After more than three decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I know one thing: science transforms lives, but policy determines whether innovation thrives or stalls. That reality shapes outcomes for patients — and for Europe’s competitiveness. Today, Europeans stand at a defining moment. The choices we make now will determine whether Europe remains a global leader in life sciences or we watch that leadership slip away. It’s worth reminding ourselves of the true value of Europe’s life sciences industry and the power we have as a united bloc to protect it as a European good. Europe has an illustrious track record in medical discovery, from the first antibiotics to the discovery of DNA and today’s advanced biologics. Still today, our region remains an engine of medical breakthroughs, powered by an extraordinary ecosystem of innovators in the form of start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises, academic labs, and university hospitals. This strength benefits patients through access to clinical trials and cutting-edge treatments. It also makes life sciences a strategic pillar of Europe’s economy. The economic stakes Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. The EU is already home to some of the world’s most talented scientists, thriving academic institutions and research clusters, and a social model built on universal access to healthcare. These assets are powerful, yet they only translate into future success if supported by a legislative environment that rewards innovation. > Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a > source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. This is also an industry that supports 2.3 million jobs and contributes over €200 billion to the EU economy each year — more than any other sector. EU pharmaceutical research and development spending grew from €27.8 billion in 2010 to €46.2 billion in 2022, an average annual increase of 4.4 percent. A success story, yes — but one under pressure. While Europe debates, others act Over the past two decades, Europe has lost a quarter of its share of global investment to other regions. This year — for the first time — China overtook both the United States and Europe in the number of new molecules discovered. China has doubled its share of industry sponsored clinical trials, while Europe’s share has halved, leaving 60,000 European patients without the opportunity to participate in trials of the next generation of treatments. Why does this matter? Because every clinical trial site that moves elsewhere means a patient in Europe waits longer for the next treatment — and an ecosystem slowly loses competitiveness. Policy determines whether innovation can take root. The United States and Asia are streamlining regulation, accelerating approvals and attracting capital at unprecedented scale. While Europe debates these matters, others act. A world moving faster And now, global dynamics are shifting in unprecedented ways. The United States’ administration’s renewed push for a Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy — designed to tie domestic prices to the lowest paid in developed markets — combined with the potential removal of long-standing tariff exemptions for medicines exported from Europe, marks a historic turning point. A fundamental reordering of the pharmaceutical landscape is underway. The message is clear: innovation competitiveness is now a geopolitical priority. Europe must treat it as such. A once-in-a-generation reset The timing couldn’t be better. As we speak, Europe is rewriting the pharmaceutical legislation that will define the next 20 years of innovation. This is a rare opportunity, but only if reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, Europe’s ability to compete in life sciences. To lead globally, Europe must make choices and act decisively. A triple A framework — attract, accelerate, access — makes the priorities clear: * Attract global investment by ensuring strong intellectual property protection, predictable regulation and competitive incentives — the foundations of a world-class innovation ecosystem. * Accelerate the path from science to patients. Europe’s regulatory system must match the speed of scientific progress, ensuring that breakthroughs reach patients sooner. * Ensure equitable and timely access for all European patients. No innovation should remain inaccessible because of administrative delays or fragmented decision-making across 27 systems. These priorities reinforce each other, creating a virtuous cycle that strengthens competitiveness, improves health outcomes and drives sustainable growth. > Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class > science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most > sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. Despite flat or declining public investment in new medicines across most member states over the past 20 years, the research-based pharmaceutical industry has stepped up, doubling its contributions to public pharmaceutical expenditure from 12 percent to 24 percent between 2018 and 2023. In effect, we have financed our own innovation. No other sector has done this at such scale. But this model is not sustainable. Pharmaceutical innovation must be treated not as a cost to contain, but as a strategic investment in Europe’s future. The choice before us Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. What we need now is an ambition equal to those assets. If we choose innovation, we secure Europe’s jobs, research and competitiveness — and ensure European patients benefit first from the next generation of medical breakthroughs. A wrong call will be felt for decades. The next chapter for Europe is being written now. Let us choose the path that keeps Europe leading, competing and innovating: for our economies, our societies and, above all, our patients. Choose Europe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to the Critical Medicines Act. More information here.

Lobbyists for some of the world’s largest drug companies are parading a new pricing deal in the U.K. as a model the rest of Europe should emulate if it wants to keep drugmakers from bailing for America. To President Donald Trump and the lobbyists’ delight, British officials agreed to spend 25 percent more on new medicines in exchange for three years of tariff relief on pharmaceutical exports to the U.S. The move comes as major drugmakers like AstraZeneca and Merck scrap projects in the U.K., and the Trump administration uses tariff threats to get pharma to raise prices on Europeans in order to cut them for Americans. For Washington’s lobbyists, the deal reflects the new influence playbook, as Trump’s tariff threats force companies to negotiate directly with the White House. Industry leaders say the U.K. deal could serve as a template for how the EU and other major trade partners handle the Trump administration’s break from free market norms, and stay competitive. “The U.K. is the canary in the coal mine,” said Stephen Farrelly, global head of pharma and health care at ING, a Dutch bank. “The pressure is rising on the EU to do something similar.” Lobbyists for drug companies are pounding the point home. Dorothee Brakmann, general manager of Pharma Deutschland, Germany’s industry lobby, warned that if Germany did not pursue a similar path to the U.K., Trump’s tariffs presented a “real geopolitical risk.” “The UK-US agreement is an important signal for Europe’s pharmaceutical landscape. …[It] reinforces the need to reassess how we can make our own reimbursement system more flexible, more innovation-friendly and more internationally competitive,” she wrote POLITICO in a statement. Alex Schriver, senior vice president of public affairs at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the U.S. industry lobby for brand-name drugmakers, echoed the German pharma group’s call for similar country deals. “The agreement establishes important first steps by the U.K. to pay its fair share for innovative medicines and directly benefits American patients by exempting medicines from tariffs. We encourage the Trump Administration to seek similar agreements with other nations,” Schriver said in a statement. Henrik Jeimke-Karge, spokesperson for Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller, another German pharmaceutical group, said that the lack of an EU agreement meant continued uncertainty for the region. “The pharmaceutical industry in the U.K. has now gained planning security. Such an agreement is still pending for the EU. …The risk of customs duties remains high and uncertainty persists,” he said in a statement. Trump has repeatedly blamed European pharmaceutical companies for higher U.S. drug prices, threatened a 100 percent tariff on pharmaceutical products and demanded drugmakers implement “most favored nation pricing,” which would bring U.S. prices in line with those paid in other wealthy nations. The threats have triggered British and European drugmakers to bolster their defenses on K Street, Washington’s lobbying corridor. Lobbying spending from July to September from GSK, AstraZeneca, Novartis, NovoNordisk, and Genentech, a subsidiary of Roche, were the highest for the time period in at least a decade. Year-to-date spending from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi are also at a 10-year high. European drugmakers are also ramping up their hiring of outside lobbying firms. DLA Piper, Corcoran & Associates, and B Hall Strategies registered to lobby for Novartis this year, which hired no new outside firms last year. Lobbyists for Novartis now include Richard Burr, the former top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and Michael Corcoran, a prominent Republican lobbyist from Florida. Alkermes and Novo Nordisk have hired Ballard Partners, a Trump-connected lobbying firm, and Genentech has hired lobbyists at Miller Strategies, including Jeff Miller, a long-time Republican strategist and Ashley Gunn, a former special assistant to Trump in his first term. GSK, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, meanwhile, have all hired lobbyists at Checkmate Government Relations this year, including Fritz Vaughan, a Treasury official in the first Trump administration. “Policy is not siloed from business strategy right now,” said Allison Parker-Lagoo, deputy of the North America health practice at APCO, a public and government relations firm that advises drug companies. “The geopolitical environment is just requiring that everyone really think critically about how they’re showing up in each market that they operate in.” In exchange for tariff reprieve, five drugmakers, including AstraZeneca, EMD Serono and Novo Nordisk have cut deals with Trump to lower prices. The pharmaceutical industry has together announced more than $400 billion in commitments to U.S. manufacturing, research and development since January, according to ING, the Dutch bank, including a $50 billion commitment from Roche, $23 billion from Novartis, and $20 billion from Sanofi. “Trump is demonstrating that he’s willing to go further than anyone else to achieve his goals…Most companies and industries are having a conversation saying, ‘Let’s bring some solutions to the table,’ as opposed to just sitting back and holding the line,” said one health care lobbyist granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy. “It’s a big shift, and you don’t want to be the last one to the dance,” the lobbyist added. Concerns over Europe’s pharmaceutical competitiveness were mounting prior to Trump’s second term. E.U. spending on research and development grew on average 4.4 percent annually from 2010 to 2022, while U.S. spending grew by 5.5 percent and China by more than 20 percent, according to the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, the EU’s pharmaceutical trade group, which did not respond to request for comment. Last year, the U.S. saw $6.7 billion in pharmaceutical manufacturing investments from foreign companies, compared to $5.9 billion in Europe, according to estimates from fDi Markets, a database owned by the Financial Times. Advocates for drug companies warned that the Trump administration’s pricing and tariff policies will accelerate the shift. “It speaks to the reorienting of the global biopharmaceutical economy…For the first time, the U.S. government is getting involved in the pricing and access behaviors of other countries,” said Kirsten Axelsen, a senior policy adviser at DLA Piper, a law and lobbying firm. “[Companies] are advocating…to avoid the types of policies that would really make it almost impossible to launch a drug in European countries.”

LONDON — The American drugmaker Eli Lilly wants to see more changes to Britain’s medicine market before it pivots on its abandoned £279 million investment in a biotech incubator project. The U.K. government has drawn up proposals to increase the amount the state-funded National Health Service is allowed to pay pharmaceutical firms for drugs after intense discussions with officials from Donald Trump’s administration. The U.S. president has demanded lower drug prices for Americans, and suggested other developed countries should pay more. The British plans under consideration could increase the threshold at which the NHS pays firms for medicines by up to 25 percent. But for the U.S. pharmaceutical company — which shelved its planned facility meant to support early-stage life sciences businesses with lab space, mentorship and potential financial backing — the proposal alone is not enough. “I don’t think we have heard enough to say that we are willing to get the Lilly Gateway Lab started,” Patrik Jonsson, president of Lilly’s international business, which covers all markets outside the U.S., told POLITICO. “I think once we see the right signs from the U.K. government, we’re more than happy to restart those discussions, and we could move quite quickly,” Jonsson said. However, “we need to see some significant and sustainable change here.” The comments will be a blow to British negotiators, who are in advanced talks to agree their drug-pricing deal with the U.S. administration as part of wider trade negotiations. Officials are hoping to wrap up the pharma talks ahead of the U.K.’s budget in late November. Ministers last week granted a two-week extension to the deadline by which pharma firms must tell the government if they intend to leave the NHS’s voluntary drug pricing scheme. If Washington and London strike a deal — effectively committing the NHS to higher drug spending — Chancellor Rachel Reeves will face pressure to spell out how much the increase will cost taxpayers. ‘WE NEED THE RIGHT CONDITIONS’ Drugmakers have long called for changes to the U.K.’s tightly-controlled drug prices. Britain limits the annual cost for a year of good-quality life (QALY) for a patient at £30,000 for most drugs. Industry also pays an annual rebate to the NHS at 23 percent of their U.K. sales. These measures have contained the medicine bill for the U.K.’s publicly-funded health care system. While Jonsson acknowledged the U.K. is “well positioned to be a source of innovation” thanks to a “small but really impressive group of scientists,” he said the country needs to demonstrate sustained changes. The British plans under consideration could increase the threshold at which the NHS pays firms for medicines by up to 25 percent. | Anna Barclay/Getty Images “At the end of the day if you want us to research, develop and produce medicines in your country you need to put the right conditions in place so that your citizens can get access to those patients at least who need it most,” Jonsson said. An editorial in the Lancet medical journal last week said “the argument that paying more for medicines leads to more innovation is unfounded.” “If the U.K. Government wants to attract pharma investment, it should follow the evidence. Rather than handing over more money for medicines, it should invest in creating fertile conditions for attracting world-leading scientists, boosting public infrastructure for research and development, and facilitating clinical trials,” the article states. “Although the tangible outcomes of applied research might appeal to politicians, investing massively in a second-to-none basic science sector will allow scientific innovation to flourish.” Jonsson was speaking to POLITICO as the company announced a €2.6 billion new manufacturing facility in the Netherlands to produce oral medicines, including its first GLP-1 weight-loss pill. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “We will always prioritise the needs of NHS patients. Investment in patient access to innovative medicines is critical to our NHS. “We are now in advanced discussions with the US Administration to secure the best outcome for the UK, reflecting our strong relationship and the opportunities from close partnership with our pharmaceutical industry,” the spokesperson added.

LONDON — U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will visit London on Nov. 24 as the U.K. seeks to secure more concessions in its trade talks with Washington, according to three people familiar with the plans. London continues to push for a favorable position on a narrow list of tariff lines — with President Donald Trump’s duties on pharmaceuticals and Scotch whisky among Britain’s top priorities. In a bid to stave off Trump’s 100 percent tariff threats on pharmaceutical imports, the U.K. has proposed increasing the amount the NHS pays for its drugs, as POLITICO first reported in early October. Ministers agreed last week to a two-week extension to the deadline by which pharma firms must tell the government if they intend to leave the NHS’s voluntary drug pricing scheme, signaling that a breakthrough in talks is imminent. Greer’s visit comes just two days before Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ budget, and British officials are eager to finalize the pharma deal ahead of that announcement, said two of the people cited higher. They were granted anonymity to speak freely on a sensitive matter. If Washington accepts the proposal — effectively committing the NHS to higher drug spending — Reeves will face pressure to spell out how much the increase will cost taxpayers. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “We will always prioritise the needs of NHS patients. Investment in patient access to innovative medicines is critical to our NHS.” “We are now in advanced discussions with the US Administration to secure the best outcome for the UK, reflecting our strong relationship and the opportunities from close partnership with our pharmaceutical industry,” the spokesperson added. TRUMP’S ASKS Washington, meanwhile, is pushing for more. The U.S. administration wants Britain to grant additional concessions benefiting American farming and manufacturing, including a relaxation of product standards.  U.S. officials told The Times earlier this month that the talks risk “going off the rails,” voicing frustration over the pace of progress and delays in receiving documents from their U.K. counterparts. The U.K. has proposed increasing the amount the NHS pays for its drugs. | Leon Neal/Getty Images Negotiators will hold technical-level talks in Washington in mid-November before Greer’s visit. His office did not respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile the European Union has invited U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to Brussels on Nov. 24 — the same date Greer is in London — for talks with the bloc’s trade ministers. The Danish presidency of the Council of the EU, as well as the European Commission, invited the commerce secretary to attend a lunch with ministers dedicated to trade relations between the United States and the EU. It comes as the U.K. is seeking to form an alliance with the European Union and the U.S. to curb China’s dominance of the global steel market. Doug Palmer contributed to this report.

LONDON — The U.K. government has drawn up proposals to increase the amount the National Health Service pays pharmaceutical firms for drugs, in a bid to steer U.S. President Donald Trump away from his threatened tariffs on the sector. Officials briefed the Trump administration on fresh proposals to adjust how the NHS prices medicines earlier this week, two industry figures told POLITICO. The core element of the plan includes raising the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold by 25 percent.  The NICE threshold measures whether a treatment offers good value for money. Under the current rules, if a drug costs the NHS between £20,000 and £30,000 for every extra year of good-quality life it delivers to a patient, it is considered good value. Increasing the threshold would make it easier for pricier drugs to reach patients, but would mean the NHS will pay more overall for medicines. The government is expected to brief U.K. pharmaceutical companies on the details later this week, the same two figures cited above said.  One of the figures said the government had long been resistant to changing the NICE threshold due to the cost to the Treasury for no direct extra benefit, but “we have kicked up enough of a stink and they have given in. This is the price you have to pay post-Trump for global pharma to continue to play in the U.K.” Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on pharmaceutical imports. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on pharmaceutical imports. The trade pact Britain and the U.S. signed in May left the door open to “preferential treatment” on tariffs — but only if the U.K. improved conditions for American pharma companies operating in Britain.  A U.K. government spokesperson said: “The pharmaceutical sector and the innovative medicines it produces are critical to our NHS, our economy and the Plan for Change. Through our Life Sciences Sector Plan, we’ve committed to working with industry to accelerate growth in spending on innovative medicines compared to the previous decade.” The spokesperson added: “We’ve secured a landmark economic partnership with the US that includes working together on pharmaceutical exports from the UK whilst improving conditions for pharmaceutical companies here. We’re now in advanced discussions with the US Administration to secure the best outcome for the UK, reflecting our strong relationship and the opportunities from close partnership with our pharmaceutical industry.” ‘HARD NEGOTIATORS’ NICE, a regulatory body within the NHS, measures the cost-effectiveness of new drugs by weighing their impact on patients’ life against its price. If a drug’s benefits don’t justify its cost, the NHS does not recommend it for use, forcing pharmaceuticals to negotiate price cuts until the drug is deemed cost-effective.  Although London has presented its proposal to Washington, it remains unclear how it’s been received across the Atlantic. Pharmaceutical companies have long been locked in talks with the government over NHS drug spending amid fears that more investment could flee Britain. Science Minister Vallance previously hinted the NHS would need to pay more if Britain wanted to stay attractive for investment, warning that Trump’s tariffs would make things worse if London doesn’t make “offers in this direction.”  But divisions persist inside government. Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle has indicated pharma companies are proving “hard negotiators” amid crunch talks tied to Trump’s deadline, saying they “know how to use the media and the press.” Starmer’s chief business adviser Varun Chandra flew to Washington earlier this month to try to head off Trump’s threatened tariffs, which were put on hold until the administration negotiates agreements with pharma giants.

LONDON — Keir Starmer thought he had an enduring trade pact with the U.S. to lower tariffs. Donald Trump appears to have other ideas. A flurry of new tariff announcements on pharma, trucks and movies have left British officials scrambling to keep up — and exposed holes in the trade deal Starmer and Trump struck in May. “I think it was a better deal for you than us, but these are minor details,” Trump told Starmer during a press conference amid the pomp of his second State Visit earlier this month, which saw the U.K. roll out a grand carriage procession with King Charles III, 1,300 troops, 120 horses and a fighter jet flyover. Under the terms of the May deal, the U.S. lowered tariffs on British car exports to 10 percent, but the U.K. has failed to negotiate a long-promised zero-tariff rate for steel and aluminum. And now, other threats are emerging. LATEST PILL PRESSURE  Trump has threatened to slap a 100 percent tariff on pharmaceutical imports unless firms have begun construction on U.S. plants. While the EU insists it has capped its pharma tariff exposure at 15 percent, the U.K. position is less clear cut. The May trade pact, trumpeted by ministers at this week’s Labour Party conference, left the door open to “preferential treatment” on tariffs — but only if Westminster improves conditions for American pharma in the U.K. That means one of Trump’s long-running gripes is back in play: the National Health Service’s price watchdog, NICE. Under the first Trump administration, U.S. firms criticized the regulator’s cost-effectiveness tests, which often force pharma companies to slash prices before patients can access new drugs. Trump has decried what he called the unfair treatment of American patients — who pay more for drugs than those abroad — writing a letter to major pharmaceutical companies, demanding price cuts in line with “most favored nation” rates.  Britain’s pharma heavyweights have been quick to show they’re willing to honor Trump’s reshoring requests. GSK is already building an $800 million facility in Pennsylvania, while AstraZeneca unveiled a $50 billion U.S. investment plan stretching to 2030.  Since they are either “breaking ground” or have manufacturing facilities already “under construction” — terms Trump explicitly defined when clarifying who would qualify for exemptions — these British pharmaceutical giants seem to be exempt under these terms. “It looks like some of the bigger companies [in Britain] might be okay, subject to where they are with their building,” said former government trade adviser Allie Renison. Those firms may seek solace from the White House’s confirmation on Wednesday that it is pausing its plan to enact the tariffs, as it attempts to negotiate agreements with major firms to avoid higher duties on their name-brand products — like the deal it announced with Pfizer Tuesday. But the Trump administration is expected to negotiate hard — and there is still lingering uncertainty over rules of origin terms for the industry. The impact of Trump’s tariff threats on British pharmaceutical giants like AstraZeneca and GSK “needs to be seen in the much wider picture of U.S. demands given conditionality on agreeing tariffs and exemption for firms building U.S. sites,” said Mark Dayan, Brexit program lead at the Nuffield Trust. “For the U.K., this is bound up in the requirements in the Economic Prosperity Deal,” he said. Not only does this tie pharmaceutical tariffs to essentially paying more for medicines — the trade deal also states exemptions are contingent on Britain’s compliance with supply chain security requirements. The industry runs on a sprawling global supply chain, with active ingredients, packaging and distribution separated across multiple countries. Trying to figure out where an active pharmaceutical ingredient comes from is challenging.  London is currently locked in talks with the U.S. government over NHS drug pricing. Science Minister Patrick Vallance has hinted the health service will need to pay more if Britain wants to stay attractive for investment.  “There is a question of how much money the NHS can put into this, how much goes on price,” he said, warning tariffs could make things worse if London doesn’t make “offers in this direction.” Speaking at the POLITICO pub on the sidelines of the Labour Party conference, New Trade Secretary Peter Kyle labeled pharma companies “hard negotiators, [who] know how to use the media and the press to do it.” ”We are tough negotiators too, and we are in the process of negotiating lots of different arrangements and agreements and investments in pharma,” he added. Starmer’s chief business adviser Varun Chandra flew to Washington this week, to try to head off tariffs — potentially in exchange for higher NHS spending on drugs ahead of the Wednesday deadline.  But the issue is politically sensitive for Starmer’s government.  “This is more sensitive than hormone-treated beef frankly,” Renison said, referring to the U.S.’s long-standing efforts to fo. “I think the government probably needs to be careful about being seen to connect the dots between U.S. pressures in this space and saying there’s a rationale for increasing the amount the NHS has to pay for it.” TRUCKING ALONG Trump’s spree of recent Truth Social posts also included threats to impose 25 percent tariffs on U.S. imports of heavy trucks. When it comes to the new tariff policy “there’s quite a lot of unknowns with this,” said a U.K. auto industry representative, pointing to the fact that “it’s just a post on Truth Social” at the moment without an executive order from the White House or initiation of an investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office. Britain’s auto industry also only exports a small amount of Heavy Goods Vehicles to the U.S., but “we’re not quite clear on how they’re defining a heavy truck,” they said. “Businesses need as much certainty as possible on tariffs,” said William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, citing research by the industry body showing 60 percent of U.K. goods exporters are concerned about their customers paying higher prices. Bain and the BCC plan to “urge” the U.K. government “to continue dialogue on tariff reduction with the U.S. administration in the interests of both U.K. businesses and their U.S. consumers.” SITTING COMFORTABLY?  On Monday the White House issued a presidential notice saying that in mid-October, it will slap 25 percent tariffs on the value of imported kitchen cabinets, vanities and upholstered furniture and 10 percent duties on softwood lumber. This is one British sector, however, which is sheltered by the May deal. The administration said that U.K. tariffs will be leveled at 10 percent, in addition to the original “most-favored nation” rates, per the terms of the deal. THE BIG HITTER The president has also decided to revive an earlier bugbear, vowing to impose yet another 100 percent flat tariff on “any and all movies that are made outside of the United States.  “Our movie making business has been stolen from the United States of America, by other countries, just like stealing ‘candy from a baby,’” he wrote on Truth Social earlier this week.  Paul Fleming, general secretary of Equity, the British union for performers in film, television and radio, said Trump’s threats have already complicated talks with U.S. studios.   “We saw some delays in investment when President Trump last raised this threat, but there is a pipeline of work in the U.K. which will benefit both Hollywood and U.K. studios,” he said. While he dismissed the latest threat as “erratic,” Fleming warned it was creating “an unhelpful level of uncertainty” during contract negotiations.

LIVERPOOL, England — The U.K.’s Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said pharmaceutical companies are proving “hard negotiators” amid crunch talks tied to President Donald Trump’s deadline to impose 100 percent tariffs on U.S. pharmaceutical imports. Asked about the impact of Trump’s threats and a spate of recent warnings about the U.K.’s investment climate from leading pharmaceutical companies, Kyle told the POLITICO Pub at Labour Party Conference “there is a lot of discussions and negotiations going on over pricing.” The U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal signed in May left the door open to “preferential treatment” for the U.K. on U.S. pharmaceutical tariffs, but only if the U.K. improves conditions for American drug makers. The prime minister’s business adviser, Varun Chandra, flew to Washington this week to discuss tariffs. In parallel, the U.K. government is locked in talks with companies over NHS drug pricing, with Science Minister Patrick Vallance recently hinting the NHS will need to pay more if Britain wants to stay attractive for investment. However, Kyle indicated he thinks the sector’s concerns have been overstated, saying: “The pharma companies are very good negotiators. They are hard negotiators, and they know how to use the media and the press to do it.” “But we are tough negotiators too, and we are in the process of negotiating lots of different arrangements and agreements and investments into pharma.” Kyle insisted the U.K. continues to “have one of the best life sciences communities in the world,” pointing to a recent £1 billion investment by German medicines giant BioNTech. The government is continuing to look for ways to make it easier to roll out innovative medicines across the U.K.’s health system, he said. STEEL TALKS CONTINUE Elsewhere, Kyle said London is “not giving up on on moving forward in a whole range of areas,” related to the U.K.’s trade pact with the U.S. Outstanding 25 percent U.S. steel tariffs on British steel exports are “part of that conversation,” he confirmed, but refused to put a deadline on discussions. Kyle stressed that the U.K. had already secured lower tariffs than most other countries, which face 50 percent tariffs on steel exports to the U.S. — a move he said had been “celebrated” by the sector. He also said the U.K. needed to consider its strategy to steel more broadly amid global upheaval. “When you look at what the U.S., the EU, India, China and other territories are doing, all of them have a very distinct approach to steel, and we as Britain need to find our way within that.” “Because America is not just thinking, ‘what should our global steel policy be’ only in relation to the U.K. They are thinking about a global relationship with steel, and the U.K. is one part of it.”

Europe’s pharmaceutical lobby group has criticized Donald Trump’s decision to impose up to 100 percent tariff on drugs coming from overseas, calling it the “worst of all worlds.” But it’s not clear what rate products from the EU would face. The U.S. president announced Thursday evening that brand-name or patented pharmaceutical products will be subject to tariffs from Oct. 1 — unless a drugmaker is building a manufacturing plant in the United States. “‘IS BUILDING’ will be defined as, ‘breaking ground’ and/or ‘under construction.’ There will, therefore, be no Tariff on these Pharmaceutical Products if construction has started,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Tariffs increase costs, disrupt supply chains and prevent patients from getting life-saving treatments,” said Nathalie Moll, director general of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), whose members include Novo Nordisk, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Products from the EU should in theory only be subject to a maximum 15 percent tariff, after the European Commission negotiated a knocked-down rate in its deal with Washington in July. Trump’s latest post raises questions about how binding the EU-U.S. trade deal is, which limits branded medicines’ tariffs. The deal agreed in July between the pair also sees cheaper generic medicines exempt from the tariffs. Olof Gill, deputy chief spokesperson for the European Commission said the EU does not expect its industry to pay more than 15 percent. “This clear all-inclusive 15% tariff ceiling for EU exports represents an insurance policy that no higher tariffs will emerge for European economic operators,” Gill said. “The EU is the only trade partner to achieve this outcome with the US.” Ireland’s Trade Minister Simon Harris said the EU-U.S. trade deal made it “absolutely clear” that a tariff applied to branded drugs from the EU would be capped at 15 percent. The post also raises the question about whether the United States could tariff individual companies in the same sector at different rates. Although the Trump administration has signaled time and again that it doesn’t pay much heed to rules-based trade, governments can’t simply slap a higher “regular” tariff on one foreign company and a lower one on another under World Trade Organization rules. Duties are usually applied uniformly to all exporters from a given country, or target a specific product altogether — such as steel or medicines — in case of dumping or unfair subsidies. Moll said that “tariffs on medicines, however excessive, would create the worst of all worlds.” She urged Brussels to reopen negotiations with Washington, saying they should discuss “how the EU can improve its support towards the cost of global research and development in a way that doesn’t harm patients in the EU and the US.” “The EU and US continue engaging towards implementing the Joint Statement commitments, while exploring further areas for tariff exemptions as well as wider cooperation,” Gill said. Earlier this week, an official from the Commission’s DG TRADE also said that the EU would continue to push for exemptions to the U.S. tariffs for pharmaceutical and medtech products. Several companies have already said they will increase investment by building new plants in the U.S. in recent months, with Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly among those all committing to spend in the country. The story has been updated with Ireland’s position.