Navigating tariffs and diplomacy: the future of India-US pharmaceutical trade

India and the US are on the verge of a trade agreement that will transform commerce between the two largest democracies in the world. The next few weeks of June and July 2025 will be pivotal for their trade relationship as negotiations enter advanced stages.
The goal is to take annual bilateral trade between the two nations to $500 billion by 2030 from the current $190 billion. Both sides are aiming to sign an interim agreement by early July, before US President Donald Trump resumes sweeping global reciprocal tariffs following a 90-day pause. The trade deal between India and the US is not just about tariffs, but as much about geopolitics and maintaining strategic diplomatic ties amid global uncertainty influenced by the Trump administration's radical policies. If successful, India will become the first country to sign a bilateral trade agreement (BTA) of such with the US during President Trump's second term in the White House.
The pharmaceutical sector is at the cornerstone of the BTA. The US is India's largest trading partner and the largest export market for Indian-manufactured pharmaceuticals, accounting for 31.35% of India's total pharmaceutical exports. Generic drug products account for the majority of this percentage, such that almost half (47%) of all generics used in the US are imported from India. India imposes a 10% tariff on US pharma imports, while the US does not currently charge any reciprocal duties.
The US initially exempted pharmaceuticals from a broader tariff on most imports, providing a temporary reprieve for companies in India. This may change amid President Trump's push to encapsulate pharmaceuticals under its reciprocal tariff policy, for which a 26% levy was announced by the US for Indian imports. The threat of sector-specific duties has weighed heavily on the global pharmaceutical industry, but specifically for India and its generic drug sector. GlobalData has been closely monitoring and analysing the Trump administration's new trade policies, with a specific focus on the impact of future potential pharmaceutical tariffs.
As part of the BTA negotiations and in light of the tariff threat, India's pharmaceutical industry has proposed several bold measures to overcome these barriers. Some of these include:
• Tariff exemptions for pharmaceuticals
• Greater access to technology transfer for research and development
• Intellectual property legislation reforms for innovative originator medicines
• Relaxed export restrictions
• Targeted incentives to promote US manufacturing
• Low-cost generic drug supply
Several reports indicate that India has made substantial tariff offers and market access concessions to avoid punitive US tariffs. More specifically, the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, an organisation representing the country's largest pharmaceutical companies, has urged the government to reduce import tariffs from the current 10% to zero for pharmaceutical imports from the US. The question now is whether India can secure similar terms for its pharmaceutical industry in return, given the close ties between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Trump and the critical nature of India's generic drug exports to the US healthcare system. However, there is a consensus that the US may not offer full parity in terms of export control easing, but instead that specific drug categories could possibly be exempted.
America's concern over India's intellectual property rights (IPR) has prompted the Indian government to consider reforms of its IP and patent laws. India has proposed strengthening its IPR and its Patents Act to end 'evergreening' by US pharmaceutical companies. India has long resisted foreign pressure to revise its patent laws, despite being part of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement. On the more negative side for pharma, India is suggesting reducing the patent exclusivity period for innovative drugs from the current 20-year term to expedite the availability of generics in the country. Since India is already a late-launch market for innovative therapies, the reduction of patent exclusivity periods will further delay their entry and market access.
Amid President Donald Trump's stated desire to sharply reduce drug prices on the US market, India has also proposed to supply generic medicines at between 20% and 25% of the current reference branded prices, for three years after originator patent expiry. Following the three years, India will introduce an additional 10% to 15% cost reduction for these products over seven years. Generic products already enter the market at a lower price than the originator, so India is effectively offering a financial incentive that the US could accept, given its reliance on Indian-manufactured generics. It comes amid efforts by Trump to control drug prices through an Executive Order that aims to reduce prescription drug prices by up to 80% under the Most Favored Nation rule, which is essentially international reference pricing (IRP).
Aside from tariff exemptions, India is also seeking greater access to critical advanced technologies on par with other countries such as Australia, the UK and Japan, to boost its technological infrastructure and innovation in pharma. The US has already made such concessions for certain allies as part of strategic agreements like the AUKUS (Australia/UK/US) partnership. However, concerns over IPR in India mean that the US would be reluctant towards this provision, instead offering alternative exemptions such as technology transfers for trusted partner programmes or project-specific licences for select Indian companies. One example is the recent launch of the India-US TRUST (Transforming the Relationship Utilizing Strategic Technology) initiative, a BTA that aims to catalyse government-to-government, academia and private sector collaboration in key sectors such as biotechnology.
Technology transfer for manufacturing purposes in India will be difficult if Trump imposes import duties on pharmaceuticals. As such, the Indian delegation has proposed increasing US manufacturing by Indian pharma companies of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and the final stages of drug processing. More specifically, India is seeking targeted incentives for its pharma firms willing to establish API and formulation facilities in the US. The Trump administration's push for domestic pharmaceutical production has already resulted in a surge of investments from global pharma companies, as well as India-based companies aiming to enhance their US manufacturing and research and development capabilities. Since India is one of the top generic manufacturers globally and exporters to the US, this proposal is likely to be considered.
"Navigating tariffs and diplomacy: the future of India-US pharmaceutical trade" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

27 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What to know about the Iranian nuclear sites that were hit by US strikes

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — U.S. forces have attacked three Iranian nuclear and military sites, further upping the stakes in the Israel-Iran war. President Donald Trump said the strikes, which he described as 'very successful,' had hit the Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan sites, with Fordo being the primary target. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed there were attacks early Sunday at all three nuclear sites. Israel launched a surprise barrage of attacks on sites in Iran on June 13, which Israeli officials said was necessary to head off what they claimed was an imminent threat that Iran would build nuclear bombs. Iran, which has long insisted its nuclear program is peaceful, has retaliated with a series of missile and drone strikes in Israel, while Israel has continued to strike sites in Iran. The U.S. and Iran had been in talks that could have resulted in the U.S. lifting some of its crushing economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran drastically limiting or ending its enrichment of uranium. Until Saturday, Washington had helped shoot down Iranian strikes on Israel but had not launched direct attacks on Iran. Here's a look at the sites Trump said the U.S. struck and their importance to Iran's nuclear program. Natanz enrichment facility Iran's nuclear facility at Natanz, located some 220 kilometers (135 miles) southeast of Tehran, is the country's main enrichment site and had already been targeted by Israeli airstrikes. Uranium had been enriched to up to 60% purity at the site — a mildly radioactive level but a short step away from weapons grade — before Israel destroyed the aboveground part of the facility, according to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Another part of the facility on Iran's Central Plateau is underground to defend against potential airstrikes. It operates multiple cascades, or groups of centrifuges working together to more quickly enrich uranium. The IAEA has said it believes that most if not all of these centrifuges were destroyed by an Israeli strike that cut off power to the site. The IAEA said those strikes caused contamination only at the site itself, not the surrounding area. Iran also is burrowing into the Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, or Pickax Mountain, which is just beyond Natanz's southern fencing. Natanz has been targeted by the Stuxnet virus, believed to be an Israeli and American creation, which destroyed Iranian centrifuges. Two separate attacks, attributed to Israel, also have struck the facility. Fordo enrichment facility Iran's nuclear facility at Fordo is located some 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Tehran. It also hosts centrifuge cascades, but isn't as big as Natanz. Its construction began at least in 2007, according to the IAEA, although Iran only informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog about the facility in 2009 after the U.S. and allied Western intelligence agencies became aware of its existence. Buried under a mountain and protected by anti-aircraft batteries, Fordo appears designed to withstand airstrikes. Military experts have said it could likely only be targeted by 'bunker buster' bombs — a term for bombs that are designed to penetrate deep below the surface before exploding — such as the latest GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb in the American arsenal. The roughly 30,000 pound (13,600 kilogram) precision-guided bomb is designed to attack deeply buried and hardened bunkers and tunnels. The U.S. has only configured and programed its B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to deliver that bomb, according to the Air Force. The B-2 is only flown by the Air Force, and is produced by Northrop Grumman, meaning that Washington would have to be involved in such an operation. Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center The facility in Isfahan, some 350 kilometers (215 miles) southeast of Tehran, employs thousands of nuclear scientists. It also is home to three Chinese research reactors and laboratories associated with the country's atomic program. Israel has struck buildings at the Isfahan nuclear site, among them a uranium conversion facility. The IAEA said there has been no sign of increased radiation at the site. Other nuclear sites Iran has several other sites in its nuclear program that were not announced as targets in the U.S. strikes. Iran's only commercial nuclear power plant is in Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, some 750 kilometers (465 miles) south of Tehran. Iran is building two other reactors like it at the site. Bushehr is fueled by uranium produced in Russia, not Iran, and is monitored by the IAEA. The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran. Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns. The Tehran Research Reactor is at the headquarters of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the civilian body overseeing the country's atomic program. It initially required highly enriched uranium but was later retrofitted to use low-enriched uranium over proliferation concerns. ___ Associated Press staff writer Abby Sewell in Beirut contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:

CNBC

28 minutes ago

• CNBC

Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes

WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.

Boston Globe

32 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Senators Markey and Warren decry Trump's Iran strikes as unconstitutional

'Only Congress can declare war — and the Senate must vote immediately to prevent another endless war,' Warren said. Fellow Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey agreed, calling the strike 'illegal' for having lacked congressional approval. He said in a statement that Saturday's attack may set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, but added that not only can the country 'rebuild its program,' it 'will now be highly motivated to do so.' 'A diplomatic solution remains the best way to permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,' Markey said. Chants of 'No More War' broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Tulsa, Okla., after the Vermont Senator read Trump's 'alarming' social media post announcing the strikes. 'The American people do not want more war, more death,' he said. Advertisement Massachusetts Peace Action, a Cambridge-based advocacy group, called for state leaders to speak out. The organization specifically called on Congressional leaders to pass the war power resolutions filed by Senator Tim Kaine and Representative Thomas Massie to prevent further US military action. 'We call on Massachusetts political leaders to speak out strongly against President Trump's lawless military adventure,' the organization wrote on Saturday night, shortly after the US attack on Iran. Brian Garvey, the organization's executive director, said an 'emergency event' was being planned outside Park Street Station at 1 p.m. Sunday, in protest of the strikes. Advertisement 'This direct attack by the United States on Iran a dramatic escalation by President Trump,' Garvey said in a phone call Saturday night. 'It's incredibly dangerous, it's unnecessary, and frankly, it's illegal.' Garvey said the founding fathers were explicit in giving Congress the power to declare war, adding that this is 'not how the government is supposed to work.' 'It is perhaps especially terrible because this is a president who ran saying he was going to seek peace,' he said. 'Back in 2016, he said the Iraq War was a big fat mistake. I fear that what he is leading us into could be even worse than that debacle and quagmire.' Garvey said he was 'fearful' for the US service members stationed in the Middle East, and 'outraged' that the strikes threatened their safety. Camilo Fonseca can be reached at