her lack of major results, she was told she couldn’t just get off of the drugs.

“You hear all of the success stories, and you see people, and it’s frustrating,” Griffin said.

She scoured message boards to read about other peoples’ experiences. She had never felt any kind of side effects from the drugs — such as pancreatitis and vomiting – but those who had appeared to be the ones losing the most weight, she said.

But doctors note that they’re never entirely sure which patients are going to have success on the drugs. “I don’t think anybody has figured out who’s going to be responding, who’s not going to be a responder, and how much people are going to lose,” Bessler explained.

Dr. Michael Knight, an associate professor at The George Washington University and an obesity medicine physician, agrees. He said in his experience that some people have had better success on Zepbound than other drugs because it is a dual agonist: meaning it stimulates both the GIP and GLP-1 hormones, while Ozempic only stimulates GLP-1.

“Some people have excess weight because of medications. Other people, it is because of the way their body is processing the food that they’re eating. Others may have conditions including insulin resistance, or they may have diabetes or other metabolic conditions that affect the way that their body manages weight,” Knight said. “And so, as a result of that, any one treatment is going to work differently for different people when it comes to how much weight you can expect to lose.”

People taking Ozempic and similar drugs typically lose between 15 to 20 percent of their body weight, according to Columbia University Irving Medical Center’s Department of Surgery. Just about a third of patients experience around 10 percent loss of body weight.

Despite concerns regarding potential side effects and effectiveness, approximately 30 million Americans have tried the medications, including drugmaker Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy and Ozempic, and Eli Lilly and Company’s Mounjaro and Zepbound. The weight loss drugs, originally intended to treat diabetes, work by mimicking a natural hormone that can suppress a user’s appetite — although as their popularity increased, patients encountered shortages.

Kyle Smith, a 37-year-old who owns an IT consulting company in Southern California, said that he was also drawn to trying the medications after seeing how much weight celebrities had lost. Although he was considered obese, he didn’t have any pre-conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease. His doctor was on board for him to take Wegovy, but his insurance wouldn’t cover it. He started paying for the drugs from a pharmacy outside of the U.S., slashing the cost by two-thirds. Like Griffin, he got whichever drug was accessible and lost 40 pounds.

But the side effects were overwhelming. Smith was fatigued, and suffering from heart burn and constipation. He decided to come off the drugs, but immediately he began to gain weight “so fast.”

Now, Smith is back on Wegovy.

“I don’t think it’s working for weight loss as well as it did the first time. It’s definitely taking longer,” he said. “I’ve been on it for two months now and I think I’ve only lost six or seven pounds, which is definitely slower than before.”

Griffin said that she was also gaining weight back after a few weeks off the medication. She said prospective patients should know that everybody is different.

“It can be very isolating, and when you see other people succeeding on the medication and there’s so much stigma around it and how popular it is and then it doesn’t work for somebody: it’s so disheartening,” she added. “It makes you feel like, ‘What’s wrong with me?’”

The weight loss drugs are just one option — and one that plenty of people do not find success with.

“There’s not a one size fits all,” said Knight.

Two MPs ‘astounded’ after being denied entry to Israel

Two Labour MPs who were denied entry to Israel have said they are “astounded” by the decision.

Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang have said it is “vital” that parliamentarians are able to “witness first-hand” the situation on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The current war in Gaza began on 7 October 2023, when Hamas fighters launched an attack inside Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza. Since then, Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry says more than 50,000 people have been killed in Israel’s retaliatory military offensive.

The MPs were refused entry because they intended to “spread hate speech” against Israel, the nation’s population and immigration authority claimed.

In a joint statement posted on X, Ms Mohamed and Ms Yang on Sunday said: “We’re astounded at the unprecedented step taken by the Israeli authorities to refuse British MPs entry on our trip to visit the occupied West Bank.

“It is vital that parliamentarians are able to witness first-hand the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch backed Israel’s decision, arguing that “countries should be able to control their borders” and expressing “concern” about the rhetoric of some MPs around Israel. But foreign secretary David Lammy said Ms Badenoch’s support of the Israeli decision was “disgraceful”.

He said: “It’s disgraceful you are cheerleading another country for detaining and deporting two British MPs. Do you say the same about Tory MPs banned from China?

“This government will continue to stand up for the rights of our MPs to speak their mind, whatever their party.”

The foreign secretary added that it was “deeply concerning” that they had not been allowed into the country.

The Israeli immigration authority said interior minister Moshe Arbel had denied entry to all four passengers after they were questioned. It accused them of travelling to “document the security forces”.

The Foreign Office said the group was part of a parliamentary delegation – however Israel’s immigration authority contested this claim, saying the delegation had not been acknowledged by any Israeli official. The MPs said the trip had been organised with UK charities that had “over a decade of experience in taking parliamentary delegations”.

“We are two, out of scores of MPs, who have spoken out in parliament in recent months on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the importance of complying with international humanitarian law,” they said in their joint statement. “Parliamentarians should feel free to speak truthfully in the House of Commons, without fear of being targeted.”

Emily Thornberry, chairman of parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said Israel “will rue the day that they did this to British parliamentarians”.

She told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: “These are two women who are potential leaders, people listen to what they say… and Israel is badly advised to try to alienate and humiliate them and treat them in this way.

“Israel really needs to start making friends as opposed to alienating people. It’s an insult to Britain, it’s an insult to parliament and I am outraged.”

Ms Yang represents the constituency of Earley and Woodley, in Berkshire, while Ms Mohamed represents Sheffield Central. Both were elected to Parliament last July.

The foreign secretary said he had “made clear” to his counterparts in the Israeli government that it is “no way to treat British parliamentarians”.

Mr Lammy said: “It is unacceptable, counterproductive and deeply concerning that two British MPs on a parliamentary delegation to Israel have been detained and refused entry by the Israeli authorities.

“I have made clear to my counterparts in the Israeli government that this is no way to treat British parliamentarians, and we have been in contact with both MPs tonight to offer our support.

“The UK Government’s focus remains securing a return to the ceasefire and negotiations to stop the bloodshed, free the hostages and end the conflict in Gaza.”

They’ve cracked it! Chocolatiers create the world’s largest Creme Egg

Confectioners have created what they believe to be the world’s largest Cadbury Creme Egg.

The workers at Cadbury World in Bournville, Birmingham, say the Easter creation stands at an impressive three feet tall.

The towering treat, roughly the height of an emperor penguin, replicates the classic Creme Egg design, complete with its signature purple, gold, and red foil wrapper.

However, this giant egg holds a hefty 45kg of gooey fondant filling – about the same weight as a newborn horse.

Cadbury World chocolatiers Terry Collins and Dawn Jenks dedicated two and a half days to meticulously handcrafting this colossal confection.

Ms Jenks said: “We challenged ourselves to create something unique and memorable this Easter, and what’s more iconic than a Creme Egg?

“Replicating the much-loved Cadbury Creme Egg on an extra-large scale was an ambitious project, and it has been so rewarding to see the vision brought to life.”

The Creme Egg creation is not the first large chocolate creation to come from the Cadbury World staff.

Last year, Ms Jenks and chocolatier Donna Oluban recreated Cadbury’s first shop using more than 600 bars of Dairy Milk, to mark the company’s 200th anniversary.

In 1824, John Cadbury opened the first Cadbury shop at 93 Bull Street in Birmingham, complete with plate glass windows with mahogany frames, which he was said to have cleaned every day.

They took five days to craft every element of that creation, which was 85cm tall and weighed 30kg – the equivalent of 667 standard Cadbury Dairy Milk bars.

And last Christmas, staff made a festive roast dinner made entirely out of chocolate.

The Christmas dinner included a handmade turkey, 13 pigs in blankets, 12 roast potatoes, 11 parsnips, nine carrots, six brussels sprouts, a vegetarian wellington and chocolate gravy.

The giant Creme Egg creation will be on display in Cadbury World’s chocolate-making zone from April 7 to April 27.

Missed and delayed medication putting A&E patients at risk

Patients in A&E are being put in potentially life-threatening situations due to missed doses of prescription medicines, according to a new report.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) found people in A&E were not getting their medications on time and were missing doses needed to manage their illnesses – putting them at risk of getting worse.

Insulin for diabetes, Parkinson’s drugs, epilepsy medicines and tablets for preventing blood clots are all time critical medicines (TCM).

If these drugs are delayed or missed, the patient can deteriorate and is at greater risk of complications or death.

While patients are advised to remember to bring their medications to A&E and to take them, there is also a responsibility on NHS staff to make sure this happens.

Despite the recognised risk of harm, the delivery of TCM is not consistent across emergency departments with long waiting times often contributing to this.

The study focused on oral levodopa for Parkinson’s and insulin for diabetes, as these are common in patients in A&E and must be given on time.

Researchers used data from 136 emergency departments in the UK which submitted data for more than 13,000 people in A&E who were on insulin injections or levodopa.

The study, which was part of the College’s clinical Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) which aims to improve the care of A&E patients, found more than half of these patients were not identified as being on TCM within 30 minutes of their arrival in an emergency department.

In addition, 68 per cent of doses were not administered within 30 minutes of the expected time.

“The findings contained in this report should serve as a call to action for both emergency medicine staff, as well as patients reliant on time critical medications, to ensure no dose is ever missed in A&E,” said Dr Jonny Acheson, an emergency medicine consultant in Leicester who has Parkinson’s, led the study.

He stressed that paramedics and emergency medicine staff need to ask patients what medications they take.

Plus, those with Parkinson’s and insulin treated diabetes need to tell staff and take their medications with them if they visit an A&E.

“However, the NHS must think about how they identify people taking these types of medication and how they are able to ensure they receive their doses on time, every time while they are in the emergency department,” he added. “These medicines are critical to the quality of these patients lives and we have a duty of care to ensure that they receive them when they should.”

Recommendations made by the QIP team include that patients on vital medications should be identified early when they attend A&E, to prevent any missed doses.

It added that systems need to be in place to ensure medication is given on time.

Dr Ian Higginson, RCEM president-elect, said that this a problem “we should not be having to fix” and suggested long waiting times are partly to blame.

“It has risen to prominence because of the increasing number of our patients who are having to endure ridiculously long waits in our emergency departments – 12, 24, 48 hours and even longer,” he added.

He stressed that missing doses of medication for Parkinson’s or diabetes is not just “inconvenient” it can be “dangerous” and have “serious consequences”.

Parkinson’s UK praised the RCEM’s work while Diabetes UK said delayed or missed insulin doses can be a potentially life-threatening emergency.

An NHS spokesperson said: “We welcome this report and will look closely at the findings, to ensure any patient in need of time critical medicine does not lose out when in A&E and receives the medication they need or support to self-administer as they would at home.

“As the report makes clear, it is welcome to see improvements thanks to the hard work of frontline staff but more generally we know A&E waiting times are far too long and our upcoming urgent and emergency care plan will set out how we aim to bring these down ahead of next winter.”

Watch former MI6 boss discuss Russia, Trump and the future of the West

Join us as world affairs editor Sam Kiley sits down with former MI6 chief Sir Alex Younger and Dr Rachel Ellehuus, director-general of The Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) and former Pentagon official, to explore the shifting global security landscape.

In this debut episode of The Conversation, The Independent’s new expert-led discussion series, our panel unpacks the fast-changing global security landscape in a discussion entitled Shifting Alliances.

They delve into the strategic importance of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, Nato’s future, and whether Europe has the strength and resolve to face the Russian challenge.

During the panel, former MI6 chief Sir Alex warned Britain must rearm and rebuild its reserves – potentially through national service – to face the growing threat from Russia and the destabilising influence of leaders like Putin and Trump.

Alongside Dr Ellehuus, he highlighted how Trump’s shift in US strategic priorities has shaken European security, emboldened Putin, and increased unconventional Russian attacks across Europe.

Watch the full panel below.

Our chair, Sam Kiley, will be responding to the comments at the bottom of this article at 12PM on Monday 7 April, so submit your questions and thoughts on the discussion here.

Sam Kiley is The Independent’s world affairs editor, bringing over three decades of experience covering global conflicts and major crises. He has reported on the Somali famine, the Rwandan genocide, and wars across the Balkans, Africa, Palestine, Ukraine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Before joining The Independent, he spent six years as senior international correspondent for CNN in Abu Dhabi and seven years at Sky News, covering conflict and security. His career began in 1990 with The Sunday Times, followed by roles at The Times, Evening Standard, and Channel 4’s Dispatches, before moving to Sky News in 2010 as foreign affairs editor.

Sir Alex Younger was for 30 years a career intelligence officer in Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6. He served in Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan. He was appointed as director of counter terrorism in 2009, and as chief from 2014 to 2020.

Prior to MI6, Alex served in the British Army as an infantry officer.

Rachel Ellehuus is the director-general of Rusi. She joined after nearly three years at Nato as the US Secretary of Defense Representative in Europe and Defence Adviser to the US Mission to Nato.

Previously, she was deputy director of the Europe and Eurasia Programme at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a senior adviser at WestExec Advisors, and held multiple roles at the US Department of Defense, including acting deputy assistant secretary for European and Nato policy. She also worked on the UK’s 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review during an exchange at the Ministry of Defence.

The global event bringing fresh energy to planet-positive solutions

As we navigate significant environmental and social challenges, the return of ChangeNOW, the world’s biggest expo of solutions for the planet, is much needed to reinvigorate climate action. The 2025 edition, which will take place from April 24th to 26th, will host 140 countries, 40,000 attendees, 10,000 companies and 1,200 investors.

Visionary leaders, established businesses and start-ups alike will gather to showcase over 1,000 sustainable solutions and groundbreaking innovations in key sectors such as clean energy, biodiversity, sustainable cities and the circular economy.

The ChangeNOW 2025 summit will be held at the iconic Grand Palais in Paris, a nod to the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement. Reuniting for the occasion will be guest speakers Mary Robinson, the former (and first female) president of Ireland, Laurent Fabius, former French prime minister, Patricia Espinosa, former UN climate chief and diplomat and Diána Ürge-Vorsatz, leading climate scientist and professor – all of whom were in the French capital a decade earlier to help shape the Paris Agreement at COP21.

There may have been obvious setbacks to environmental policy around the world of late, the United States’ recent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement being a notable one. However ChangeNOW 2025 intends to reaffirm the spirit of Paris, while serving as a catalyst for progress ahead of COP30 and the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC). “Ten years after COP21, ChangeNOW is where leaders and changemakers converge to accelerate the ecological and social transition,” states Santiago Lefebvre, founder and president of ChangeNOW. “Thousands of solutions will be showcased demonstrating that meaningful progress is within reach.”

His message of positive climate action will be supported by a multitude of world famous faces who will be in attendance at the auspicious event. Natalie Portman, Academy award-winning actress, director, author, activist, and producer; Captain Paul Watson, Founder of Sea Shepherd and Ocean Conservationist; Hannah Jones, CEO of The Earthshot Prize and Olympic champion boxer and gender equality advocate Imane Khelif are just a few of the names set to appear at ChangeNOW 2025.

With over 500 speakers and 250 conference sessions exploring climate action, biodiversity protection, resource management, and social inclusion, ChangeNOW 2025 will also hear the insights of acclaimed corporate leaders from Accor, Bouygues, Henkel, Lidl, Nexans, and Saint-Gobain, who will explain how businesses can be the ones to drive real change.

And the event will not only be an opportunity for global policymakers to discuss next steps in climate action, it will also be a platform for nations to showcase local innovations through their country pavilions. Expect impactful solutions from countries including South Africa, The Netherlands, and Ukraine – demonstrating international collaboration on the topic of climate.

In addition to the packed program of speakers, workshops, exhibits and networking opportunities, ChangeNOW 2025 will host the Impact Job Fair on Saturday, 26 April, with over 150 recruiters and training organisations offering in excess of 600 roles. Dedicated to the public and young professionals, the interactive workshops, educational activities, and career opportunities in sustainable sectors on offer aim to inspire the next generation of changemakers.

The summit will also present the annual Women for Change conference and the accompanying portrait exhibition, which showcases 25 women who are set to have a significant positive impact on their communities, countries or on a global scale over the next 10 years. Created in 2021, the Women for Change initiative aims to platform and provide opportunities for women who are leading change around the world but require further recognition or investment to continue their work. The annual flagship event, which takes place on the afternoon of April 24th, offers women the chance to discuss new ideas, network with likeminded people, and also acquire funding to help solidify their leadership, and amplify their impact.

Step outside the Grand Palais and take a few steps to the Port des Champs Elysées, on the bank of the Seine, where the The Water Odyssey village awaits. One of the event’s standout features, the immersive 1,000 m² exhibition is open to the public and highlights solutions to maritime and river sustainability challenges – offering a mix of conferences, interactive displays, and sensory experiences to engage all ages.

For three days, ChangeNOW will transform Paris into the global capital of impact, bringing together policymakers, entrepreneurs, investors, and the public in the pursuit of sustainable progress.

Book your ChangeNOW 2025 ticket here

Trump has made China appear a beacon of free trade

The Chinese Communist Party, apostle of free trade. In a strange new world, that was the strangest thing, as shares crashed in reaction to President Donald Trump’s opening salvo of tariffs in a global trade war.

“The market has spoken,” said the foreign ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, writing in English on Facebook – which is, by the way, banned in China. No double standards there, then. Beijing can always keep a straight face when it matters.

Politically, the Chinese government can scarcely believe its luck. It has stepped forward as a voice of reason and stability in a chorus of discord to promote the false narrative that it has been a model of good behaviour since it joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on 11 December 2001, a date that seems destined to live in the textbooks as the peak of globalisation.

The Trump tariffs “are a typical act of unilateral bullying”, complained a spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry.

“This approach disregards the balance of interests achieved through years of multilateral trade negotiations and ignores the fact that the US has long gained substantial profits from international trade,” the spokesperson added.

The official news agency, Xinhua, said the tariffs were “a weapon to suppress China’s economy and trade” and told the United States to stop undermining “the legitimate development rights of the Chinese people”.

It would be a mistake to write off Chinese rhetoric. The regime of Xi Jinping is serious and its actions speak louder than words.

Clue: China has listed “legitimate development rights” as one of its “red lines” in dealing with the US. The term is code for the export-led economic model which has propelled the country to the rank of second largest economy on earth since it joined the WTO.

Understand that and you understand that for China this is existential. There could be no greater contrast to the whirlwind in Washington than the disciplined, efficiently executed responses announced by Beijing in nine statements outlining reprisals that went beyond mere numbers.

Xi himself did not deign to speak publicly, let alone do anything as vulgar as posting on social media in capital letters. The Chinese public would have thought it beneath his dignity.

Untroubled by such niceties, Trump swiftly posted to his followers online that “CHINA PLAYED IT WRONG, THEY PANICKED.”

With all due respect to the American president, that is exactly what they did not do. The Xi hit list is ominous because it is well-planned and researched. The “Red Emperor” rules a mandarin class of sophisticated operators who do nothing else but study China’s opponents using every intelligence tool at their disposal.

The easy part for China was to impose reciprocal 34 per cent tariffs on all American imports from 10 April. It also suspended six American firms from exporting to China, launched anti-dumping actions in the medical sector and targeted the US giant DuPont with a probe into potential monopoly practices.

The hard part showed just how thoroughly the Chinese had done their work. No penguin islands or weird mathematics here. They banned the export of “dual use” items, which could have military or civilian applications, to 16 US firms, all in the technology sector.

Their key move was to put export controls on seven rare earth elements “to safeguard national security”. It’s on the public record that some of these are vital to US weapons systems.

The list of rare earths included terbium, which is used to enhance the properties of specialised magnets used in guidance systems, satellites and radar. The magnets are integral to the state-of-the-art F-35 fighter, Predator drones, cruise missiles and nuclear submarines.

Then there’s dysprosium, a rare-earth element of which China controls nearly all the world’s supply. It is used to make high-grade magnets that work in super-heated conditions and is found in the newest semiconductors. Other rare earths on the list are vital to jet engine turbine blades. All will now require special export licences.

China and America are thus in a new kind of war over technology and artificial intelligence. Both Joe Biden and Trump tried to choke the supply of advanced semiconductors to Chinese manufacturers, while China is seeking to choke the supply of raw materials to America’s tech champions.

It’s not hard to see how dangerous this could get. The founder of free-trading modern Singapore, the late Lee Kuan Yew, once told me in an interview that “World War Two was caused because of empires and protectionism”.

He recalled that in the 1940s an oil embargo on Imperial Japan pushed its military leaders into war and he warned that if the West tried to isolate China economically “that is bound to lead to conflict”.

Lee was talking in the 1990s, when China stood on the threshold of globalisation. It joined the WTO only after hard-fought talks. But Charlene Barshevsky, who sealed the deal for the United States, later lamented that the Americans failed to use the WTO to punish Beijing when it broke the rules.

That created the belief that appeasement and elite inertia condemned the American working class to decline, the foundation story of Trump’s movement to Make America Great Again. So it is some irony that the Chinese have just filed a formal complaint about Trump’s tariffs – with the World Trade Organisation.

Michael Sheridan, longtime foreign correspondent and diplomatic editor of The Independent, is the author of The Red Emperor published by Headline Press at £25

Starmer is right to maintain dignity – and avoid upsetting Trump

The prime minister’s insistence that, in framing the UK’s response to the Trump tariffs, “We will always act in the national interest” was wise and reassuring. The mood at the moment is to “keep calm and carry on negotiating”, and if there is to be a response, it needs to be weighed, and to represent a fully informed choice. Hence the meeting of business leaders convened in Downing Street in the immediate aftermath of the US president’s announcements.

In the coming days, the full scale and nature of international retaliation will become clearer; so too will Donald Trump’s thinking. From his rambling presentation of the new tariff schedules in the White House Rose Garden, it is not obvious whether these punitive import taxes are designed to kickstart a more benign process involving a global relaxation of trade restrictions, or if they are part of a permanent policy shift aimed at restoring American manufacturing and providing trillions of dollars for the US Treasury. There is, in other words, no need for a rush to action.

Sir Keir Starmer is right to try to maintain the dignity of the nation, as well as to avoid upsetting the combustible Mr Trump, by limiting himself to vague remarks about having “levers at his disposal”. Businesses are being consulted on possible retaliatory actions, but that is all – at least for the time being.

However, with the US economy approximately seven times as large as that of the UK – and Britain still heavily reliant on America for its defence – those levers are not especially powerful ones. Unlike, say, China (in concert with Japan and South Korea), the European Union, Mexico or Canada, the UK lacks the necessary heft to inflict much material damage on American producers and exporters. Any effort to join in with an international assault on Mr Trump’s policy would risk attracting the imposition of even higher tariffs on UK exports, with the corresponding harm to British jobs and economic growth – and to European security and the Ukraine peace talks.

Far better, then, for the British government to keep a “cool head”, as Sir Keir suggests: not only does it suit the prime minister’s general demeanour, but it will help to preserve his unusually warm relationship with a man almost precisely his ideological opposite. Britain is set to watch how things develop, and will continue to engage with American officials on trade, investment, and wider economic relations. If an old and valued friend unexpectedly decides to have a spat, the most rational response is not to hit them back and escalate an argument into a violent rift.

Fanciful as it may seem, this crisis can be turned into an opportunity. As the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, told the Commons, a trade deal of some sort could be mutually beneficial, even if that isn’t immediately apparent to President Trump, who is more “zero sum” in his approach to life (as might be expected from his time in real estate).

Sir Keir says that talks are continuing. He should be encouraged by the fact that the UK is to be subjected only to the lower “baseline” tariff of 10 per cent, albeit with the higher charges on cars, steel and aluminium bringing the trade-weighted average up to 13 per cent. When the two leaders met in the White House, Mr Trump expressed the hope that a deal could be done. Despite intense activity, such an agreement couldn’t be reached in time to avoid the new tariffs, but the process – which has been in train since Theresa May launched post-Brexit talks with the US – has begun.

The outlines of such a deal can already be discerned. Negotiables could include a radical cut in the tariffs on US goods, such as cars and agricultural produce, and easier access for qualified, skilled workers through mutual recognition. The UK might have to compromise on its high standards of animal welfare, hygiene, and environmental protection, but that is a tough choice that could be made, in the expectation that consumers would exercise their right to choose.

More difficult, if not impossible, would be meeting the usual demands for improved – inflated – prices to be paid by the NHS to the US pharmaceutical giants. The American negotiators would also have to be properly briefed on the reality of free speech in the UK, which is protected as a human right by law, save for incitement to hatred against specified vulnerable groups.

The real question is whether the achievement of some sort of economic agreement with America – an outcome that would certainly yield benefits – is worth the sacrifices and concessions that are likely to be demanded by Mr Trump. That includes the effect that any such pact would have on our relationship with the EU, in light of the “reset” promised by Labour at the general election.

Even the possibility of such an agreement with the United States is being touted as a “Brexit bonus”, as is the “favourable” 10 per cent tariff. Needless to say, this is highly debatable. Were it still part of the EU, the UK would probably have been treated more harshly, but it would have had the full weight of the largest single market in the world behind it, along with better access to the EU markets that it has lost since Brexit.

As a member state, the UK would also have been able, ironically, to control its own laws on free speech, as well as to protect the NHS and farmers. In other words, a trade deal with America would have to be radically better than currently envisaged in order to make Brexit remotely worthwhile, even in purely financial terms.

And there remains the terrible truth that the US has downgraded its commitment to Nato, and “switched sides” to align with Russia on the matters of Ukraine and European security.

On balance, Sir Keir can best serve the British national interest by pursuing closer relations with Europe, while declining to enact futile retaliatory measures against America and salvaging as much as possible of the US-UK special relationship. The hope is that the Trump era might ultimately pass more smoothly. In any case, balancing and nurturing Britain’s most crucial relationships won’t be easy.