On April 2, 2026, exactly one year after the original "Liberation Day," President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing tariffs of up to 100% on patented pharmaceutical products imported into the United States. The measure uses Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the same legal basis used for steel and aluminum tariffs, framing pharmaceutical dependency as a national security issue.
The core argument: 53% of patented drugs and 85% of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) consumed in the United States are produced abroad. The order seeks to force production reshoring to American soil, using the tariff as a pressure tool.
But the details matter. Not all drugs are affected, not all companies pay the same rate, and the real impact depends on negotiations still underway. Here are the facts.
The tariff structure
The executive order does not impose a single, uniform tariff. It establishes a scale based on the company's behavior and the country of origin.
| Situation | Tariff |
|---|---|
| No agreement with the government | 100% |
| Onshoring agreement with Commerce (no pricing deal) | 20% |
| MFN pricing + onshoring agreement with Commerce and HHS | 0% (through Jan 2029) |
| Origin: EU, Japan, Korea, Switzerland | 15% |
| Origin: UK (bilateral agreement) | Reduced rate (TBD) |
| Generics and biosimilars | Exempt |
The generics exemption is significant. The definition is broad: any FDA-approved drug not covered by a valid patent, including abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), biosimilars, and authorized generics. The Secretary of Commerce will reassess this exemption in one year.
Other exempt categories
Orphan drugs, nuclear medicines, cell and gene therapies, fertility treatments, plasma-derived therapies, antibody drug conjugates, and medical countermeasures are also exempt from the 100% rate, provided they originate from jurisdictions with a trade agreement or meet urgent public health needs.
Implementation timeline
The tariffs do not take effect immediately. There are two deadlines:
| Company size | Window | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Large pharma (Annex III) | 120 days | July 31, 2026 |
| All other companies | 180 days | September 29, 2026 |
This interval is deliberate. It gives companies time to negotiate pricing and onshoring agreements, potentially reducing the tariff from 100% to 20% or even 0%.
Who has a deal and who does not
Before the signing, the Trump administration had already been closing pricing agreements with pharmaceutical companies. The MFN (Most Favored Nation) program, announced in November 2025, requires companies to offer U.S. prices equivalent to the lowest prices charged in other developed countries.
Companies with MFN deals (0% tariff through 2029)
- Eli Lilly: deal covering Zepbound and Mounjaro (tirzepatide)
- Novo Nordisk: deal covering Ozempic and Wegovy (semaglutide)
- Pfizer: deal finalized
These three are among the world's largest pharmaceutical companies and have secured tariff exemptions for three years in exchange for price reductions and commitments to produce in the U.S.
Companies without deals (exposed to 100%)
- AbbVie: no finalized agreement
- Johnson & Johnson: negotiations ongoing
- Regeneron: no deal closed
AbbVie has already lost $52.5 billion in market value since tariff negotiations began weighing on the sector.
Market reaction
The market reacted cautiously on the day of the announcement. On April 2, 2026, the S&P 500 closed with a slight gain of 0.11% at 6,582.69, while the Dow Jones dipped 0.13% to 46,504.67. Volatility concentrated in the final hours of trading as details of the order were released.
Pharma stocks on April 2
| Company | Change |
|---|---|
| Eli Lilly (LLY) | -1.0% |
| Novo Nordisk (NVO) | -1.6% |
| Pfizer (PFE) | -0.8% |
| AbbVie (ABBV) | -0.5% |
| Merck (MRK) | -0.7% |
| Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) | -0.4% |
The relatively contained decline reflects two factors: (1) the market had already priced in part of the risk, as the possibility of pharmaceutical tariffs had been discussed for weeks, and (2) the exemptions for generics and individual negotiations limited the perceived impact.
However, volatility increased in the following days. Novo Nordisk, for example, dropped 21% on April 4, reaching approximately $62 per share, though that move was amplified by factors beyond tariffs alone.
The Liberation Day context: one year later
The signing on the Liberation Day anniversary is not a coincidence. It is a deliberate political message. Exactly one year ago, Trump signed the reciprocal tariffs that hit virtually all American imports.
The one-year scorecard is mixed:
| Metric | Result |
|---|---|
| Revenue collected | $166 billion (from 330K+ businesses) |
| Manufacturing jobs | -89,000 (Apr 2025 to Feb 2026) |
| Transportation/warehousing jobs | -123,700 |
| Average household cost | +$1,700/year |
| Goods trade deficit | +2% (to $1.24 trillion in 2025) |
| Supreme Court ruling | IEEPA tariffs ruled unconstitutional (6-3, Feb 2026) |
The Supreme Court struck down the original Liberation Day tariffs in February 2026, ruling that using IEEPA for trade policy was unconstitutional. The $166 billion collected from more than 53 million import entries must be refunded.
This is the context behind the legal instrument shift: instead of IEEPA, Trump now uses Section 232, which already has favorable judicial precedent from steel and aluminum tariffs. The strategy is different, but the objective is the same: using tariffs as a negotiation lever.
What this means for investors
Direct impact on global pharma
The tariffs create three scenarios for companies in the sector:
1. Companies with MFN deals (Lilly, Novo, Pfizer): short-term protection, but margin compression from lower U.S. prices. Eli Lilly has already signaled that net price erosion in 2026 will be in the "low to mid teens" percent, a significant acceleration from the 6% absorbed in 2025.
2. Companies without deals (AbbVie, J&J, Regeneron): exposed to the 100% tariff starting in July. They need to close deals quickly or pass costs through. Margin pressure is higher.
3. Generic manufacturers: benefited by the exemption. Indian companies like Cipla, Sun Pharma, and Dr. Reddy's could gain market share.
Brazilian investor perspective
For Brazilian investors, the channels of exposure to the U.S. pharmaceutical sector include:
-
IVVB11 (S&P 500 ETF): indirect exposure. Healthcare represents about 12% of the index. The ETF is down 9.77% year-to-date as of April 2026 in BRL terms.
-
BDRs: Eli Lilly (LILY34), Pfizer (PFIZ34), Johnson & Johnson (JNJB34), and AbbVie (ABBV34) trade on the B3. BDR volatility mirrors the original stock, amplified by currency fluctuations.
Potential impact on Brazil
Brazil imports a significant portion of pharmaceutical inputs from the United States. If the Brazilian government retaliates with reciprocal tariffs, as authorized by the Economic Reciprocity Law, the impact could reach:
- SUS (public health system): imported medications and medical devices from the U.S. would become more expensive
- Private health plans: cost pass-through to operators and, consequently, to beneficiaries
- Brazilian pharmaceutical industry: components and inputs for local production largely come from the U.S.
So far, the Brazilian government has not announced specific retaliation targeting the pharmaceutical sector. But the possibility exists and should be monitored.
Three portfolio lessons
1. Trade policy is permanent risk
The original Liberation Day proved this for global supply chains. Now, pharmaceutical tariffs extend that risk to a sector historically considered defensive. Pharma companies were seen as safe havens precisely because of inelastic demand. Tariffs change that equation: demand persists, but margins come under pressure.
2. Individual deals create asymmetry
Within the same sector, Lilly pays 0% and AbbVie may pay 100%. This creates a dispersion of outcomes between companies that did not exist before. For sector investors, individual company analysis, negotiation status, and geographic production exposure become more important than generic sector views.
3. Generics as a contrarian opportunity
The explicit exemption of generics and biosimilars from the tariff is a direct benefit for their manufacturers. While branded drugs face price and cost pressure, generics gain relative competitive advantage. This is a dynamic that could extend for years, especially if the exemption is maintained in the 2027 review.
Volatility as an operating environment
Pharmaceutical tariffs, the Liberation Day anniversary, Supreme Court decisions, geopolitical tensions: April 2026 concentrates multiple volatility triggers in a short timeframe. For professional traders, this environment creates opportunities in both downward moves and technical recoveries.
At Royal Binary, founded by Sidnei Oliveira, the trading team monitors events like this daily. The team executes over 340 trades per month, with disciplined risk management and strategy adapted to current volatility. Results are variable, as with any variable-income operation, but the structure exists to navigate exactly these kinds of scenarios.
Want to understand how it works? Explore the platform and learn about the available plans.