Drug industry responses to the Section 232 pharma tariff investigation included lengthy accounts of why tariffs would counteract reliable US medicines supply. They insist that drugs’ global supply chains don’t raise national security concerns and that geographic diversification adds resilience.

Nor did pharma commentators hesitate to hang other sectors out to dry. Pharma’s large and growing investment in R&D “fundamentally distinguishes” it from tariff-prone industries like automobiles, where R&D has declined, reads Sanofi’s entry. “Tariffs would jeopardize the US’ decades-long leadership in pharma R&D investment,” continues the French-headquartered drugmaker’s entry, by forcing manufactures to divert resources to tariff payments.

It is unclear how receptive the Trump Administration will be to these expansive written accounts of why pharma deserves deliverance from tariffs, let alone to alternative, overtly industry-friendly policy suggestions. Still, commentators nevertheless set out other, better ways to encourage US pharma investment, such as lower corporation tax and more generous R&D tax credits.

Work with us to develop “free market” policy solutions, said Sanofi. PhRMA called on Trump to set up new bilateral trade agreements to “remove unfair trade practices” in other markets, and to assert pricing and reimbursement policies abroad that “appropriately value” patented medicines and are “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory”. It even threw in a request for lower energy costs to allow the industry to better compete with China.

Europe isn’t about to let Trump unwind its HTA bodies, though. The EU’s US delegation’s relatively short response to the tariff investigation included a veiled threat of reciprocal action: “…US import measures…with respect to steel and aluminum…have not been left unanswered,” the statement says. The EU will “protect its rights and interests when necessary.”

Pharma’s Dance With Trump Risks Distracting From Longer-Term Threats

More from Market Intelligence

More from Leadership