Washington — President Donald Trump on Thursday announced a dramatic set of new import duties that would, if implemented, impose heavy tariffs on a range of goods — including branded pharmaceuticals, heavy trucks and kitchen cabinets — a move the White House says is intended to protect U.S. industry and national security but that economists and industry groups warn could raise prices and spark legal challenges.
The measures announced by Mr. Trump would take effect Oct. 1 and include a 100% tariff on branded pharmaceutical products, a 25% tariff on heavy-duty trucks, and 50% duties on kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, along with other duties — including 30% on upholstered furniture — on a list of household and industrial goods, according to presidential statements and reporting. The administration said some drugmakers could be exempted if they are “actively building” manufacturing facilities in the United States.
White House officials framed the step as part of a broader push to reshore manufacturing and defend American workers from what the president described as “unfair” import practices. Mr. Trump has in recent months leaned on trade tools and national-security justifications to press tariffs on steel, autos and other products; the latest moves expand that effort into medicines and finished consumer goods.
Markets and industry reacted almost immediately. Shares of companies with exposure to U.S. markets and the affected sectors slipped in the wake of the announcement, and trade groups representing hospitals, builders and truck importers warned the tariffs are likely to raise costs for consumers, health-care providers and construction projects. Analysts cautioned that steep levies on pharmaceuticals could be particularly inflationary given the country’s already high drug prices.
Legal and practical questions loom large. The administration said it is relying in part on national-security reviews under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 for some measures, but trade lawyers noted that similar tariff actions have already drawn court challenges this year and that the precise legal basis — especially for drugs — could be contested in the courts. The earlier wave of tariffs rolled out under this administration is now the subject of litigation that could reach the Supreme Court.
Washington policymakers and Democrats and Republicans in Congress reacted with a mix of support for protecting U.S. manufacturing and concern about collateral effects. Health-care advocates and consumer groups were sharply critical, warning that a 100% duty on branded medicines (even with narrow exemptions) could push up prescription costs and strain hospitals and insurers. Some industry officials noted the announcement’s exemption language — companies “breaking ground” on U.S. plants may avoid the drug tariffs — still leaves open thorny definitional and enforcement questions.
The White House said the tariffs are intended to create leverage for bringing production back to the U.S. and to strengthen supply chains deemed critical to national security. But trade experts said there is rarely a quick, direct link from an import tax to new domestic factories: building complex pharmaceutical plants requires long lead times, regulatory approvals and skilled labour, and some firms may instead pass higher import costs to consumers or challenge the tariffs legally.
What happens next is likely to include litigation, calls from trading partners for consultations, and pressure from affected industries. The administration will face the twin tasks of writing enforceable rules for exemptions and defending the measures in court and at the negotiating table — all while monitoring economic signals such as inflation and supply disruptions that could follow immediate implementation.
