Business

Europe’s Pharma Industry Braces for Pain as Trump Tariff Threat Looms

Published

11 months ago

April 27, 2025

Europe’s Pharma Industry Braces for Pain as Trump Tariff Threat Looms

Insulin, heart treatments and antibiotics have flowed freely across many borders for decades, exempt from tariffs in a bid to make medicine affordable. But that could soon change.

For months, President Trump has been promising to impose higher tariffs on pharmaceuticals as part of his plan to reorder the global trading system and bring key manufacturing industries back to the United States. This month, he said pharmaceutical tariffs could come in the “not too distant future.”

If they do, the move would have serious — and wildly uncertain — consequences for drugs made in the European Union.

Pharmaceutical products and chemicals are the bloc’s No. 1 export to America. Among them are the weight-loss blockbuster Ozempic, cancer treatments, cardiovascular drugs and flu vaccines. Most are name-brand drugs that yield a large profit in the American market, with its high prices and vast numbers of consumers.

“These are critical things that keep people alive,” said Léa Auffret, who heads international affairs for BEUC, the European Consumer Organization. “Putting them in the middle of a trade war is highly concerning.”

European companies could react to Mr. Trump’s tariffs in a range of ways. Some pharmaceutical companies trying to dodge the tariffs have already announced plans to increase production in the United States, which Mr. Trump wants. Others could decide to move production there later.

Other companies appear to be staying put, but could raise their prices to cover the tariffs, pushing up costs for patients. And higher prices could affect not only American consumers, but also patients in Europe. Some companies have begun to argue that Europe should create more favorable conditions for their businesses by dismantling some of the rules that keep drug prices down.

Or some middle ground could play out: Companies might shift their financial profits to the United States for accounting purposes to avoid import charges, even as they leave their physical factories overseas to avoid the expenses of moving and challenges of having to set up new supply chains.

Ms. Auffret’s group has already warned European officials that they must not hit back at an attack on the important industry by tariffing American drugs in return: Tit for tat would come at too serious of a cost to European consumers.

But the pharmaceutical sector is complicated. Agreements with insurance companies and government agencies can make it difficult to rapidly adjust prices for branded drugs, while government regulations can make moving both a challenge and a long-term commitment. The upshot is that no one can confidently predict the outcome.

“We haven’t tariffed pharmaceuticals in a very long time,” said Brad W. Setser, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations who has closely studied the tax rules that incentivize overseas production.

Even as Mr. Trump has paused his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs in favor of an across-the-board rate of 10 percent during the hiatus, he has left in place some industry-specific tariffs and made clear that computer chips and pharmaceutical products would be next. The United States recently kicked off investigations into both sectors, a first step toward hitting them with tariffs.

Many industry experts expect that the new tariffs could be 25 percent, in line with those on steel, aluminum and cars.

For the countries at the center of Europe’s drug industry, the possible tariffs are particularly worrisome. That is especially true for Ireland, where pharmaceuticals make up 80 percent of all exports to the United States.

Many drug companies originally moved to Ireland because it offers very low corporate tax rates. But it has also worked to develop its pharmaceutical industry and offers access to a highly skilled work force.

In recent years, the sector has grown rapidly. More than 90 pharmaceutical companies are now based there, according to Ireland’s Foreign Direct Investment Agency, and many of the biggest American drugmakers have operations in the nation. Last year, Ireland’s pharma industry exported 58 billion euros, or about $66 billion, in pharmaceutical and chemical products to the United States.

“The Irish are smart, yes, smart people,” Mr. Trump said in March, while Prime Minister Micheál Martin of Ireland was visiting the White House. “You took our pharmaceutical companies and other companies,” he said. “This beautiful island of five million people has got the entire U.S. pharmaceutical industry in its grasps.”

Now, tariffs could chip away at the benefits of manufacturing there — which is Mr. Trump’s goal.

“In the U.S., we don’t make our own drugs anymore,” Mr. Trump said last week from the Oval Office, adding that “the drug companies are in Ireland.”

Firms are already bracing. Companies have been rushing to export their pharmaceuticals from Ireland and into the U.S. market before the gauntlet falls, statistics suggest.

Nor is Ireland the only country affected. Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Slovenia are also major exporters.

“It’s an enormous issue for Europe,” said Penny Naas, who leads a competitiveness program for the think tank the German Marshall Fund and has long worked in European public policy and corporate affairs.

European leaders have been reaching out to both American officials and the industry. In addition to the Irish prime minister’s recent visit to the Oval Office, the Irish foreign affairs minister traveled to Washington to meet with the commerce secretary.

Ursula Von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, has met in Brussels with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, the lobby group representing Europe’s biggest drugmakers.

The industry is leveraging the moment to push for wish-list items, like less red tape.

The European drug lobby group told Ms. von der Leyen that companies could shift production or investment toward the United States to limit their exposure to Mr. Trump’s tariffs, especially when faster approvals and easier access to capital are making America more attractive.

At least 18 members of the group, which includes Bayer, Pfizer and Merck, have planned nearly €165 billion in investments in the European Union over the next five years. As much as half of that could shift to the United States, the federation said. Nor is it alone in that prediction.

“Pharma needs more attractive conditions to produce in Europe,” said Dorothee Brakmann, the director of Pharma Deutschland, Germany’s largest association of pharmaceutical companies.

Such warnings seem to have teeth. Some companies have begun to lay out plans to spend more in the United States; the firm Roche last week announced a $50 billion American investment plan, the latest in a string of such announcements.

In commentary published last week, the chief executives of Novartis and Sanofi suggested that less regulation was not enough to stem the bleeding. They argued that “European price controls and austerity measures reduce the attractiveness of its markets,” and that the bloc should pave the way for higher prices.

Industry executives have also warned that tariffs on the sector could disrupt supply lines, impair patient access and dampen research and development.

“There’s a reason” that tariffs on medicines are set to zero, Joaquin Duato, the chief executive of the drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, said on a recent earnings call. “It’s because tariffs can create disruptions in the supply chain, leading to shortages.”

Ms. von der Leyen has emphasized similar concerns, warning that tariffs on the pharmaceutical sector risk “implications for globally interconnected supply chains and availability of medicines for European and U.S. patients alike.”

Pharmaceutical tariffs also hold another danger for the European Union.

The bloc has been trying to build up its ability to manufacture generic drugs, which are medically essential but much less profitable than the name-brand products, and are frequently made in Asia.

But if U.S. tariffs mean that generic drug manufacturers in China and India are suddenly looking for customers outside of America, it could send a flood of cheaper-than-usual pills toward Europe.

That could make it even more difficult for the European Union to establish a domestic manufacturing base for generics, even as tariffs lure name-brand drug production toward the United States.

“We do think that it’s likely that this is going to cause increased investment in the U.S.,” said Diederik Stadig, a sectoral economist at ING. “The European Commission needs to be on the ball.”

Click to comment

Business

Living comfortably costs the most in these Californian cities

Published

4 hours ago

March 29, 2026

Press Room

Living comfortably costs the most in these Californian cities

In California’s spendy cities, living comfortably costs more than almost anywhere else.

From the Bay Area to Orange County, living well requires incomes north of $150,000 in the pricier places, according to a recent study. A family with two kids needs more than $400,000 per year in some spots.

The study, conducted by financial technology company SmartAsset, analyzed 100 of the largest cities in the country.

San José ranked as the second-most expensive city, where a single adult must make nearly $160,000 and a family of four needs over $400,000 to live comfortably, the study found. Orange County cities — Irvine, Anaheim and Santa Ana — followed closely behind.

New York City topped the list, with a salary for comfortable living at about $900 higher than in San José.

Los Angeles ranked 16th on the list, where a single adult must make $120,307 to live comfortably. A family of four should bring in just over $280,000 annually.

San Diego and Chula Vista tied for seventh place, with a $136,781 salary for a single adult. San Francisco came in ninth, followed by Fremont and Oakland, which tied for 10th.

Santa Clarita, Long Beach, Riverside and Sacramento also made the top 20 list.

The study measured comfortable living using the 50/30/20 rule, in which half of a household’s post-tax income should go to needs, 30% to wants and 20% to savings.

The company used the MIT living wage calculator to determine cost of living by region for single adults and families of four.

A family of four faces the toughest living costs in the Bay Area, taking up four of the top five cities with the highest salaries needed to live comfortably.

San Francisco topped that list, with income for two parents projected at $407,597. Projected income in San José was slightly lower at $402,771, followed by Fremont and Oakland.

The study’s findings are in line with existing research that paints a grim picture of the statewide housing crisis, said Carolina Reid, an associate professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley.

“California is one of the more expensive places to live, and that definitely is true when we’re talking about families who are juggling multiple competing demands on their incomes,” Reid said.

Housing costs, groceries and gas prices — all considered necessities in the study — have skyrocketed nationwide, while wages have largely remained stagnant.

California housing costs are about double the national average. The state has struggled to keep up with demand, largely due to the lingering impacts of decades-long missteps in housing policies, said Paavo Monkkonen, a professor in urban planning at UCLA.

“It’s a problem that we created very slowly over a long period of time,” Monkkonen said.

The expected salary needed to live comfortably was significantly higher than the median household income for some California cities.

The difference is especially stark in Santa Ana, where the median salary is $95,118 — over $56,000 less than the projected salary needed to live comfortably in the city for a single adult.

Los Angeles had a $38,000 gap between the city’s median household income of $82,263 and the projected salary.

Cost of living is often hard to measure given the variability in how households choose to spend their money, Reid said. Housing is also the primary driver for living costs, which Monkkonen said is difficult to measure given the market’s unpredictability.

“People are living here somehow, right?” he said. “If you just look at the incomes and rents separately, you don’t really get a picture of how people are doing it…they’re spending a lot of their incomes on rents, but they’re also doubling up.”

Business

How the landmark verdict against Meta and YouTube could hit their businesses

Published

17 hours ago

March 28, 2026

Press Room

How the landmark verdict against Meta and YouTube could hit their businesses

A Los Angeles jury dealt a blow to social media giants Meta and YouTube this week when it found that the platforms were negligent for designing addictive features that harmed the mental health of a California woman.

Both companies plan to appeal, but the ruling has ignited uncertainty around the tech companies’ future and sparked questions about the potential fallout.

The seven-week trial kicked off in February, featuring testimony from Meta and YouTube executives.

Kaley G.M., a 20-year-old Chico, Calif., woman, sued the platforms in 2023, alleging that using social media at a young age led to her mental health problems such as body dysmorphia and depression. She also sued TikTok and Santa Monica-based Snap and those companies settled ahead of the trial.

Lawyers representing the woman argued that the platforms hook in young users with features such as infinite scrolling, autoplaying videos and beauty filters.

People use social media to keep up with their friends and family, but teens can also feel inadequate, sad or anxious when they compare themselves to a curated version of other people’s lives online. They’re also spending a lot of time watching a seemingly endless amount of short videos.

A jury determined that Meta was 70% responsible for Kaley’s harms and YouTube was 30% responsible. They awarded her a total of $6 million. The ruling came shortly after a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for $375 million in damages after the state Atty. Gen. Raúl Torrez alleged the platform’s features enabled predators and pedophiles to exploit children.

“These verdicts mark an unsurprising breaking point. Negative sentiment toward social media has been building for years, and now it’s finally boiled over,” said Mike Proulx, a director at Forrester, a market research company.

How have the companies reacted to the verdict?

Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, said they disagreed with the ruling and plan to appeal.

“This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” said Jose Castañeda, a Google spokesman, in a statement.

Meta spokesman Andy Stone posted the company’s statement on social media site X.

“Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” the statement said.

Tech companies have been responding to mental health concerns, rolling out new parental controls so parents can keep track of their children’s screen time and moderating harmful content. Instagram and YouTube have versions of their apps meant for young people.

Some child advocacy groups and lawmakers, though, say these changes aren’t enough.

The ruling could affect how much money YouTube’s parent company, Alphabet, and Meta earn as they spend more on legal battles. While they make billions of dollars from advertising, investors are wary about higher expenses. The companies are already spending billions of dollars on artificial intelligence and developing new hardware such as smartglasses.

On Thursday, Meta’s stock fell more than 7% to $549 per share. Alphabet saw its share price drop more than 2% to roughly $280.

In 2025, Meta’s annual revenue grew 22% from the previous year to $200.97 billion.

Last year, YouTube’s annual revenue surpassed more than $60 billion. Both Google and Meta have been laying off workers as they spend more on AI.

The ongoing backlash hasn’t stopped tech companies from growing their users.

A majority of U.S. teens use YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat, according to a 2025 Pew Research Center survey. More than 3.5 billion people use one of Meta’s products, which include Instagram and Facebook.

Social media has continued to change over the years as companies double down on short videos and AI chatbots.

Mental health concerns have only heightened as AI chatbots that respond to questions and generate content become more popular. Families have sued OpenAI, Character.AI and Google after their loved ones who used chatbots killed themselves.

Some analysts remain skeptical that Meta and YouTube would make drastic changes to their products because they’ve weathered crises before.

“Neither Meta nor YouTube is going to do anything different until a court orders them to, or there’s a significant drop in user or advertiser use,” said Max Willens, Principal Analyst at eMarketer.

Other analysts said legal risks could also affect how tech companies develop new AI-powered products and features.

“It’s likely that tech firms will now face increased scrutiny over the design of their platforms, which should drive more thoughtful inclusion of features that foster healthier interactions and safeguard mental health,” said Andrew Frank, an analyst with Gartner for Marketing Leaders.

At the very least, the verdicts serve as a “dire warning about how we handle the next wave of technology,” Proulx said.

“If we’re still struggling to put effective guardrails around social media after nearly two decades, we’re far from prepared for the growing harms of AI, which is moving faster, scaling wider, and embedding itself far deeper into people’s lives,” he said.

Times staff writer Sonja Sharp contributed to this report.

Business

Justin Vineyards pays $1.49 million to settle sex harassment case

Published

1 day ago

March 28, 2026

Press Room

Justin Vineyards pays .49 million to settle sex harassment case

Justin Vineyards & Winery has agreed to workplace reforms and to pay $1.49 million to settle a federal lawsuit accusing it of allowing female employees to be sexually harassed and then retaliating against them for reporting it.

The Paso Robles business reached the settlement with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It was was approved Thursday by a federal judge.

Also named in the lawsuit and settlement is the Wonderful Co., the Los Angeles agribusiness owned by Beverly Hills billionaires Lynda and Stewart Resnick.

In 2010, Wonderful acquired Justin, which includes production facilities, a tasting room, inn and Michelin-starred restaurant.

The lawsuit, filed in 2022, alleged that female employees were subject since August 2017 to comments about their appearance; texts containing inappropriate photos; touching of their breasts, buttocks and genitals; forced kissing and other harassment by their male supervisors.

It further alleged that the companies “knew or should have known” about the hostile work environment.

The lawsuit also said that when complaints were made about the harassment, they were not properly investigated and the employees were subject to retaliation, including being given double shifts, being accused of wrongdoing and being berated and yelled at by supervisors.

Aside from the monetary penalty, the settlement requires Justin and Wonderful to halt any harassment or retaliation, undergo compliance audits and take other measures at the vineyard operations.

The companies denied all the allegations and agreed to the settlement to resolve the litigation, according to the consent decree.

In a statement, Justin said that the matter “dates back many years and was dealt with immediately and decisively the moment we became aware of any allegations of conduct that did not align with what is appropriate in the workplace.

“With this agreement reached, we look forward to putting this chapter fully behind us and continuing to focus on the incredibly talented team we have in place today,” the statement said.

Beatriz Andre, acting regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, commended Justin and Wonderful for reaching the settlement.

“The policy changes and reporting to which the companies agreed are important steps in ensuring a workplace free of discrimination,” she said in a statement.

In 2016, workers cut down dozens of oaks trees on land managed by Justin to make room for new grape plantings, stirring up controversy.

The Resnicks said they were unaware of the cutting, apologized, donated the land to a nature conservancy and agreed to plant thousands of trees on vineyard property.

After buying Justin, Wonderful acquired Landmark Vineyards in Sonoma County and Lewis Cellars in Napa Valley.