Connect with us

News

Rishi Sunak hints at fuel duty cut in Spring Statement

Published

on

Rishi Sunak hints at fuel duty cut in Spring Statement

Rishi Sunak has given a robust trace that he’ll lower taxes on gasoline on this week’s Spring Assertion, whereas warning that the times of upper UK public spending — together with on defence — are over.

The chancellor stated he would assist households combating the price of residing when he presents up to date financial forecasts on Wednesday, saying: “The place we will make a distinction, in fact we are going to.”

Sunak admitted that vitality costs have been “the primary precedence” for individuals in the meanwhile and that, as MP for the agricultural Yorkshire constituency of Richmond, he knew gasoline costs have been “a giant problem”.

“It’s one thing that’s difficult to households, I get that,” he advised the BBC’s Sunday programme. He stated his coverage was to take “focused motion the place we expect there’s most acute strain”.

Sunak is beneath strain to go additional in slicing taxes extra usually and stated that they might come down “over time”; he blamed the pandemic for the actual fact Britain has its highest total tax burden because the Nineteen Fifties.

Advertisement

However he refused to say whether or not he would lower earnings tax or change the edge for the fee of nationwide insurance coverage within the Spring Assertion, as many Tory MPs would really like.

Sunak made it clear that he would now strongly resist strain to extend public spending and borrowing — a few of it coming from his Downing Road neighbour, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in current weeks.

Particularly, Sunak appeared to rule out an emergency enhance in defence spending, arguing that the navy price range had already been allotted an additional £24bn, regardless of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“We acted and did this earlier than this occurred, and that’s a superb factor,” Sunak stated, referring to the warfare in Ukraine.

Sunak insisted the federal government’s built-in defence and overseas coverage evaluation final yr recognised the Russian menace, though critics declare the doc was overly preoccupied with a “tilt to the Asia-Pacific”.

Advertisement

He stated his precedence was to get worth from the cash the federal government was already spending, notably within the NHS, and introduced an effectivity drive to avoid wasting £5.5bn, which he stated can be put again into public providers.

The chancellor stated his precedence was to chop taxes over the remainder of the parliament, after evaluation confirmed he had raised taxes extra in two years than Gordon Brown, former Labour chancellor, did in a decade.

Sunak insisted that Brown had not needed to take care of a pandemic, however his credibility with Conservative MPs now rests on his potential to manage spending and push down taxes earlier than the election.

Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, advised Sky Information’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme: “He retains saying he’s a low-tax chancellor. On Wednesday he has an opportunity to show it.”

The Labour social gathering is looking for a reversal of the £12bn nationwide insurance coverage rise, which Sunak insisted would go forward in April to assist fund the NHS and take care of a therapy backlog. Labour additionally desires a windfall tax on North Sea oil corporations.

Advertisement

However Reeves stated Labour wouldn’t “stand in the way in which” if Sunak determined to chop gasoline responsibility by 5p a litre in his assertion subsequent week.

News

Why Trump Suddenly Declared Victory Over the Houthi Militia

Published

on

Why Trump Suddenly Declared Victory Over the Houthi Militia

When he approved a campaign to reopen shipping in the Red Sea by bombing the Houthi militant group into submission, President Trump wanted to see results within 30 days of the initial strikes two months ago.

By Day 31, Mr. Trump, ever leery of drawn-out military entanglements in the Middle East, demanded a progress report, according to administration officials.

But the results were not there. The United States had not even established air superiority over the Houthis. Instead, what was emerging after 30 days of a stepped-up campaign against the Yemeni group was another expensive but inconclusive American military engagement in the region.

The Houthis shot down several American MQ-9 Reaper drones and continued to fire at naval ships in the Red Sea, including an American aircraft carrier. And the U.S. strikes burned through weapons and munitions at a rate of about $1 billion in the first month alone.

It did not help that two $67 million F/A-18 Super Hornets from America’s flagship aircraft carrier tasked with conducting strikes against the Houthis accidentally tumbled off the carrier into the sea.

Advertisement

By then, Mr. Trump had had enough.

Steve Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, who was already in Omani-mediated nuclear talks with Iran, reported that Omani officials had suggested what could be a perfect offramp for Mr. Trump on the separate issue of the Houthis, according to American and Arab officials. The United States would halt the bombing campaign and the militia would no longer target American ships in the Red Sea, but without any agreement to stop disrupting shipping that the group deemed helpful to Israel.

U.S. Central Command officials received a sudden order from the White House on May 5 to “pause” offensive operations.

Announcing the cessation of hostilities, the president sounded almost admiring about the militant Islamist group, despite vowing earlier that it would be “completely annihilated.”

“We hit them very hard and they had a great ability to withstand punishment,” Mr. Trump said. “You could say there was a lot of bravery there.” He added that “they gave us their word that they wouldn’t be shooting at ships anymore, and we honor that.”

Advertisement

Whether that proves to be true remains to be seen. The Houthis fired a ballistic missile at Israel on Friday, triggering air raid sirens that drove people off beaches in Tel Aviv. The missile was intercepted by Israeli air defenses.

The sudden declaration of victory over the Houthis demonstrates how some members of the president’s national security team underestimated a group known for its resilience. Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the head of Central Command, had pressed for a forceful campaign, which the defense secretary and the national security adviser initially supported, according to several officials with knowledge of the discussions. But the Houthis reinforced many of their bunkers and weapons depots throughout the intense bombing.

Significantly, the men also misjudged their boss’s tolerance for military conflict in the region, which he is visiting this week, with stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Trump has never bought into long-running military entanglements in the Middle East, and spent his first term trying to bring troops home from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

What’s more, Mr. Trump’s new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, was concerned that an extended campaign against the Houthis would drain military resources away from the Asia-Pacific region. His predecessor, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., shared that view before he was fired in February.

By May 5, Mr. Trump was ready to move on, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former officials with knowledge of the discussions in the president’s national security circle. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal discussions.

Advertisement

“We honor their commitment and their word,” Mr. Trump said in remarks at the White House on Wednesday.

A White House spokeswoman, Anna Kelly, said in a statement to The New York Times that “President Trump successfully delivered a cease-fire, which is another good deal for America and our security.” She added that the U.S. military had carried out more than 1,100 strikes, killing hundreds of Houthi fighters and destroying their weapons and equipment.

The chief Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, said the operation was always meant to be limited. “Every aspect of the campaign was coordinated at the highest levels of civilian and military leadership,” he said in an emailed statement.

A former senior official familiar with the conversations about Yemen defended Michael Waltz, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, saying he took a coordinating role and was not pushing for any policy beyond wanting to see the president’s goal fulfilled.

General Kurilla had been gunning for the Houthis since November 2023, when the group began attacking ships passing through the Red Sea as a way to target Israel for its invasion of Gaza.

Advertisement

But President Joseph R. Biden Jr. thought that engaging the Houthis in a forceful campaign would elevate their status on the global stage. Instead, he authorized more limited strikes against the group. But that failed to stop the Houthis.

Now General Kurilla had a new commander in chief.

He proposed an eight- to 10-month campaign in which Air Force and Navy warplanes would take out Houthi air defense systems. Then, he said, U.S. forces would mount targeted assassinations modeled on Israel’s recent operation against Hezbollah, three U.S. officials said.

Saudi officials backed General Kurilla’s plan and provided a target list of 12 Houthi senior leaders whose deaths, they said, would cripple the movement. But the United Arab Emirates, another powerful U.S. ally in the region, was not so sure. The Houthis had weathered years of bombings by the Saudis and the Emiratis.

By early March, Mr. Trump had signed off on part of General Kurilla’s plan — airstrikes against Houthi air defense systems and strikes against the group’s leaders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth named the campaign Operation Rough Rider.

Advertisement

At some point, General Kurilla’s eight- to 10-month campaign was given just 30 days to show results.

In those first 30 days, the Houthis shot down seven American MQ-9 drones (around $30 million each), hampering Central Command’s ability to track and strike the militant group. Several American F-16s and an F-35 fighter jet were nearly struck by Houthi air defenses, making real the possibility of American casualties, multiple U.S. officials said.

That possibility became reality when two pilots and a flight deck crew member were injured in the two episodes involving the F/A-18 Super Hornets, which fell into the Red Sea from the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman within 10 days of each other.

Meanwhile, several members of Mr. Trump’s national security team were battling disclosures that Mr. Hegseth had endangered the lives of U.S. pilots by putting operational plans about the strikes in a chat on the Signal app. Mr. Waltz had started the chat and inadvertently included a journalist.

American strikes had hit more than 1,000 targets, including multiple command and control facilities, air defense systems, advanced weapons manufacturing facilities and advanced weapons storage locations, the Pentagon reported. In addition, more than a dozen senior Houthi leaders had been killed, the military said.

Advertisement

But the cost of the operation was staggering. The Pentagon had deployed two aircraft carriers, additional B-2 bombers and fighter jets, as well as Patriot and THAAD air defenses, to the Middle East, officials acknowledged privately. By the end of the first 30 days of the campaign, the cost had exceeded $1 billion, the officials said.

So many precision munitions were being used, especially advanced long-range ones, that some Pentagon contingency planners were growing increasingly concerned about overall stocks and the implications for any situation in which the United States might have to ward off an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China.

And through it all, the Houthis were still shooting at vessels and drones, fortifying their bunkers and moving weapons stockpiles underground.

The White House began pressing Central Command for metrics of success in the campaign. The command responded by providing data showing the number of munitions dropped. The intelligence community said that there was “some degradation” of Houthi capability, but argued that the group could easily reconstitute, officials said.

Senior national security officials considered two pathways. They could ramp up operations for up to another month and then conduct “freedom of navigation” exercises in the Red Sea using two carrier groups, the Carl Vinson and the Truman. If the Houthis did not fire on the ships, the Trump administration would declare victory.

Advertisement

Or, officials said, the campaign could be extended to give Yemeni government forces time to restart a drive to push the Houthis out of the capital and key ports.

In late April, Mr. Hegseth organized a video call with Saudi and Emirati officials and senior officials from the State Department and the White House in an effort to come up with a sustainable way forward and an achievable state for the campaign that they could present to the president.

The group was not able to reach a consensus, U.S. officials said.

Now joining the discussions on the Houthi operation was General Caine, Mr. Trump’s new Joint Chiefs chairman, who was skeptical of an extended campaign. General Caine, aides said, was concerned about supply of assets he thought were needed for the Pacific region.

Also skeptical of a longer campaign were Vice President JD Vance; the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; and Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles. Mr. Hegseth, people with knowledge of the discussions said, went back and forth, arguing both sides.

Advertisement

But Mr. Trump had become the most important skeptic.

On April 28, the Truman was forced to make a hard turn at sea to avoid incoming Houthi fire, several U.S. officials said. The move contributed to the loss of one of the Super Hornets, which was being towed at the time and fell overboard. That same day, dozens of people were killed in a U.S. attack that hit a migrant facility controlled by the Houthis, according to the group and aid officials.

Then on May 4, a Houthi ballistic missile evaded Israel’s aerial defenses and struck near Ben-Gurion International Airport outside Tel Aviv.

On Tuesday, two pilots aboard another Super Hornet, again on the Truman, were forced to eject after their fighter jet failed to catch the steel cable on the carrier deck, sending the plane into the Red Sea.

By then, Mr. Trump had decided to declare the operation a success.

Advertisement

Houthi officials and their supporters swiftly declared victory, too, spreading a social media hashtag that read “Yemen defeats America.”

Ismaeel Naar contributed reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s China deal leaves world exposed to trade policy lottery

Published

on

Trump’s China deal leaves world exposed to trade policy lottery

This article is an on-site version of our Trade Secrets newsletter. Premium subscribers can sign up here to get the newsletter delivered every Monday. Standard subscribers can upgrade to Premium here, or explore all FT newsletters

Well, that didn’t take long. And there was me thinking that China’s resistance to being bounced into a deal — including the insistence that it was the US that had asked for talks — meant it had settled in for a long haul of negotiations. To be clear: the pact, agreed in suitably neutral Switzerland over the weekend, leaves US tariffs on China ludicrously high and asymmetrically so. But that the US was prepared to make a deal so quickly and reduce duties so much suggests more is to come.

Today’s main piece looks at the deals Trump has agreed so far with China and the UK. I also look at the sorry state of overseas aid and development following the news that Bill Gates will wind down his foundation. And now the first reader question for a while: quite simply, were China and the UK right to accept the deals? Answers please to alan.beattie@ft.com.

Get in touch. Email me at alan.beattie@ft.com

Taking the offer or paying the Dane

Trump’s deals with China and the UK have one thing in common, which is — and please sit down if you’re prone to fainting — they’re not binding and they leave a huge amount of negotiation down the line. I know, right? In fact, it’s not 100 per cent clear what they mean now, especially the China deal. As of this newsletter’s “hit send” time, the world’s trade nerds were still pondering over the announcement, trying to work out exactly what had been agreed. The first stab at overall tariffs, including an average for non-China emerging markets and advanced economies, is here, from the consultancy Oxford Economics.

Advertisement

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

And, of course, they’re subject to crossfire from Trump’s other loose cannons. The other news yesterday was Trump declaring that the US pharmaceutical industry could charge no more in the US than in any other country. Is that on top of the sectoral pharma tariffs he wants? What does it mean for the extensive pharmaceutical trade between the US and both the UK and China? Nobody knows.

Even before that, literally the day after the UK deal was announced, the Trump administration launched yet another so-called Section 232 national security investigation, this time on aircraft, which could end in tariffs. Is the UK pre-exempted from those duties because of the deal? Nobody knows.

In theory the US has left itself quite a lot of leverage. The question is, especially with the threat of financial market turmoil an ever-present, whether it is willing to use it. The UK deal, which explicitly states it is not legally binding, leaves Britain vulnerable to being blackmailed into joint action against China if Washington decrees it. Simon Lester of the International Economic Law and Policy Blog has a great rundown here of the many uncertainties around the pact.

General terms for the US-UK trade deal
“Both the United States and the United Kingdom recognise that this document does not constitute a legally binding agreement”, the deal reads

With China, the US’s non-reciprocal “fentanyl tariffs” are still high and asymmetrically so. Beijing has an incentive to come back to the negotiating table and agree a further package of liberalisation — or indeed, as Treasury secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday, agree to purchase more US exports.

This puts us straight back into the territory of the “phase 1” deal of Trump’s first presidency, in which China supposedly agreed a bunch of liberalising measures. The then US trade representative Robert Lighthizer made a big deal out of these, but they haven’t exactly stopped the US moaning about Chinese state capitalism. Beijing also agreed to buy a load of US soyabeans and other products, which it did not.

Advertisement

Still, if there’s one thing we apparently know, it’s that the US is heading towards negotiating the tariffs down (though it seems to regard the 10 per cent baseline as inviolable). This will set it up for a nice old confrontation with perhaps Trump’s foremost target of ire, the EU, which has continued to insist the 10 per cent minimum is unacceptable.

Partly what happens now will depend on which of Trump’s team has the president’s ear on any given day, given their wildly contrasting views. In the endless game of Trade Official Tombola, you never know who’s going to be rattling round the Oval Office leading policy when decisions come to be made.

If it’s China warrior supreme Peter Navarro, the UK might find itself being led into a trade war and Beijing being denied more tariff cuts. If it’s commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, whose job seems to be to find out what Trump wants that day and cheerlead it, probably less so. Navarro clearly didn’t have much to do with the UK deal, since he was subsequently talking about the UK accepting beef and chicken produced to US hygiene standards, something Sir Keir Starmer’s government wisely refused to accept.

Remember the rules?

Finally, what does this mean for the rules-based world trading system? It’s not great that the US is agreeing bilateral deals all over the place. As I wrote last week, the UK pact is more directly damaging, since it involves violating the “most-favoured nation” principle by granting market access to the US it will not give to other countries.

The metaphor that immediately came to mind was Dane-geld, the protection money that Anglo-Saxon kings paid to Vikings in return for easing off the pillaging for a while.

Advertisement

Rudyard Kipling famously had a downer on this tactic, contending that “we’ve proved it again and again, that if once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane”. (My favourite feedback to my piece on this came from an actual mediaevalist historian, who argues that paying Dane-geld was an entirely sensible thing to do.)

The UK will need to keep scanning the horizon for signs of the striped Viking sails appearing again. It might turn out to be worth the gamble and the violation of MFN, or it might not. China might have hit on a better strategy (admittedly in a very different position), or might have not. Nobody knows anything.

Musk’s barbarians at the Gates

Bill Gates has revealed that he’s going to be accelerating spending and then closing the Gates Foundation, albeit not for 20 years. It’s a poignant moment. Trump’s (and specifically Elon Musk’s) savaging of US development assistance, including the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US programme for HIV-Aids relief, has left the sector gasping for air. Gates (correctly) last week said that Musk was killing children. By running down his fund, Gates hopes to ameliorate the impact of official aid cuts.

The traditional aid donors are turning away. The UK, which has already made a mockery of its aid budget by spending a chunk of the money on housing asylum seekers in Britain, has announced it will cut its spending yet further from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of gross national income. Former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who used to fall over each other competing to announce more aid, seem to have been silent on seeing their work undone, even though Brown had picked a public fight with Musk over the US’s aid cuts just weeks earlier. Not for the first time, Brown’s commitment to courage is stronger in theory than practice.

There’s no doubt the Gates Foundation did a tonne of good. (Disclosure: the FT has received money from Gates in the past.) In particular, being able to work with a longer time horizon than donor governments — which were under pressure to show results within a few years — enabled it to fund programmes such as the elimination of polio, which is slow and unspectacular work.

Advertisement

But it took strong policy and ideological stances, a tactic that sat oddly with its philanthropic mission. The foundation publicly opposed the granting of a waiver on Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic before reversing course, a highly contentious public policy issue to weigh in on.

More generally, the idea of private giving saving the world — remember the “philanthrocapitalism” of two decades ago? — now looks seriously naive. The new generation of tech crypto billionaires were seduced by the quasi-scientific approach of effective altruism, which has come under heavy and deserved criticism. The development sector is full of fear. There are stories of NGOs and think-tanks pulling controversial-sounding research papers or cutting the word “equity” from the title. It turns out it is a lot less independent of the state and governments than it thought.

Charted waters

Customs revenue is rising at US ports, but by nowhere near enough to replace a significant portion of receipts from the federal income tax as Trump wishes.

Line chart of Revenue collected at US customs ($bn) showing Lots of chips and dolls

Trade links

  • Chinese companies are purging their supply chains of foreign components, in case Trump’s trade war turns into a full-scale decoupling of its economy from the US’s.

  • Chinese exports jumped in April as its shipping companies pushed goods through ahead of trade talks and tariffs being imposed.

  • Speaking of which, Wired magazine looks at whether consumers should buy now to beat the tariffs or wait.

  • Treasury secretary Scott Bessent has been sent out to try to calm nervy investors. However, they are unlikely to have been reassured that the administration is on top of things by Stephen Miran, the chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, echoing Trump (before the deal with China) that the US doesn’t need a trade deal with China.

  • My FT colleague Martin Sandbu reminds us that a tax on imports is a tax on exports and will hit US companies selling abroad.


Trade Secrets is edited by Harvey Nriapia

Recommended newsletters for you

Chris Giles on Central Banks — Vital news and views on what central banks are thinking, inflation, interest rates and money. Sign up here

Advertisement

FT Swamp Notes — Expert insight on the intersection of money and power in US politics. Sign up here

Continue Reading

News

Trump to sign order to cut some U.S. drug prices to match those abroad

Published

on

Trump to sign order to cut some U.S. drug prices to match those abroad

US President Donald Trump participates in a celebration of military mothers in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2025.

Jim Watson | AFP | Getty Images

President Donald Trump on Monday will revive a controversial policy that aims to slash drug costs by tying the amount the government pays for some medicines to lower prices abroad, White House officials said.

Trump will sign an executive order including several different actions to renew that effort, known as the “most favored nation” policy.

Advertisement

“For too long, foreign nations have been able to free ride off of the American people, and American patients forced to pay for too much for prescription drugs,” one official told reporters on Monday.

“The president is dead serious about lowering drug prices,” they said.

Shares of U.S. drugmakers dropped in premarket trading Monday ahead of the official announcement. Eli Lilly fell more than 5%, while Pfizer, Merck and Johnson & Johnson dropped more than 2%.

But White House officials did not disclose which medications the order will apply to. They said Monday’s announcement will be broader than a similar policy that Trump tried to push during his first term, which only applied to Medicare Part B drugs.

It’s unclear how effective the policy will be at lowering costs for patients. In a social media post on Monday, Trump claimed drug prices will be cut by “59%, PLUS!”

Advertisement

The order directs the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce to crack down on “unreasonable and discriminatory policies” in foreign countries that “suppress” drug prices abroad, the officials said. It also directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to encourage “most favored nation prices.”

Within 30 days, the secretary will also have to set clear targets for price reductions across all markets in the U.S., according to the officials. That will open up a round of negotiations between HHS and the pharmaceutical industry, officials said, not providing exact details on the nature of those talks.

If “adequate progress” is not made towards those price targets, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will impose the most favored nation pricing on drugs through rulemaking.

The order also directs the Food and Drug Administration to consider expanding imports from other developed nations beyond Canada. Trump signed a separate executive order in April directing the Food and Drug Administration to improve the process by which states can apply to import lower-cost drugs from Canada, among other actions intended to lower drug prices.

It also directs the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to aggressively enforce “anti-competitive actions” that keep prices high in the U.S.

Advertisement

The Department of Commerce will also consider export restrictions that “fuel and enable that low pricing abroad.” 

It is Trump’s latest effort to try to rein in U.S. prescription drug prices, which are two to three times higher on average than those in other developed nations – and up to 10 times more than in certain countries, according to the Rand Corporation, a public policy think tank.

The order is a blow to the pharmaceutical industry, which is already bracing for Trump’s planned tariffs on prescription drugs. Drugmakers have argued that the “most favored nation” policy would hurt their profits and ultimately, their ability to research and develop new medicines.

But the policy could help patients by lowering prescription medication costs, which is an issue top of mind for many Americans. More than three in four adults in the U.S. say the cost of medications is unaffordable, according to a KFF poll from 2022.

The industry also lobbied against similar Trump plans during his first term. He tried to push the policy through in the final months of that term, but a federal judge halted the effort following a lawsuit from the pharmaceutical industry. The Biden administration then rescinded that policy.

Advertisement

White House officials initially pressed congressional Republicans to include a “most favored nation” provision in the major reconciliation bill they plan to pass in the coming months, but the policy would have specifically targeted Medicaid drug costs, Politico reported earlier this month. Several GOP members opposed that measure.

How Trump’s order could affect patients, companies

The industry’s largest trade group, PhRMA, estimated that Trump’s Medicaid proposal could cost drugmakers as much as $1 trillion over a decade. 

Some health policy experts have said a “most favored nation” drug policy may not be effective at lowering medication costs.

For example, USC experts said the policy “can’t undo the basic economics of the global drug marketplace,” where 70% of pharmaceutical profits worldwide come from the U.S.

“Facing a choice between deep cuts in their U.S. pricing or the loss of weakly profitable overseas markets, we can expect many firms to pull out from overseas markets at their earliest opportunity,” experts said in a report in April. 

Advertisement

That will leave Americans paying the same amount for medications, drugmakers with lower profits and future generations of patients with less innovation, they said.

“In sum, everyone loses,” the experts said.

Other experts have said another legal fight with the pharmaceutical industry could prevent the policy from taking effect.

But even if the drug industry pushes back on Trump’s executive order, his administration still has another tool to push down drug prices: Medicare drug price negotiations.

It’s a key provision of the Inflation Reduction Act that gives Medicare the power to negotiate certain prescription drug prices with manufacturers for the first time in history.

Advertisement

Trump last month proposed a change to that policy that drugmakers have long sought. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle could be receptive to the idea, which proposes changing rules that differentiate between small-molecule drugs and biologic medicines.

Trump last week said he plans to announce tariffs on medicines imported into the U.S. within the next two weeks. Those planned levies aim to boost domestic drug manufacturing. 

Drugmakers, including Eli Lilly and Pfizer, are pushing back on those potential duties. Some companies have questioned whether the tariffs are necessary, given that several of them have already announced new U.S. manufacturing and research and development investments since Trump took office. 

Still, Trump last week doubled down on efforts to reshore drug manufacturing. He signed an executive order that streamlines the path for drugmakers to build new production sites.

Caplan noted that even if the drug industry pushes back on the executive order, the administration still has another tool at its disposal: Medicare drug pricing negotiations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending