In a Truth Social post late Tuesday, President Trump dropped a tariff bomb on the generic drug industry—and the timeline he set may be its own undoing.

Starting August 1, generics get a two-year reprieve with zero tariffs. Then the math gets steep: a 100% tariff kicks in August 2028, followed by a 200% rate a year later.

The stated goal is to onshore generic drug manufacturing, which currently accounts for more than 90% of all U.S. prescriptions. But by the time a 200% tariff would take effect, President Trump should be on his way out the Oval Office door — and there’s little reason to think his successor would keep them in place.

Following the announcement, Sandoz shares dropped roughly 3% as the Swiss generics giant had previously announced plans to close its only U.S. manufacturing site by the end of 2026. Analysts at Vontobel flagged that reversing decades of offshoring won’t happen cheaply or quickly, and that higher manufacturing costs would likely translate to higher prices for patients.

Dr. Reddy’s CEO Erez Israeli was blunt: tariffs of this magnitude “cannot be absorbed” by an industry already operating on razor-thin margins. He estimates relocating manufacturing to the U.S. could take four to seven years—well beyond the likely window of survival for these tariffs.

We’ll be watching closely to see how (and if) these threats lead to any real industry action—but we aren’t holding our breath.

– Terri Pollock, Group Director

The UK has its second Prime Minister in two years: Andy Burnham was confirmed on July 20 following Keir Starmer’s resignation amid collapsing party support. He pledged to “bring back hope,” unveiling a new 10-year “plan for Britain.”

Burnham brings direct credentials, having twice served as shadow Health Secretary (most recently in 2015). He has since championed “Whole-Person Care”, his vision to integrate the NHS and social care, rooted in his commitment to the welfare state, prevention and addressing the UK’s mental health crisis. Executing this will hinge on many factors including healthcare workforce capacity, social care reform, local accountability and industry engagement.

His choice of Health Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has been well received by healthcare practitioner associations. She brings deep government experience – having worked on the first NHS cancer plan 26 years ago – and has named maternity services and social care as key priorities.

Notably, some of the same groups welcoming Cooper have urged Burnham to revoke the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal, criticizing the trade-off of zero pharma tariffs for a 25% rise in new-medicine prices and an elevated NICE cost-effectiveness threshold (now £25,000-£35,000). The PM has not yet responded.

For pharma, Burnham has thus far only signalled support for a “place-based” industrial strategy, empowering regions to shape their own life sciences clusters rather than adhering to a single national framework. What this means in practice will depend on how funding is devolved.

Compounding the uncertainty, Science Minister Patrick Vallance resigned on the same day the new PM was appointed. Industry saw this as a potentially significant setback given his role in restoring international confidence in UK life sciences investment. As we go to print, however, Vallance has been named chair of the PM’s new AI taskforce and the renowned science and technology Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.

In short, the direction of the Burnham government’s life sciences agenda is in flux.

– Francesca Boldrini and Marie Montant, Real Chemistry

The White House, alongside the rest of the world, has committed to ending the HIV epidemic by 2030. With the emergence of better treatments and prevention tools—such as long-acting injectables and PrEP—we’ve never been in a better position from a scientific perspective to create an HIV-free world.

But progress isn’t limited by a lack of scientific solutions. It’s political will.

Last week, the Trump administration announced that it will not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations who provide HIV testing, prevention, treatment and care. The CDC says it will instead shift some of those funds to state and local health departments—but how much is unclear.

More importantly, state and local health departments are often limited in their ability to reach populations who may be at higher risk for HIV. CBOs have led HIV/AIDS prevention efforts for nearly four decades and are often more trusted among marginalized communities. Many clinics, which serve as a lifeline of essential health services for underserved populations, fear this latest funding decision will force impossible choices about what services they can continue to provide.

Clinics and advocates are also scrambling to make sense of the impending Medicaid work requirements and eligibility restrictions taking effect on January 1, which will dramatically impact health coverage for many people living with or at risk of HIV. This is just the latest in a series of domestic and global funding and policy changes which jeopardize hard-won progress in the 40-year fight against HIV.

– Rachel Bridges, Senior Director

• July 26-31 – 26th annual conference, International AIDS Society
• July 27-30 – annual meeting for all things virology, American Society for Virology

• “Securing our factories is only one piece of the puzzle; we must also secure the science that feeds them.” – Acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas, Fox News
• “The lesson of the last year is clear: Tying the future of health freedom to any one political party is a failed strategy.” – Donald Slaughter, The Hill
• “On the whole, studies have found that while rebates can reduce the impact of price increases, they often don’t completely wipe out the impact.” – Sarah Karlin-Smith, Health Affairs Forefront
• “The country that invents tomorrow’s medicines won’t merely improve health. It will attract capital, command talent, strengthen national security, and shape the global economy.” – HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation Gary Andres, RealClearHealth

• A slew of health-related bills advanced out of congressional committees this week, positioning them as the health measures most likely to pass into law before year end. Modern Healthcare: Slew of health bills clear key hurdles toward passage.
• Biotech companies are lobbying the Trump administration to exclude treatments for rare diseases from proposed MFN drug pricing models in Medicare. STAT: Makers of rare disease drugs seek exemption from Trump’s price-cut pilots.
• This annual analysis of list and net pricing shows the economics of the U.S. drug channel—and the strategies manufacturers use to secure market access—are beginning to change. Drug Channels: 2025 Gross-to-Net Realities at Eight Top Drugmakers: The Net Pricing Drug Channel Emerges.
• CDC director nominee Erica Schwartz won support from a top GOP senator, though a committee vote on her nomination was delayed due to attendance issues. CNN: Vote on CDC nominee clinched with change to CDC’s website on vaccines and autism.
• In a comparison of the U.S. and China review process, the FDA reviewed cancer drugs a median of 182 days faster and had more global first-in-class approvals in recent years. Bloomberg: Cancer Drug Approvals in China Outpace Those in US, Study Finds.
• The White House has yet to nominate a permanent commissioner to replace acting FDA head Kyle Diamantas, and there are multiple hurdles facing any confirmation process. PharmaVoice: Why the FDA’s top spot could sit empty for months.
• Changes in Affordable Care Act and Medicaid markets are impacting the quarterly earnings of health systems and insurers. Axios: ACA and Medicaid changes hang over health earnings.
• An audit of Iowa’s Medicaid records found PBMs may be using complex pricing tactics to obscure drug costs and retain savings that could go back to taxpayers and state plans. STAT: State audit of Medicaid records points to methods used by PBMs to obscure drug costs.