How pharma marketers can prepare for Trump’s 200% tariff threat

A look at what Trump’s tariff threats mean for pharma marketers, and how to plan when policy keeps shifting.

Since the spring, when President Trump first pledged sector-specific duties on pharmaceutical imports, speculation has been brewing about whether these tariffs will actually come to pass. His latest Cabinet meeting, during which he threatened pharma tariffs of 200%, didn’t exactly clear the air.

Trump, who has brandished high levies before only to later back down, merely underscored a problem that’s dogged biopharma since March when a 25% import tariff on the sector was first threatened: The goal posts keep shifting.

"Uncertainty is what creates the problem for marketers,” said Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, the health economist and advisor, “because they don't know where to place a bet in a rational way.”

What’s the risk if brands don’t act? Maintaining a voice during this uncertain time is well worth the risk, experts say. Not engaging with audiences amid such a fraught period may put brands and patients at greater peril.

First, consider the market reaction to Trump’s threats. In his first significant remarks on the subject in months, he offered a timeline and potential rates for pharma tariffs last week.

The president said he’d levy up to 200% tariffs on pharmaceuticals imported into the U.S. “very soon,” according to CNBC. Pharma stocks were largely unchanged after that announcement.

So far the sector appears to be similarly unaffected by the president’s latest threat, coming this past Tuesday, to impose pharma tariffs as soon as the end of the month. Trump suggested that these import taxes could hit alongside broad “reciprocal” rates set for implementation on Aug. 1, Bloomberg reported.

That jibes with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s recent remarks that details on the tariffs would come at month’s end, once the administration so-called section 232 investigation, launched on April 1st to study whether pharma imports threaten U.S. national security, is set to wrap up.

Some believe tariffs are a negotiating chip. Others say Trump actually wants tariffs, the more the merrier. Whether political posturing or actionable insight, the so far muted response to pharma sector stocks suggests the market isn’t panicking. Neither should marketers.

Second, Trump’s tariff threat is meant to jolt a manufacturing renaissance, and that needs time to develop. In the interim, anything can happen.

The pharma tariffs won’t go into effect immediately, with Trump saying he will “give people about a year, year and a half” to “get their act together.” That’s an apparent reference to the White House’s ongoing efforts to persuade drugmakers to expand their U.S. manufacturing footprint.

Tariffs are meant to pull manufacturing to America, reducing reliance on other countries for its supply of medicines. The administration is proclaiming that Trump is bringing drug manufacturing back, although onshoring takes at least five to 10 years to establish, trade group BIO emphasized in comments submitted to the 232 investigation.

Some Wall Street analysts interpreted the delay in the tariff timetable as a net-positive for the drug industry, since there’s no guarantee Trump will actually follow through on the tariff threat.

Third, Trump is controlling the pace and tempo of the pharma tariff narrative, but he may not be able to prevent unintended consequences for patients.

In its 232 comments, PhRMA cautioned that, instead of protecting and facilitating makers of pharmaceuticals, tariffs could result in higher prices and disrupt the supply chain, increasing the risk of drug shortages and putting patients at risk.

According to an EY estimate from earlier this year, a 25% pharma tariff would add $51 billion a year to U.S. drug costs, potentially boosting U.S. drug prices by 12.9%. The Budget Lab at Yale University projected that a 25% ad valorem tariff would raise a U.S. household’s average per-year medication cost by about $600.

Those kinds of increases would be at odds with Trump’s stated desire to reduce drug prices through his proposed Most Favored Nation policy. That’s a policy, revived from his first term, that would force drugmakers to accept lower prices for prescriptions that are pegged to what's paid abroad.

This is what tariffs do. When prices go up, consumers pay more for the product. Such factors may prompt the president, who tends to respond to incentive structures in real time, to adjust.

The negative take on his trade policy is the “TACO trade,” for “Trump Always Chickens Out.” But some say the actual way to read it is that, when he finds new data, he reacts to it.

So, where does that leave marketers? Cleary, Trump’s tariff war cuts both ways. He’s wielding his power to spark a manufacturing comeback. But he’s also sown a great deal of uncertainty.

And in times such as this, when the instinct is to pull back, that tendency must be counterbalanced by “the responsibility to show up,” said veteran pharma marketer Maria Verastegui.

Brands can’t afford to be silent. With margins already pressured by the Inflation Reduction Act, patent cliffs and tighter managed care, many drugmakers entered 2025 with flat or declining revenues. Ad spend dipped 4% last year, following an 8% drop in 2024.

But withdrawing further may be short-sighted.

“In moments of uncertainty, brands have a choice: go quiet or go human,” said Verastegui. “This isn’t the time to retreat from connection; it’s the time to earn relevance.”

Caution is natural. A February IAB survey showed that 94% of advertisers were worried about tariffs, with nearly half planning to cut spend—especially in traditional and social channels. Advertising holding companies like Omnicom, Publicis and S4 Capital have already revised forecasts downward, citing reduced client confidence.

Still, Sarasohn-Kahn advises calculated risk-taking.

“You have to place a bet,” she said. “Or you can’t market the drug. It’s art, science and risk management.”

One area where brands can focus attention is health literacy. Over 30% of U.S. adults struggle to understand and use health information, according to HHS. That’s a communication gap pharma marketers are uniquely positioned to close, especially in an era of mistrust.

Supply readiness is another critical piece. EY warns of a potential “bullwhip effect”—where tariffs lead to erratic ordering patterns that disrupt inventory and force brands to pull back launches or pause campaigns, as happened with Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy.

Without reliable access, driving demand makes little sense. Marketing must remain agile, coordinated with ops, and attuned to when and how much product will be available.

Thus, brands must still show up. The life sciences sector has already shifted to omnichannel engagement—leaner sales forces, smarter targeting and scalable digital tools. That gives pharma marketers a degree of flexibility, if they’re willing to use it.

“We’re in the era of mistrust on all sides,” said Sarasohn-Kahn. But that’s also the opportunity. “Don’t stop spending—just spend it differently.”

Even in times of policy volatility, marketers have a job to do: Maintain trust, educate consumers and ensure relevance. Pulling back may feel safer, but in the long term, it’s engagement that builds resilience, said Verastegui.

There’s a “lot of dirt in the air” right now, as Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee put it. And that makes it harder to figure out where things are going, to plan commercial outlays, sync drug launches or calibrate the omnichannel marketing mix.

But when everything is uncertain, showing up consistently may be the best move a brand can make.

As published here