India’s generic drugs retain edge despite tariff threat

US President Donald Trump’s phased tariff plan for imported generic medicines has given drugmakers two years to strengthen American manufacturing while raising questions over costs, supply security and the future competitiveness of India’s pharmaceutical exports.

Trump announced that generic drugs entering the United States would remain free of import duties until August 1, 2028. A tariff of 100% would then apply for one year, followed by a 200% levy from August 2029. The proposed schedule extends Washington’s pharmaceutical reshoring campaign beyond patented and branded medicines, which were targeted earlier.

India faces the greatest exposure because the United States is its largest pharmaceutical export market. Drug exports to the country were valued at about $9.7 billion in 2025, representing roughly 38% of total pharmaceutical shipments worth $25.8 billion.

The policy nevertheless does not automatically remove the price advantage enjoyed by manufacturers such as Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Aurobindo Pharma, Cipla, Lupin and Zydus Lifesciences. Many generic medicines produced in India are priced seven to 10 times below branded alternatives, leaving room for some products to remain competitive even after steep duties.

A medicine imported for $10 would cost $30 after a 200% tariff, excluding distribution and retail charges. It could still undercut a branded equivalent priced at $70 or $100. The calculation is less favourable for commodity generics, where several manufacturers compete on narrow margins and buyers demand the lowest possible price.

Generic medicines account for more than 90% of prescriptions dispensed in the United States but less than 13% of prescription-drug spending. That imbalance reflects their importance to American healthcare as well as the pressure placed on manufacturers by pharmacy chains, wholesalers, insurers and purchasing organisations.

The United States imported pharmaceutical products valued at about $213 billion in 2025. Finished medicines sold in retail packaging, including generic products, accounted for about $94.1 billion. Replacing those imports would require extensive investment, specialised workers, regulatory approvals and dependable supplies of active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Building a pharmaceutical plant can take several years. Companies must install production lines, validate manufacturing processes and secure approval from the US Food and Drug Administration before commercial sales begin. Each medicine may also require separate technical submissions and inspections, complicating attempts to shift large portfolios within the two-year exemption period.

Several major drugmakers have already established manufacturing or research operations in the United States, providing limited protection against future tariffs. Companies may expand those facilities, acquire local plants or transfer selected high-volume products while continuing to manufacture lower-margin medicines overseas.

The tariff could affect businesses unevenly. Manufacturers with specialised generics, injectable drugs, inhalers and complex formulations may have greater pricing power. Producers dependent on crowded categories such as basic tablets and capsules could face heavier pressure because customers can switch suppliers more easily.

Shares of leading pharmaceutical companies fell after the announcement, with some declining by more than 3% during Wednesday’s trading. The reaction reflected concern over long-term earnings rather than an immediate change in export conditions, as the duty-free window remains open for two years.

Implementation is also uncertain. Trump disclosed the schedule through a social-media statement, but no detailed executive order or customs framework had been issued. The administration must still clarify whether exemptions will be available for companies building factories, medicines facing shortages, critical hospital products or imports from countries covered by trade agreements.

Industry participants are expected to seek exclusions for essential medicines, arguing that tariffs could raise treatment costs and deepen shortages. The American generic-drug market has already faced supply disruptions linked to plant closures, quality failures and unsustainable pricing. Higher import costs could encourage some manufacturers to withdraw products rather than invest in additional capacity.

Washington’s strategy also faces a supply-chain constraint beyond finished medicines. A large portion of the active ingredients and chemical intermediates used by global manufacturers originates in China. Moving final production to the United States without diversifying those inputs would provide only partial protection against overseas disruption.

Drugmakers in India now have until August 2028 to adjust their production networks, negotiate with customers and identify medicines capable of absorbing higher duties. Expansion into Europe, Africa, Latin America and other regulated markets could reduce dependence on the United States, although none offers comparable scale.