AstraZeneca pledges $50bn investment in the US amid 200% tariff fears
This comes as the pharmaceutical giant aims to reach the target of $80 billion (€68.5 bn) in revenue by 2030, with 50% of it hoped to come from the US.
The announcement also comes as the Trump administration threatens tariffs of up to 200% on drugs that are produced outside of the US.
The new investment announcement is in addition to the $3.5 billion (€3 bn) pledged in November 2024. According to a statement from the company, the US plays a 'critical role' in AstraZeneca's ability 'to launch 20 new medicines by the end of the decade'.
What will AstraZeneca produce in the US?
As part of the investment, the British-Swedish company plans to build a new multi-billion dollar manufacturing facility in the state of Virginia. This plant will focus on the production of treatments for chronic diseases and is the largest single investment into a facility the company has ever made.
'[This] announcement underpins our belief in America's innovation in biopharmaceuticals and our commitment to the millions of patients who need our medicines in America and globally,' Pascal Soriot, Chief Executive Officer at AstraZeneca said in a statement from the company.
'I look forward to partnering with Governor Youngkin and his team to work on our largest single manufacturing investment ever. It reflects the Commonwealth of Virginia's desire to create highly skilled jobs in science and technology, and will strengthen the country's domestic supply chain for medicines.'
The site in Virginia will have a particular focus on producing substances which make up AstraZeneca's weight management and metabolic treatment portfolio.
As well as the site in Virginia, the investment will help expand facilities and production in Massachusetts, Maryland, California, Indiana and Texas, as well as finding new sites for clinical trials.
AstraZeneca already has 19 R&D, manufacturing and commercial sites in the US, and the country is the company's largest market, representing 42% of their revenue. The firm currently employs more than 18,000 people and supports 92,000 jobs across the US. The new investment announcement is expected to create tens of thousands more jobs in the coming years.
Howard Lutnick, US Secretary of Commerce, said: 'For decades Americans have been reliant on foreign supply of key pharmaceutical products. President Trump and our nation's new tariff policies are focused on ending this structural weakness. We are proud that AstraZeneca has made the decision to bring substantial pharmaceutical production to our shores. This historic investment is bringing tens of thousands of jobs to the US and will ensure medicine sold in our country is produced right here.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
29 minutes ago
- Euronews
What is de-banking? How EU, US & UK banks screen their risky customers
Imagine logging into your bank account one morning and finding everything frozen—cards declined, standing orders stopped and your savings untouchable. No fraud alert, no bounced cheque. Just a brief message: 'We are closing your account. Please make alternative arrangements.' This is not a rare nightmare. Around the world, more people and businesses are being 'de-banked'—cut off from basic banking services. In the financial industry, the practice is called 'de-risking' or when banks sever ties with clients or even whole sectors to avoid regulatory or reputational risk. While it might sound like a niche compliance issue, in reality, it sits at the intersection of financial crime prevention, political rights, trade flows and everyday access to money—and the UK, US and EU are taking sharply different approaches to it. The US: Concerns over "woke capitalism"? Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at preventing banks from denying services based on political or religious beliefs. The order bans the use of 'reputational risk' as a justification for closing accounts and directs banking regulators to review practices within 180 days. Supporters say the move protects freedom of political expression and stops discrimination against conservatives, who claim they have been disproportionately targeted. Critics warn it could force banks to keep serving clients engaged in activities that create genuine financial crime or security risks. As with many issues Trump is passionate about, the topic of de-banking in the US was spurred by his personal experiences. He repeatedly accused JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of refusing his business after his first term as president because of his and his supporters' conservative views. He claims JPMorgan gave him 20 days to close his account and that Bank of America refused a large deposit even though both banks have denied politically motivated action. Another high-profile case was that of the National Council for Religious Freedom (NCRF), an organization founded in 2022 that explicitly backs politicians who support combining politics with religion and vote against bills such as the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, "because it prohibits religious freedoms." Groups like these, especially if they rise to national prominence quickly and start depositing large sums into their accounts without providing sufficient background or donor transparency, can trigger automatic responses from banks worried about compliance with anti-money laundering regulation and are subject to enhanced monitoring. So when NCRF's accounts at JPMorgan Chase were suspended, it was probably not based on their clients political beliefs. Banks are profit-maximising institutions who aim to serve a wide yet reliable client base—drawing political attention to their work is the stuff of literal nightmares for them, especially banking behemoths like JPMorgan Chase. In a letter, the bank said the closure was due to incomplete compliance documentation—not religious or political reasons. Yet the NCRF used this decision to decry "woke capitalism" and launch a national campaign in the US to limit decisions, including reputational risk, and focus solely on quantifiable risks like credit, operational or compliance issues. The new executive order is cause for headaches for bankers. In practice, lenders may have to review thousands of past account closures, document decisions more extensively and possibly reinstate customers they previously cut off. The UK: Farage, Coutts and public outrage In Britain, the debate was turbo-charged by the 2023 Nigel Farage–Coutts affair. When the high-end bank closed the Brexit campaigner's account, internal documents later revealed the decision factored in his political views. The row became front-page news, prompting government promises to strengthen transparency. From a compliance and commercial standpoint, there are reasons why Coutts' decision may have been well within the norms of risk management. Farage's status as a politician makes him a Politically Exposed Person or PEP under anti–money laundering rules. UK banks are required to apply enhanced due diligence to PEPs, including detailed checks on sources of wealth, closer transaction monitoring and ongoing reassessment of any potential links to corruption or financial crime. That doesn't imply wrongdoing—but it does mean the account demands more resources and carries a higher regulatory burden. For a bank whose value proposition is built on discreet, low-risk relationships, this can tip the cost-benefit balance. Reports at the time suggested that Farage's account had fallen below Coutts' minimum financial thresholds for certain services. When a client no longer meets profitability benchmarks, but still demands high levels of compliance oversight and carries reputational sensitivities, a private bank has strong incentives to part ways. In that light, Coutts' choice looks less like a political purge and more like a calculated alignment of its client book with its risk appetite and commercial strategy. However, that was not the angle that dominated the headlines, and it ended up shaping de-risking and de-banking policy in a significant way in the UK. In 2024, complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service about account closures rose 44% to nearly 3,900, with a higher proportion upheld in favour of consumers. Meanwhile, over 140,000 business accounts were closed in 2023—raising concerns, especially for small businesses and non‑profits. Since then, UK banks must give customers at least 90 days notice before closure and provide more detail on why accounts are terminated. The conversation is still dominated by high-profile, politically sensitive cases—rather than the wider economic and trade implications of de-risking. The EU: Quiet, technical and high stakes By contrast, Brussels has treated de-risking as a long-standing, largely technical policy challenge. For years, EU institutions have issued guidance to safeguard financial inclusion while enforcing anti–money laundering and counter–terrorism financing (AML/CFT) rules. "European Banking Federation (EBF) member banks often find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place: they must comply with stringent AML/CFT requirements—they are required to end relationships with their riskiest clients—yet they are requested to ensure access to basic banking services for legitimate customers," the European Banking Federation told Euronews in a statement. "Hence their de-risking decisions should remain proportionate and risk-based, not indiscriminate bans on entire countries or customer groups," they continued. According to the EBF, most banks in Europe focus on individual, case-by-case de-risking and pay particular attention to 'red flags'. For example, situations where a customer's identity cannot be verified using secure, government-approved ID checks, or any transaction in which they cannot confidently confirm who the person or company really are or who the "beneficial owner" is. For member banks, it is a matter of weighing whether the risks can be reduced enough to comply with regulations and protect the bank's reputation, and whether managing that risk would require more time, money, and effort than the account is ultimately worth. "In the EU, de-risking is increasingly recognised as a significant consumer issue, though it is neither a new concern nor one that fully mirrors the priorities of the Trump Administration," the EBF statement continues. "For years, EU institutions—most notably the European Banking Authority—have issued guidance aimed at safeguarding financial inclusion and ensuring that legitimate customers are not unfairly excluded from the banking system."
France 24
a day ago
- France 24
Majority of Americans think alcohol bad for health: poll
Pollster Gallup found the number of Americans who said they drink alcohol to be at an all-time low since the poll was first conducted in 1939 -- a few years after the United States ended its prohibition of alcohol. The survey found 54 percent of Americans reported they drank alcohol either occasionally or regularly in 2025, down from at least 60 percent recorded between 1997 and 2023. Those who did say they drank alcohol reported it was in smaller amounts, with the average number of drinks consumed in the last week being 2.8, "the lowest figure Gallup has recorded since 1996," the pollster said on its website. Attitudes toward alcohol, which Gallup has been tracking since 2001, saw the most significant difference in the poll published this week. The number of people who consider moderate consumption of alcohol -- up to one or two drinks per day -- to be bad for personal health rose to 53 percent in 2025. For comparison, the figure was 27 percent in the early 2000s. "Americans' drinking habits are shifting amid the medical world's reappraisal of alcohol's health effects," the pollster noted. In January, then-US surgeon general Vivek Murthy called for alcohol to be sold with a cancer warning label on its packaging. "Alcohol is a well-established, preventable cause of cancer, responsible for about 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 cancer deaths annually in the United States," he said in a statement. "Yet the majority of Americans are unaware of this risk," he added, underscoring the urgent need for public education.
Fashion Network
a day ago
- Fashion Network
Is anybody fighting back in this trade war?
By no means does the firm anticipate zero harm. Business confidence is down but not collapsing. Capital spending will be constrained. And while chances of recession are still high, a better outcome remains very plausible. This sort of guarded optimism — or qualified pessimism — is a break from the dark warnings. Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, told leaders to prepare for a worst-case scenario in which an antagonistic US drags the world into destructive economic conflict. The prime minister of Singapore, a city-state that thrived during the heyday of free trade, couldn't hide his dismay: Tariffs aren't the actions of friends, Lawrence Wong noted. His Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, declared that relations with the US would be changed forever. Chinese President Xi Jinping has studiously matched American moves but also toned down his rhetoric and actions when appropriate. Washington and Beijing this week extended a pause on higher tariffs for 90 days, the latest in a series of suspensions. India, which has been the subject of some bullish projections as China's economy has slowed, is one of the few economies of significance that hasn't cut a deal with Trump. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi also hasn't gone measure for measure or shown a desire to get even with American businesses. Yes, there has been indignity and hurt feelings. The governor of the Reserve Bank of India dismissed Trump's claim that commerce was dead there. He touted India's contribution to global growth — about 18% compared to around 11% for the US — and insisted the local economy was doing well. This is in the ballpark, based on IMF projections. It also misses the point that in pure size, America dwarfs India. Brazil, a comer that struggles to make good on its potential, is also refusing to bend. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva loathes dependence on the US and wants to be treated as an equal. But Trump doesn't like a court case against Lula's predecessor for allegedly plotting a coup. Brazil is trying to develop an alternative to the dollar and places great store in commercial ties to the BRICS group of emerging economies. Many of those nations, and aspiring members of the bloc, have cut deals with Trump, or are likely to do so. Brazil will come to some arrangement. So has Trump got away with it? His aides reckoned that access to the American market is too lucrative to pass up, and they may have been right. It would also be naive to conclude there won't be any cost. The global economy has slowed but hasn't crashed, foreigners still purchase US Treasuries and it's a safe bet that the greenback will be at the centre of the financial system for years. But the nations humiliated won't forget this experience. Asia's economies will only get bigger and the siren call of greater integration with China will get louder. Trump's efforts to destroy the existing order may yet prove an own goal. Just not this year. Clayton, who became the top economic official at the State Department, believed that robust trade among the shattered nations of Western Europe was as important as physical rebuilding. The economic dislocation wrought by the conflagration had been underestimated; capitalism could revive the continent and prevent the political implosion of key countries. According to Benn Steil's book The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War, Clayton insisted that the US 'must run this show.' Trump's team brag about reconfiguring the system that grew from the ideals of the post-war era. The hubris may ultimately prove misplaced.
