Tariffs threaten a pharmaceuticals shortage, as 95% of ibuprofen comes from China
The U.S. gets the vast majority of common, generic medications from China, meaning President Donald Trump's steep tariffs on Chinese imports could cause a shortage of key drugs. Generic drugs are affordable because of manufacturers' razor-thin margins. Increased costs as a result of tariffs could disincentivize them from producing certain pain-relief meds.
Tariffs already have many Americans concerned about the state of the economy, but the incoming taxes on pharmaceutical goods from China could present a more literal headache.
The U.S. gets nearly all of its supply of common over-the-counter pain medications from China, meaning President Donald Trump's 145% tariffs on the country could have an outsized impact on the U.S.'s method of sourcing key drugs, Apollo chief economist Torsten Sløk said in a Wednesday blog post. About 95% of the U.S.'s ibuprofen comes from China, Sløk noted, citing data from trade-protectionist advocacy organization Coalition for a Prosperous America and the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information.
More than 90% of the supply of anti-inflammation steroid hydrocortisone also comes from China, as well as 70% of acetaminophen and 45% of the U.S.'s penicillin imports. The U.S. is particularly reliant on China for more affordable, generic drugs, and generic drugs make up 90% of prescriptions filled in the U.S., according to the Food and Drug Administration.
Tariffs have already more broadly threatened the availability of consumer products in the U.S. as American companies stockpiled goods before the tariffs went into effect, only to pull back once those products became more expensive.
'The consequence will be empty shelves in U.S. stores in a few weeks and Covid-like shortages for consumers and for firms using Chinese products as intermediate goods,' Sløk said in an April 25 post.
These shortages are imminent, according to Gene Soroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, the U.S.'s largest port, which receives about 45% of its imports from China. Seroka has begun to see a 'precipitous drop' in shipments from China that will result in only five to seven more weeks of full inventories on retail shelves, he predicted.
The White House did not immediately respond to Fortune's inquiry on plans to exempt medications from tariffs.
For America's drug supply, tariffs could make a bad problem worse.
The U.S. has contended with stubborn drug shortages in the past three quarters, with 270 active shortages as of March 2025, but down from the all-time high of 323 shortages in early 2024, according to trade organization American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. These shortages can be caused by natural disasters temporarily halting production or regulatory challenges.
Key players in the pharmaceutical industry fear tariffs will pile onto the factors driving the scarcity. Profit margins for generic drugs are incredibly thin to keep them affordable, meaning some manufacturers could stop producing drugs that are too expensive to make as a result of the increased cost of raw materials, according to John Murphy, president and CEO of trade group Association of Accessible Medicines (AAM). To make matters worse, Murphy said, any hiccups in the supply chain will also likely mean an increase in drug prices for consumers.
'AAM is concerned…that any duties on pharmaceutical products, particularly inputs, will lead to increased costs of manufacturing generics and biosimilars in the United States and, thus, result in higher prescription drug prices and decreased access for patients in our country,' Murphy said in a March letter to U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer.
Despite Trump's intention with tariffs as encouraging domestic production, American pharmaceutical companies may be hesitant to take a chance on increasing their own manufacturing capabilities, Marta Wosińska, health economist and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told USA Today. The future of tariffs—with Trump now considering 'substantially' cutting the levies—creates too much unpredictability for drug companies to take meaningful steps to address them.
"Making a billion-dollar investment in the United States when I don't even know whether tariffs are going to be there a month from now makes it a really difficult calculus for companies," Wosińska said.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
LA Protests: Trump's National Guard Move Sparks Legal Concerns
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's announcement of the deployment of the National Guard in California to quell protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions has raised legal concerns. Why It Matters Federal immigration enforcement operations sparked protests across California for a second day in a row on Saturday. ICE carried out raids in Paramount, Los Angeles County, following similar actions at several locations throughout other parts of city on Friday. Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the move, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and the presence of the National Guard was "purposefully inflammatory," would "escalate tensions" and "erode public trust." What To Know On Saturday, the White House ordered the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles under a provision called Title 10 to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions." The National Guard is a state-based military force that serves as both a state and federal reserve branch of the U.S. Army and Air Force. It typically operates under state command and is funded by the state. However, in some cases, troops may be assigned to federal missions while still under state control, with funding provided by the central government. The law referenced in Trump's proclamation allows National Guard troops to be placed under federal command, and permits this under three conditions: if the U.S. is invaded or faces the threat of invasion; if there is a rebellion or imminent rebellion against federal authority; or if the president is unable to enforce federal laws using regular forces. A protester stands on a burned car holding a Mexican flag at Atlantic Avenue on June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Los Angeles County, California. A protester stands on a burned car holding a Mexican flag at Atlantic Avenue on June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Los Angeles County, California. Apu Gomes/GETTY The memorandum from the White House reads: "To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." However, the law also stipulates that such orders should be "be issued through the governors of the states." It is not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Newsweek contacted the White House for clarification via email outside of regular working hours. "President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. The Trump administration has not invoked the Insurrection Act, according to anonymous U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters this weekend. The act of 1807 serves as the primary legal authority allowing a president to deploy the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or civil unrest. A memo issued by the White House on the matter specifies that the National Guard has been deployed to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations." This means that National Guard troops will not be permitted to aid local law enforcement—they will be used to protect and provide logistic support to federal ICE agents. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, wrote in a blog post. "There is the obvious concern that, even as they are doing nothing more than 'protecting' ICE officers discharging federal functions, these federalized troops will end up using force—in response to real or imagined violence or threats of violence against those officers. In other words, there's the very real possibility that having federal troops on the ground will only raise the risk of escalating violence—not decrease it." What People Are Saying A White House memo reads: "Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to federal immigration detention facilities and other federal property." Border czar Tom Homan on Fox News: "We're already mobilizing. We're gonna bring the National Guard in tonight and we're gonna continue doing our job. This is about enforcing the law." He continued: "American people, this is about enforcing the law, and again, we're not going to apologize for doing it." California Governor Gavin Newsom on X, formerly Twitter, following the National Guard announcement: "The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions. L.A. authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need." Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project: "By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians." Newsom's office also told Newsweek on Friday: "Continued chaotic federal sweeps, across California, to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel. Donald Trump's chaos is eroding trust, tearing families apart, and undermining the workers and industries that power America's economy." Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, told the Los Angeles Times: "It is using the military domestically to stop dissent. It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done." What Happens Next After Trump announced he was deploying National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton, south of Los Angeles, were on "high alert" and could also be mobilized "if violence continues."
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dow Jones Futures: Trump Warns Musk Of 'Serious Consequences'; China Trade Talks Loom
The S&P 500 is nearing recodr highs. Palantir is back in a buy area. Tesla investors should focus on this amid the Trump-Musk feud.


CNBC
19 minutes ago
- CNBC
Westinghouse pursues U.S. nuclear expansion after Trump orders, FT reports
Nuclear equipment supplier Westinghouse is in talks with U.S. officials and industry partners about deploying 10 large reactors, in response to presidential executive orders, the Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing the company's CEO. President Donald Trump's executive orders, which were published on May 23, directed the government to cut down on regulations and fast-track licences for reactors and power plants to shrink a multi-year process to 18 months. Dan Sumner, Westinghouse's interim chief executive, told the FT that the company was "uniquely positioned" to deliver the president's agenda because it had an approved reactor design, a viable supply chain, and recent experience of building two of its AP1000 reactors in Georgia. "There is active engagement with the administration, including key points of interface with the loan programs office, recognizing the importance of financing to the deployment of the model," he told the FT. Westinghouse did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside regular business hours.