
How Ireland's economic future is being carved up in talks in the White House
Irish
companies have spent the past few days
scrambling to try to understand
the impact of
Donald Trump's
tariffs
on their exports to the
US
and work out what might happen next. Despite the
headline deal
between the EU and the US, much remains to be settled.
In the middle of all this, one thing is clear. Vital negotiations are under way in Washington between big American multinationals and the US president and these are going to have a big impact on Ireland. The State's exposure to a small number of big US firms in terms of corporation tax and employment is well known – so how the big pharma companies and tech giants respond to Trump's cajoling and bullying will be vital. As these deals are being done in Washington, Ireland can only look on.
The
boss of Apple
, one of the Republic's biggest employers and taxpayers, called to the White House this week to pay homage to the chief and promise $100 billion (a nice round number) in new investment in the US - to add to the $500 billion it has already pledged. Analysts, scrambling to work out how this will change the company's structures, believe its chief executive Tim Cook may still be able to retain the supply chains that have guaranteed nice profit margins.
How this – or the impact of pressure from Trump
on Intel's new chief executive
– might affect their Irish operations is far from clear. The best hope is not very much – that the chief executives will pander to Trump a bit, protect as much of their operations as they can and then wait him out. But the point is that Ireland is uniquely vulnerable to decisions made around a dozen US boardrooms and on the interactions of these firms with a volatile and unpredictable president.
READ MORE
Nowhere is this clearer than in the vital pharma sector. The headlines are about
Trump's threats
of 150 per cent tariffs in a year or two's time, or maybe 250 per cent, or whatever you are having yourself. The real action is behind the scenes. Here, the big pharma companies are trying to reach an agreement with Trump on pricing in the US market. This is running parallel with his drive to attract the manufacture of key drugs and ingredients back to the US.
[
Tariffs: what do Trump's latest pharma threats mean for Ireland?
Opens in new window
]
As ever with Trump, there are contradictions in the goals he is trying to achieve, so we will have to see where this lands. Trump's tariff threats on pharma run counter to his desire for lower prices. Interestingly, for now EU pharma exports to the US do not look to be facing immediate tariffs.
Clarification from US Customs indicates that pharma is on a list to remain zero rated for now, according to Carol Lynch, a customs partner with BDO. However, the sector may well face some charge when Trump announces the results of a separate investigation into the sector shortly. This could be of 15 per cent, though this is not clear.
The backdrop to this are the active discussions between the White House and big pharma companies on the pricing issue as part of Trump's agenda to drive down US drug prices – which are notoriously high – to the lowest levels available elsewhere. This could involve the pharma companies charging more in other countries, including in the EU, as a rebalancing exercise. They are also looking for concessions from Europe on the way they are reimbursed for new drugs coming on to the market.
[
Irish exporters 'told to shut their mouths' over Trump tariffs
Opens in new window
]
Unlike the half-baked madness of much of his policy, Trump has a point here. Drug companies have arranged their affairs not only to drag huge profits out of the US market, but also to pay tax on this in countries like Ireland, where the charge is lower.
Work by economist Brad Setser
of the Council on Foreign Relations in the US shows how the big six US pharma companies combined set aside no funds to pay tax to the US exchequer in 2023. Zero. This is despite the vast bulk of their revenues coming from the US market, where prices are on average almost three times higher than the OECD average,
according to a 2022 study
undertaken on behalf of the US government, with the biggest gap being for the kind of high-value branded drugs and their ingredients made in Ireland.
Ironically, the 2017 tax reforms introduced when Trump was first in office increased the tax incentive for pharma firms to invest abroad and keep some key intellectual property assets in countries like Ireland. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' – his new tax plan – will do nothing to address this.
These trends have been hugely to Ireland's advantage in recent years, but now create a vulnerability, as things that get way out of line generally do. There is a risk of less investment here by pharma over the next few years. And also of changed pricing practices which lead to less profit being declared in Ireland and thus less corporate tax paid here.
[
Apple's new investment in US may be just enough to appease Trump, for now at least
Opens in new window
]
Ireland might settle for some loss here, if Trump held off threats of massive and disruptive tariffs in the years ahead. While the EU feels it has a deal to keep all tariffs to a maximum of 15 per cent, Trump's recent comments suggest he thinks otherwise. But, like in microchips, he might spare those who fall in with his demands to invest in the US – or in the case of pharma cut prices.
Trump's direct dealings with big players vital to our economic future adds to the uncertainty about the economic outlook. Tariffs are not the only economic weapon at his disposal. He is also relying on arm-twisting and the 'power' which the US government has via the goods it purchases and its ability to set the ground rules through regulation. That said, big pharma and big tech are powerful players and have cards to play too
Ireland won't get to choose how all the deals are worked out. The future shape of the trading world is being carved up in the White House between a capricious president and amoral multinationals who care nothing for his agenda, but will play along in their own interest.
Ireland's hope will be that it can continue to position itself as an ongoing trusted supplier and investment home to the US – that we are accepted as part of the supply chain which ends up in the US. The Government will try to diversify trade, too. But we have an awful lot of eggs in Uncle Sam's basket and a lot at stake as Donald Trump tries to get the big multinationals to do his bidding.
Hashtags

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


Irish Times
24 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Commission of inquiry into abuse in day and boarding schools must become truly survivor-centred
A commission of inquiry into allegations of historical sexual abuse in day and boarding schools has been established by the Government with a time frame to report within five years. The commission will begin its work in October and the cost is likely to 'run into tens of millions of euro', Minister for Education Helen McEntee said last month as the inquiry was announced. [ What will Ireland's costly five-year schools abuse inquiry achieve? ] She also said the Government would 'pursue all levers available' to compel religious organisations to pay redress to victims of historical sex abuse in schools . While survivors of day and boarding schools are not a homogeneous group, and their justice interests reflect this, some themes continually emerge in research and practice: the desire for acknowledgment, validation, vindication, truth, exercise of voice, meaningful participation, access to records, reparation/redress and non-recurrence. READ MORE An in-depth international study, Transforming Justice Responses to Non-Recent Institutional Abuses, published in book form earlier this year, found fear and the breakdown of trust operated as significant barriers to effective engagement by church and state. This has resulted in an accountability gap for survivors and reputational damage for church and state institutions. The reluctance of those in the church to admit responsibility for abuses can be related to fear, including of viability beyond the financial costs of settling civil cases or contributing to state or other redress schemes. Benevolent intentions on the part of state participants can also be superseded by concerns with legal and financial liability. Senior politicians on both sides of the Border emphasised budgetary concerns at the forefront of political decision-making, including the fear of state exposure to a wide range of claims. Survivors also face significant barriers to justice from adversarial legal frameworks that include delays, statutes of limitations, data protection, exclusionary redress schemes, inequality of arms and the costs of legal proceedings. Law and legal culture become a hostile site for all sides, causing secondary harm for victim/survivors. New approaches must therefore be found. Some modifications to the Government's terms of reference for the new commission and the commission's approach could help in this regard. The sampling methodology should be replaced by a modularised approach, focusing on individual institutions and settings, producing modularised, interim investigatory reports at regular intervals. These could be delivered within months of the commission commencing its work and not waiting for five [or more] years. This approach was adopted to good effect by Australia's Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse and by the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales. The sampling methodologies used by the commissions of investigation into the Archdiocese of Dublin and into the mother and baby homes in Ireland were not fit for purpose. Provision for a survivor engagement programme by the commission – through which survivors can share the impact of their experiences – is not adequate in giving voice to the testimonies of survivors who have much more to say about the abuses they suffered than about its impact on them. If we want to learn from the mistakes of the past, the commissioners need to survivors with lived experience on their teams A summary report given to the chairperson is not sufficient for this core part of the inquiry. A suitable methodology must be developed to enable survivor testimonies to be fully represented as cumulative evidence in the final report of the commission. It is laudable that the commission strives to be as survivor-centred as possible. It would be worth therefore publicising the training that all members of the commission will receive in trauma-informed and victim-centred approaches before they begin their work. More importantly, if the commission wants to give true effect to being as survivor-centred as possible in more than a paternalistic manner, a mechanism must be found to enable survivors to be represented as co-participants in the inquiry process. If we want to learn from research and from the mistakes of the past, the commissioners need to have survivors with lived experience on their teams, appointments for which must be made by open competition. Research by Diane Vaughan at Columbia University demonstrated the composition of commissions is hugely important to their findings and outcome. It is essential the commission holds public hearings and round tables on specific topics (televised where possible), as well as private sessions, in the interest of transparency and accountability. A problem with previous commissions of investigation was that they were accountable to no one, not even the Dáil. There is a discernible appetite for doing justice differently among survivors and church and state participants. The challenge is how to get the various interests working together to get to the truth, including the policy wrongs, abuses and failures of the past, in the interest of justice, healing and accountability. Mechanisms must be found to build trust between the parties based on openness and transparency, a sharing of records and respect for all perspectives. In this regard the terms of reference must be amended to include restorative justice as requested by many survivors to the scoping inquiry team, which last year recommended the commission be set up The restorative justice request from survivors was largely ignored in the report of the scoping inquiry and is not mentioned at all in the terms of reference of the commission. If we truly want to be survivor-centred, we cannot exclude the voices of some survivors because they do not suit a particular political agenda. Although we might be getting a bit better in how we approach these things, we still have a lot to learn. Professor Marie Keenan, school of social policy, social work and social justice at University College Dublin, is co-author with Prof Anne-Marie McAlinden and Dr James Gallen of Transforming Justice Responses to Non-Recent Institutional Abuses, published by Oxford University Press


The Irish Sun
an hour ago
- The Irish Sun
White House ‘considering inviting Zelensky to Alaska Summit with Trump & Putin' as Europe pushes for ‘alternative plan'
THE White House is said to be considering inviting Volodymyr Zelensky to attend Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's Alaska summit. Trump and Putin are set to hold crunch talks over ending the war in Ukraine on Friday with sources close to the US President saying they are "very hopeful" that Ukraine's leader will be included. 5 The White House is said to be considering inviting Volodymyr Zelensky to attend Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's Alaska summit Credit: AFP 5 Russia is continuing to attack Ukraine, including air attacks on Kyiv, as the world pushes for an end to the conflict Credit: AFP 5 Trump and Putin will meet on US soil on Friday to discuss the end of the Ukraine war Credit: AFP 5 One senior administration official told NBC News that a trilateral meeting remains "absolutely" possible. Another official briefed on White House conversations said: "It's being discussed." It is believed that no official invite has been talked about with Kyiv as of yet. A senior White House official explained: "Right now, the White House is focusing on planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin." Zelensky has already been adamant that he must be involved in any peace talks as they directly impact on the future of his country. Speaking overnight, the brave leader said any pact struck without Kyiv's involvement would be "stillborn decisions against peace" and would fail before they even began. "Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace," he said. "They will not achieve anything." His powerful stance has now been echoed by European leaders. Sir Keir Starmer and the leaders of France, Italy, Poland, Finland and the EU all issued a stark warning saying there can be no peace without Ukraine. Putin's fake grandeur WON'T win Ukraine war - here's 5 things that will end it A strongly-worded statement read: "We share the conviction that a diplomatic solution must protect Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests. "The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. "We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. "The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations. "We are united as Europeans and determined to jointly promote our interests." European officials have also put forward an alternative proposal to help end the war, according to The Wall Street Journal. It comes after reports suggested Washington and Moscow are eyeing a territorial "swap" agreement to end the war. This would see both side concede to losing out ground to each other - a move which Russia would likely view as a triumph. Zelensky is adamant that he will never allow for any territory to be claimed by Moscow due to the illegal conflict. A potential three-way meeting with Zelensky, Trump and Putin would mark the first time the two war leaders have spoken since the conflict. Zelensky has constantly asked to sit down with Putin in person in the past so he can remind the despot of his atrocities to his face. But Putin has signalled reluctance on meeting Zelensky directly. He recently said: "I have nothing against it in general… But certain conditions must be created for this. "But unfortunately, we are still far from creating such conditions." The US president also dismissed claims that next week's historic summit hinges on a three-way meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky. Asked if Putin needed to meet Zelensky in order to meet him, Trump clarified: "No, he doesn't." Despite that, the White House is preparing for the possible bilateral or trilateral summit. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed: "The White House is working through the details of these potential meetings… details will be provided at the appropriate time."


Irish Independent
3 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Multi-millionaire pharma tycoon Gareth Sheridan (35) launches bid for Irish presidency
Businessman, who founded US-based company Nutriband, says younger people need to be represented in upcoming electionSheridan, who is married to a US model and former Mormon, says he wants their adopted daughter 'to inherit an Ireland we can all be proud of' Dublin-born entrepreneur says he has 'significant number of councillors and councils behind me' Multi-millionaire businessman Gareth Sheridan (35 has announced he will run for the Irish presidency in this year's election.