Latest News

Trump plans to introduce 100% import tariffs on generic pharmaceuticals in 2028, rising to 200% rate the following year. Credit: Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.com

Following a period of immunity from US import tariffs, the global generics sector may now have to contend with similar taxes to the branded drug industry as President Donald Trump looks to give America a domestic manufacturing boost.

According to a Truth Social post from 21 July, Trump plans to introduce 100% tariffs on generic drugs imported into the US in 2028 for a year, at which point he will up the rate to 200%.

This comes as the Trump administration continues to push for the reshoring of drug manufacturing to the US as some raise concerns about America’s external reliance on foreign generic medicine imports – which make up 90% of prescriptions signed in the US. According to research from the US Pharmacopeia, more than half of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) in generic drugs prescribed in the US are sourced from India and the EU.

To further back the tariff initiative, Trump is also threatening companies that don’t opt to build “plant and equipment within the stated period of time given to them” with a presumable financial penalty for non-compliance. This marks a similar approach to that taken by Trump when imposing tariffs on branded pharmaceuticals – though several larger pharma companies have inked drug pricing deals with the White House to secure tariff reprieve.

Funding cuts at US federal agencies have compounded threats to the US’s predominance in global biopharma as an ascendant Chinese industry looks to turn local biotech innovation into pharma companies with a global reach.

This was the opinion of a panel of pharma, investor, academic, and government representatives held at the 2026 BIO International Convention in San Diego, taking place 22–25 June.

President Trump axed federal funding to scientific research through the National Institutes of Health last year, with these cuts have affected overall US innovation, according to BIO chairman and Genentech senior vice president Fritz Bittenbender, by disincentivising overseas researchers to settle in the country. He described this as “a generational loss of scientists.”

Bittenbender drew an unfavourable comparison to the Chinese government, where he said a trillion dollars is spent annually on scientific R&D, a claim supported by OECD figures. He said this is in line with the country’s five-year plan to dominate the global bioscience industry.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s “radical transparency” approach may have provided a more direct method, but it has also meant lax standards around information disclosed in policy announcements.

In July 2025, the FDA put forward its intention to provide more transparency by releasing complete response letters (CRL).

But former FDA staff said the broader commitment to openness has, in fact, introduced a new kind of confusion. While speaking at a panel at the 2026 BIO International Convention in San Diego, 22–25 June, they contend that more lax standards for agency announcements have left developers guessing which represent true FDA policy.

It is impractical to engage in lengthy negotiations with companies over redactions, said former FDA chief of staff Elizabeth Jungman. Even where CRLs are extensive, citing too many concerns confuses which issues are key to the agency’s decision to reject a filing, added Hilary Marston, principal at Canal Row Advisors and previously chief medical officer at the FDA.

US-based drugmakers are meeting rising demand not by competing for local talent, but by collaborating through trade associations to support the next generation of workers.

Bill Monteith, programme manager of North Carolina Life Sciences Organisation’s Biotech Manufacturers Forum, says workforce development is now a top priority.

In the early 1990s, life sciences companies in North Carolina formed the genesis of NCLifeSci in a framework to avoid poaching each other’s employees. Decades later, the initiative has expanded and evolved to include academic institutions with which it aims to attract more higher education graduates into biopharma manufacturing.

North Carolina’s success is being emulated by smaller US biopharma hubs. Through Oregon Life Sciences, biopharma developers in Oregon are able to share hiring plans and initiatives they otherwise would disclose to competitors directly, said director of Thermo Fisher Scientific’s site in Bend, Oregon, James Hulvat.

Novo Nordisk has filed a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, accusing its fellow obesity drug titan of peddling false advertising claiming higher efficacy over respective obesity and diabetes products.

In a lawsuit filed in the US, the Danish drugmaker alleged that Lilly’s campaign was designed to mislead consumers of the “comparative efficacy” of weight loss and type 2 diabetes drugs in the companies’ respective portfolios. The company claims it did this through a “nationwide pattern of deceptive advertising”.

Novo alleges that Lilly’s direct-to-consumer advertising campaign pointed to outdated clinical studies to convey a misleading picture to patients. Novo argued that this was done to show that Lilly’s tirzepatide outperformed its own product, semaglutide, in terms of average weight loss.

Tirzepatide is approved in the US under the brand names Mounjaro and Zepbound for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively, while semaglutide is branded as Ozempic and Wegovy in the same indications.