Introduction to Donald Trump’s Trade Tariff Policy
Donald Trump’s trade tariff policy has been a cornerstone of his economic approach, both during his first presidency and in his current term. Trump employs tariffs as a tool to pressure countries into more favorable trade agreements for the United States, using them as leverage during negotiations with nations like Mexico, China, and Canada.
Tariffs as Pressure Measures
Trump’s administration has imposed tariffs as a sanction on countries deemed uncooperative in areas such as migration, drugs, or national security. For instance, he has threatened tariffs on Mexico due to the flow of fentanyl and migrants.
His aim is to safeguard strategic sectors like steel and aluminum, arguing that tariffs help bring industries back to the U.S. and reduce the trade deficit.
Recent Tariff Developments
Trump recently announced that he will not extend the 90-day pause on tariffs and that countries failing to reach agreements with the U.S. could face tariffs up to 50%. This stance has created diplomatic tensions and also encouraged illegal trade, as high trading costs have opened opportunities for criminal networks to evade taxes and forge documents.
Impact on the Pharmaceutical Sector
Trump’s tariff policy has also affected the pharmaceutical sector, albeit not gently. Starting April 2, 2025, his administration announced a 25% tariff on imported medicines alongside automobiles and semiconductors. This move breaks from the WTO Pharmaceutical Agreement, which since 1994 eliminated tariffs on over 7,000 pharmaceutical products.
The declared goal is to pressure companies to relocate production in the U.S., but potential side effects could be severe:
- Increased Prices: American consumers may face pricier medications, particularly generics that already operate on thin margins.
- Shortages: Experts warn that tariffs could exacerbate medication shortages, a problem already affecting hundreds of products in the U.S.
- Global Impact: Countries like Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland—major exporters of medicines to the U.S.—would be most affected, but Mexico could also see its role as a key supplier diminish.
Public and private hospitals would confront higher operational costs, potentially leading to reduced capacity and service quality. In a system that has already navigated complex transitions—like the shift from INSABI to IMSS-Bienestar—this additional pressure could worsen supply and coverage issues.
