Donald Trump’s latest tariff threats, particularly the staggering 100% duty on pharmaceuticals, are being interpreted by many as a form of strategic punishment designed to achieve a single goal: boosting investment in the United States. Rather than a simple trade barrier, the policy appears to be a sophisticated tool for coercing foreign companies to onshore their manufacturing.
This interpretation is championed by market analysts like Lale Akoner, who argues that the tariffs will have “more bark than bite” for companies that play by Trump’s rules. She predicts that global giants with existing or planned US factories will be “out of the firing line.” This theory is lent credence by statements from Swiss drugmakers Roche and Novartis, who expect their significant US investments to provide them with immunity.
This strategy puts countries like the United Kingdom in an incredibly difficult position. The UK’s pharmaceutical sector, a world leader in research and development, now faces immense pressure to relocate its production facilities across the Atlantic. Having been left out of an earlier trade deal, these companies lack any formal protection and are fully exposed to this coercive tactic.
The British government has acknowledged the industry’s concern and is engaging in urgent talks with Washington. However, it is negotiating against a policy that seems less about traditional trade metrics and more about fundamentally reordering global supply chains to benefit the American economy directly.
The same logic applies to the 25% tariff on trucks, which has angered German automakers. While they decry the move as economically harmful, the underlying message from the White House is clear: build your trucks in America if you want to sell them in America without penalty. This aggressive, investment-focused trade policy represents a major challenge to the established norms of international commerce.