U.S. pharmaceutical companies are racing to assess the fallout from President Donald Trump’s proposal of a 200% tariff on imported pharmaceutical products, a policy that has sent shockwaves through the global drug industry and sparked intense scenario planning among manufacturers and investors.
Speaking on Tuesday, Trump reiterated that long-delayed, industry-wide tariffs are imminent, following the launch of a Section 232 national security investigation into pharmaceutical supply chains in April. While he hinted that the tariffs wouldn’t take effect immediately — instead offering a grace period of 12 to 18 months — industry analysts and executives warn the impact could be both disruptive and long-lasting.
“This kind of tariff would inflate production costs, compress profit margins, and risk severe supply chain disruptions, leading to drug shortages and higher prices for U.S. consumers,” analysts at Barclays warned in a research note Wednesday.
Even with a grace period, the pressure is building. UBS called the delay “insufficient time” for pharmaceutical manufacturers to shift operations back to the U.S., noting that relocating commercial-scale production typically takes four to five years.
According to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a mere 25% tariff would already drive up U.S. drug prices by $51 billion annually, translating to as much as a 12.9% increase in consumer prices. The group blasted the proposed 200% levy as “counterproductive” to public health, especially given rising inflation and mounting healthcare costs.
“A 100% or 200% tariff would be potentially disastrous for every person because we need those pharmaceuticals, and it takes those companies a long time to produce them here in the U.S.,” said Afsaneh Beschloss, founder and CEO of RockCreek Group, speaking on CNBC’s Closing Bell.
Many of the world’s leading drugmakers — including Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Bayer, and AstraZeneca — manufacture much of their product outside the U.S., particularly in Europe, India, and Asia, where costs are lower and supply chains more mature.
In anticipation of potential fallout, global firms are exploring relocation strategies and cost restructuring. Roche, for instance, stated it is “monitoring the situation closely” and advocating for policies that reduce barriers to patient access while continuing to expand its U.S. manufacturing footprint.
Bayer said it is focused on “securing supply chains and minimizing any potential impact,” while Novartis confirmed no changes to its current U.S. investment strategy but emphasized ongoing collaboration with the U.S. administration and trade associations.
Other firms — such as Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk — have remained largely silent, either declining comment or citing pre-earnings quiet periods.
Trump’s administration argues that reshoring pharmaceutical production is a national security imperative, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in the global medical supply chain. Historically, pharmaceuticals have been exempt from trade tariffs due to their essential nature. But Trump has long criticized the industry for “offshoring profits” while “overcharging American patients.”
The president’s remarks on Tuesday reinforced this stance, describing the move as a necessary step toward bringing “American-made medicine” back to domestic shelves. Critics, however, argue that such sweeping tariffs could drive up drug costs while placing undue stress on an industry already grappling with R&D inflation, regulatory pressures, and price transparency reforms.
The pharmaceutical industry had hoped for a carve-out from broad tariffs — a strategy that appears increasingly unlikely. Some optimism has shifted toward future trade negotiations that might soften the blow.
The recently signed U.S.-U.K. trade agreement, while thin on specifics, includes a provision to negotiate preferential treatment for British pharmaceutical products and ingredients, contingent on the outcome of the Section 232 probe.
Swiss and EU pharmaceutical exporters may be pursuing similar carve-outs, but progress has been slow. With the final Section 232 report due by the end of July, drugmakers are bracing for a pivotal policy moment — one that could redefine their long-term U.S. market strategy.
