AstraZeneca to invest $50 billion in the U.S. as pharma tariffs weigh
The Anglo-Swedish biotech company, which is headquartered in Cambridge, England, said the "cornerstone" of the commitment would be a new multi-billion dollar facility to produce its weight management and metabolic portfolio, including its oral GLP-1 obesity pill.
The facility, planned for the Commonwealth of Virginia, is set to be AstraZeneca's largest single manufacturing investment in the world and will "leverage AI, automation and data analytics to optimize production," the company said.
The latest funding will also expand research and development and cell therapy manufacturing in Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Indiana and Texas, and create "tens of thousands of jobs," AstraZeneca added.
CEO Pascal Soriot said the commitment underpins the firm's "belief in America's innovation in biopharmaceuticals" and would support its ambition to reach $80 billion in annual revenue by 2030, half of which is expected to come from the U.S.
AstraZeneca, which made international headlines by developing one of the key Covid-19 vaccines, has long been prioritizing the U.S. market. The United States accounted for over 40% of the company's annual revenues in 2024.
In November, shortly after the U.S. presidential election, AstraZeneca announced a $3.5 billion U.S. investment. Earlier this month, The Times reported that the firm may move its listing from London to the U.S., in what analysts said would be a major blow to the U.K.'s public markets.
AstraZeneca is the most valuable business listed on London's FTSE 100. The company declined to comment on the Times report.
AstraZeneca's funding announcement follows similar moves by global pharmaceutical firms — including Novartis, Sanofi and Roche and U.S.-headquartered Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson — who have all vowed over recent months to ramp up their U.S. investment amid U.S. President Donald Trump's demands to reshore domestic manufacturing.
The industry is awaiting further clarity on the Trump administration's pharma tariffs, with the final outcome of a Section 232 investigation into the sector due at the end of this month. An effort to rebalance U.S. drug prices with those paid by other countries is also underway.
Trump earlier this month suggested that the industry could face levies of up to 200%, with a brief 12-18 month grace period to allow firms to relocate manufacturing stateside. However, many firms and analysts have dubbed the time frame as insufficient.
"Typically for most medicines it's a three to four year horizon. We're working very hard to accelerate that as fast as we can and demonstrate we're making the investments we have planned," Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan said last week during an earnings call, adding that he hoped the administration would make allowances.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Children's Shoe Retailer Amiga Shoes In Liquidation Mode
A shoe retailer in Industry, Calif., has called it quits. Amiga Shoes Factory Inc. at 17766 Rowland St. in the Rowland Heights neighborhood filed a Chapter 7 liquidation petition in a California bankruptcy court in Los Angeles on Wednesday. More from WWD Former Amazon Employee Arrested for Allegedly Stealing 2,000 Pairs of Shoes From Timberland, New Balance + More RH Opens Second Design Gallery in Canada EXCLUSIVE: Nanushka Pops Up in Paris, Eyes Experiential Retail Expansion Not much is known about Amiga Shoes, although a MapQuest listing that was based on a now-defunct company website said Amiga offered a wide range of children's footwear for infants, kids and teens. The listing said the collection had included flats, school shoes, dress footwear, sandals and boots. The petition listed one unsecured creditor, a service center connected to a small business administration loan in the amount of $150,000. The petition, which listed Woon Hung Leung as the owner, indicates that the SBA loan was its only debt. Total assets were $8,635, comprised of $7,438 in a checking account and $1,197 in a savings account. The debtor owes its legal counsel $4,500 for the bankruptcy oversight, and said that after any administrative expenses are paid, there won't be anything left over for its unsecured creditor. The petition also said the company didn't own any real estate nor did it have any lease interests. It wasn't immediately clear when the business shut down, but at the time of the Chapter 7 filing, Amiga Shoes also said it no longer had any inventory in its possession. There wasn't much detail about the business in the filing. But it did state that the business had gross revenue before deductions and exclusions of $1.4 million for the year ended Feb. 29, 2024. For the year ended Feb. 28, 2025, gross revenue was listed at $454,781. And for the five months from March 1, 2025 to the July 23, 2025 Chapter 7 filing date, the petition said the operation generated zero revenue. Amiga is not the only shoe operation that has seen financial distress. In March, sneaker reseller Soleply filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy court protection. The company said high-interest, short-term debt to fund store expansions had resulted in a cycle of inventory shortages and cash flow instability. And overseas, Swedish footwear brand Eytys that's known for its chunky shoes filed for bankruptcy at the start of 2025 in a Stockholm District Court. There's concern across retail and apparel that U.S. President Donald Trump's global reciprocal tariffs will add new pressures to the sector, particularly for retailers and brands that sell primarily to lower-income consumers. The U.S. operation of tween accessories chain Claire's, which also sells socks and slippers, is said to be under financial distress from a high debt load and added costs from higher tariffs. The business relies heavily on a supply chain based in China. Word surfaced earlier this month that one option is for the business to be sold via a bankruptcy process. The retailer previously exited bankruptcy in 2018, a process that allowed it to shed $1.9 billion in debt. Creditsafe's head of brand and company spokesperson Ragini Bhalla said the company faces 'fierce competition from ultra-low cost online retailers like Shein and Temu.' She also said the retailer's payment history shows clear signs of cash-flow strain, noting that Claire's growing late payments are getting worse. Bhalla said the percentage of outstanding bills up to 30 days past due has 'increased significantly' from 9.5 percent in August 2024 to 12.7 percent in September 2024 and then more than doubling to 26.4 percent in October 2024. By May and June of this year, upwards of 50 percent to 67 percent of its outstanding bills were already in the 1-30 days past due category, she said. And it isn't just the low end that's facing pressures. Handmade boot specialist Freebird earlier this year shuttered 14 store locations. The Colorado-based firm, whose boots are priced between $200 and $400 a pair, is looking for a buyer and could close more stores. Freebird is not in bankruptcy proceedings, but it has been operating under a court-appointed receiver since May following a lawsuit by KeyBank after it failed to repay a $15.4 million debt obligation. The company reportedly owes $6 million in unpaid invoices to a Mexican boot manufacturer that supplied 85 percent of its inventory, a company that has since shut-down operations. In addition, department store retailer Kohl's shut 27 retail doors earlier this year. The downsizing will leave fewer shoe shopping options for consumers in the areas where the stores have closed. Those doors are primarily located in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas, and in other states. Best of WWD All the Retailers That Nike Left and Then Went Back Mikey Madison's Elegant Red Carpet Shoe Style [PHOTOS] Julia Fox's Sleekest and Boldest Shoe Looks Over the Years [Photos] Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US mulls limited authorizations for oil firms in Venezuela, sources say
By Marianna Parraga, Matt Spetalnick and Timothy Gardner HOUSTON/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to grant new authorizations to key partners of Venezuela's state-run oil company PDVSA, starting with Chevron, which would allow them to operate with limitations in the sanctioned OPEC nation, four sources close to the matter said on Thursday. If granted, the authorizations to the U.S. oil major, and possibly also to PDVSA's European partners, would mark a policy shift from a pressure strategy Washington adopted earlier this year on Venezuela's energy industry, which has been under U.S. sanctions since 2019. A senior State Department official said in a statement they could not speak about any specific licenses to PDVSA's partners, but added the U.S. would not allow President Nicolas Maduro's government to profit from the sale of oil. The U.S. might now allow the energy companies to pay oilfield contractors and make necessary imports to secure operational continuity, two of the sources said. "Chevron conducts its business globally in compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government, including in Venezuela," a company spokesperson said. Though Venezuela and the U.S. conducted a prisoner swap this month, relations between the two countries have been tense for years, and the Trump administration has publicly supported opposition leaders who say their candidate won last year's election, not Maduro. Trump in February announced the cancellation of a handful of energy licenses in Venezuela, including Chevron's, and gave until late May to wind down all transactions. The U.S. State Department, which in May blocked a move by special presidential envoy Richard Grenell to extend the licenses, is this time imposing conditions to any authorization modifications, so no cash reaches Maduro's coffers, the two sources added. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio could still decide to ban the move at the last minute or modify the scope of the new authorizations. It was not immediately clear if the terms of the license that could be granted to Chevron would be reproduced for other foreign companies in Venezuela, including Italy's Eni and Spain Repsol, which have been asking the U.S. to allow them to swap fuel supplies for Venezuelan oil. The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Banks are carrying the risk of America's foreign policy
The Treasury Department wants banks to act like national security agencies. But the infrastructure isn't there, the guidance doesn't arrive fast enough and the priorities shift too quickly for institutions to keep up. In theory, a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering and sanctions enforcement is supposed to make compliance smarter. In practice, it's become a liability. Banks are being held responsible for foreign policy pivots they didn't cause, can't predict and are rarely equipped to manage. Take Syria. The sanctions shift in June caught everyone off guard. One day, hundreds of blacklisted entities were just gone — no heads-up, no pattern. And oddly, many also stayed sanctioned with no explanation. Inside banks, it wasn't clear what to do. Teams were yanking controls, second-guessing everything, hoping they weren't missing something that would blow back later. No safe harbor was granted. No transition period was offered. It wasn't guidance — it was whiplash. In May, the Trump administration secured $600 billion in Saudi investment pledges, arms agreements with Riyadh, and commercial pacts with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, jurisdictions with known financial crime vulnerabilities. The United Arab Emirates was only removed from international watch lists in 2024. Weeks later, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network designated three Mexican financial institutions as primary money laundering concerns under new fentanyl-related authorities, cutting off U.S. correspondent access without warning or transition. Institutions with exposure had to unwind positions and coordinate emergency legal reviews in hours. As policy swings between high-dollar engagement and abrupt enforcement, banks are expected to interpret shifting national priorities without reliable guidance, safe harbors or regulatory infrastructure. This pattern is now familiar: Foreign policy decisions are made quickly, implemented aggressively and left for the private sector to decode. And that decoding process isn't theoretical, it's budgeted, resourced and internalized by banks with finite headcount and finite patience. Meanwhile, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's beneficial ownership registry remains structurally hollow. As of March, U.S. companies are no longer required to report ownership data, leaving financial institutions without access to the very information they were promised. The database, once intended to illuminate shell structures and illicit ownership chains, is still cited in federal guidance but remains effectively unusable. With access restricted to a phased rollout and core data now absent, institutions are being held to standards they cannot operationalize. On the sanctions front, Russia enforcement has resulted in over 2,500 designations since 2022. These include banks, oligarchs, industrial sectors, shipping entities and digital asset infrastructure. The scale of enforcement has been unmatched, but typology guidance often lags weeks behind. General licenses arrive late. Enforcement FAQs change midstream. Risk modeling is updated in arrears, not in anticipation. In the United Kingdom, 82 percent of banks admitted to skipping basic verification checks on new customers, and 94 percent do not run daily screenings on existing clients, a worrying number given the rapid changes in sanctions. While these findings reflect U.K. institutions, they offer a stark warning: Even in highly regulated markets, the infrastructure banks rely on isn't scaling with enforcement expectations. In this environment, institutions are penalized not just for doing the wrong thing, but for failing to predict the next shift. They're expected to interpret national security posture in real time, while receiving no classified insight, no operational roadmap and no consistency in enforcement tone. The result? They preempt. They freeze accounts on speculation. They sever correspondent relationships on rumor. This isn't just frustrating, it's structurally unsound. Banks are now de-risking entire regions not because of active sanctions, but because of anticipated volatility. They're refusing transactions not because they're prohibited, but because they might become politically radioactive later. Compliance programs weren't built to carry this weight, and the government isn't helping them do it. Funding is flat. Tools are inconsistent. And regulators still expect real-time decisions in a system designed for after-the-fact review. The message to financial institutions is clear: Enforce foreign policy priorities. The infrastructure, stability and liability protections? Those are still pending. This isn't a partisan problem. It's a systemic one. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have made aggressive use of Treasury authorities to pursue foreign policy goals. But neither has addressed the operational burden left behind. Anti-money laundering compliance and sanctions enforcement have quietly become tools of statecraft, handed off to private institutions that cannot absorb the complexity, ambiguity and legal risk of that delegation. The result is a landscape defined by fragmentation, second-guessing and exposure. Institutions that get it right see no reward. Institutions that guess wrong face enforcement, reputational fallout, and program overhauls. Risk-based compliance only works when the risk is defined, the expectations are stable and the information flow is reciprocal. That's not what banks are getting today. They're being asked to manage not just compliance, but also geopolitical unpredictability. They are, functionally, the operational front line of an outsourced enforcement system. This is not sustainable, scalable or safe.
