The US largely imports pharmaceutical products from India and European countries, including Ireland, Switzerland and Germany. By Sarah Shamim Share Save United States President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he will impose a 100 percent import tax on pharmaceutical drugs. He also announced new tariffs on other products. Here’s what we know, and what it all means. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote that starting on October 1, the US will impose a 100 percent tariff on any branded or patented pharmaceutical product. The 100 percent tariff means prices of imported pharmaceutical products will double for US importers and consumers. However, Trump said an exception would be made for any company which “IS BUILDING their Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plant in America”. He explained that “is building” refers to “‘breaking ground’ and/or ‘under construction'”. Trump did not specify whether the new tariffs he announced would be applied on top of the national tariffs he has previously imposed on various US trading partners. Pharmaceutical products, including packaged medicaments; vaccines, toxins and cultures; and hormones, made up about 5.6 percent of total US imports in 2023, worth about $158bn, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). During that year, the US imported $86.4bn worth of packaged medicaments. About 14.2 percent, or $12.3bn worth, of packaged medicaments came from Ireland; 14 percent, or $12.1bn worth, came from Switzerland; 13.4 percent ($11.6bn) from Germany; and 10.6 percent, or $9.2bn worth, came from India. Other countries from which the US imported these products include Italy, Denmark and the United Kingdom. In 2023, the US imported $65.1bn worth of vaccines, blood, antisera, toxins and cultures. Out of this, 23.2 percent, or $15.1bn worth, came from Ireland and 20.9 percent, or $13.6bn worth, from Germany. Pharmaceutical companies across Asia and Europe saw a drop in their share prices following Trump’s announcement. Swiss companies Lonza, Novartis and Roche were down about 1.2 percent in early trading on Friday. Shares in German drugmakers Merck and Bayer also fell by 1.1 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. Japan’s Sumitomo Pharma closed 3.5 percent lower, while Otsuka Holdings fell 2.9 percent and Daiichi Sankyo dropped 2 percent. Not all pharma groups took a hit, however. Takeda Pharmaceutical edged down just 0.1 percent, while Shionogi, instead of falling, rose 1 percent. Meanwhile, in India, the main pharmaceuticals index slid by 2 percent as all 20 listed drugmakers fell in price. Industry giant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries sank 3 percent, despite Indian drugmakers mainly producing generics, which are not targeted by new tariffs. Australia’s largest biotechnology company, CSL, plunged to a six-year low, closing 1.9 percent below the previous day. Despite the initial shock reflected in share prices, experts said Indian companies should not suffer too much from the tariffs, as some that supply products to the US are already based there and will therefore be exempt. Namit Joshi, chairman of the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council of India, told CNN that the tariffs are “unlikely to have an immediate impact on Indian exports”. “The bulk of our contribution lies in simple generics, and most large Indian companies already operate US manufacturing or repackaging units and are exploring further acquisitions,” Joshi said. However, the uncertainty over whether the tariffs might be extended to generic medicines too weighs heavily on the Indian industry at a time when the country is already grappling with 50 percent tariffs imposed on other sectors by Trump earlier in the year. These were, in part, due to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil, Trump said. Other foreign pharmaceutical companies will also get around tariffs by locating their operations in the US, some experts said. “The US market is the world’s largest destination for branded and speciality drugs,” Adam Butlin, a pre-doctoral research assistant in the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, told Al Jazeera. “Over the medium term, firms may attempt to redirect exports to other regions to circumvent tariffs, while in the longer term, some foreign producers may consider relocating production to the US.” But that will not be easy. “Such moves are constrained by the high costs of rebuilding supply chains and the policy uncertainty that discourages large-scale, long-term investment,” Butlin said. In the meantime, that unpredictability means that “exporting economies with significant exposure, such as India, Switzerland, and parts of the EU, could see a significant fall in competitiveness”. The pharmaceutical industry group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), warned that tariffs could affect investment in US pharmaceuticals. “PhRMA companies continue to announce hundreds of billions in new US investments thanks to President Trump’s pro-growth tax and regulatory policies,” Alex Schriver, senior vice president at PhRMA, said in a statement. “Tariffs risk those plans because every dollar spent on tariffs is a dollar that cannot be invested in American manufacturing or the development of future treatments and cures.” Furthermore, he said, medicines are usually spared from tariffs to avoid higher costs and shortages. Butlin said the impact of this policy on the US pharmaceutical industry is “ambiguous”. “On one hand, domestic manufacturers may benefit from a reduction in foreign competition and new incentives to reshore parts of the supply chain. However, consumers, hospitals, and insurers will face higher drug prices and possible shortages, especially in areas where no domestic substitutes exist.” In the long run, the new policy may encourage more local investment in making medicines. But it could also raise healthcare costs and slow down innovation, if companies cut back on research to make up for the extra expenses, Butlin added. In another post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that the US will also impose a 50 percent tariff on all kitchen cabinets, toilet vanities and “associated products” and a 30 percent tariff on upholstered furniture. Upholstered furniture refers to any furniture that includes padding, springs and fabric or leather coverings. In a separate post, he announced a 25 percent tariff on “Heavy (Big!) Trucks” imported by the US from other countries. These tariffs will also go into effect on October 1. Trump did not specify his reasons for increasing tariffs on branded pharmaceutical products. However, he wrote that the tariffs on kitchen and toilet materials, as well as furniture, were down to “the large scale ‘FLOODING’ of these products into the United States by other outside Countries”. Trump called this “flooding” unfair. “We must protect, for National Security and other reasons, our Manufacturing process,” he wrote. Follow Al Jazeera English:...

The US largely imports pharmaceutical products from India and European countries, including Ireland, Switzerland and Germany. By Sarah Shamim Share Save United States President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he will impose a 100 percent import tax on pharmaceutical drugs. He also announced new tariffs on other products. Here’s what we know, and what it all means. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote that starting on October 1, the US will impose a 100 percent tariff on any branded or patented pharmaceutical product. The 100 percent tariff means prices of imported pharmaceutical products will double for US importers and consumers. However, Trump said an exception would be made for any company which “IS BUILDING their Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plant in America”. He explained that “is building” refers to “‘breaking ground’ and/or ‘under construction'”. Trump did not specify whether the new tariffs he announced would be applied on top of the national tariffs he has previously imposed on various US trading partners. Pharmaceutical products, including packaged medicaments; vaccines, toxins and cultures; and hormones, made up about 5.6 percent of total US imports in 2023, worth about $158bn, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). During that year, the US imported $86.4bn worth of packaged medicaments. About 14.2 percent, or $12.3bn worth, of packaged medicaments came from Ireland; 14 percent, or $12.1bn worth, came from Switzerland; 13.4 percent ($11.6bn) from Germany; and 10.6 percent, or $9.2bn worth, came from India. Other countries from which the US imported these products include Italy, Denmark and the United Kingdom. In 2023, the US imported $65.1bn worth of vaccines, blood, antisera, toxins and cultures. Out of this, 23.2 percent, or $15.1bn worth, came from Ireland and 20.9 percent, or $13.6bn worth, from Germany. Pharmaceutical companies across Asia and Europe saw a drop in their share prices following Trump’s announcement. Swiss companies Lonza, Novartis and Roche were down about 1.2 percent in early trading on Friday. Shares in German drugmakers Merck and Bayer also fell by 1.1 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. Japan’s Sumitomo Pharma closed 3.5 percent lower, while Otsuka Holdings fell 2.9 percent and Daiichi Sankyo dropped 2 percent. Not all pharma groups took a hit, however. Takeda Pharmaceutical edged down just 0.1 percent, while Shionogi, instead of falling, rose 1 percent. Meanwhile, in India, the main pharmaceuticals index slid by 2 percent as all 20 listed drugmakers fell in price. Industry giant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries sank 3 percent, despite Indian drugmakers mainly producing generics, which are not targeted by new tariffs. Australia’s largest biotechnology company, CSL, plunged to a six-year low, closing 1.9 percent below the previous day. Despite the initial shock reflected in share prices, experts said Indian companies should not suffer too much from the tariffs, as some that supply products to the US are already based there and will therefore be exempt. Namit Joshi, chairman of the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council of India, told CNN that the tariffs are “unlikely to have an immediate impact on Indian exports”. “The bulk of our contribution lies in simple generics, and most large Indian companies already operate US manufacturing or repackaging units and are exploring further acquisitions,” Joshi said. However, the uncertainty over whether the tariffs might be extended to generic medicines too weighs heavily on the Indian industry at a time when the country is already grappling with 50 percent tariffs imposed on other sectors by Trump earlier in the year. These were, in part, due to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil, Trump said. Other foreign pharmaceutical companies will also get around tariffs by locating their operations in the US, some experts said. “The US market is the world’s largest destination for branded and speciality drugs,” Adam Butlin, a pre-doctoral research assistant in the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, told Al Jazeera. “Over the medium term, firms may attempt to redirect exports to other regions to circumvent tariffs, while in the longer term, some foreign producers may consider relocating production to the US.” But that will not be easy. “Such moves are constrained by the high costs of rebuilding supply chains and the policy uncertainty that discourages large-scale, long-term investment,” Butlin said. In the meantime, that unpredictability means that “exporting economies with significant exposure, such as India, Switzerland, and parts of the EU, could see a significant fall in competitiveness”. The pharmaceutical industry group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), warned that tariffs could affect investment in US pharmaceuticals. “PhRMA companies continue to announce hundreds of billions in new US investments thanks to President Trump’s pro-growth tax and regulatory policies,” Alex Schriver, senior vice president at PhRMA, said in a statement. “Tariffs risk those plans because every dollar spent on tariffs is a dollar that cannot be invested in American manufacturing or the development of future treatments and cures.” Furthermore, he said, medicines are usually spared from tariffs to avoid higher costs and shortages. Butlin said the impact of this policy on the US pharmaceutical industry is “ambiguous”. “On one hand, domestic manufacturers may benefit from a reduction in foreign competition and new incentives to reshore parts of the supply chain. However, consumers, hospitals, and insurers will face higher drug prices and possible shortages, especially in areas where no domestic substitutes exist.” In the long run, the new policy may encourage more local investment in making medicines. But it could also raise healthcare costs and slow down innovation, if companies cut back on research to make up for the extra expenses, Butlin added. In another post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that the US will also impose a 50 percent tariff on all kitchen cabinets, toilet vanities and “associated products” and a 30 percent tariff on upholstered furniture. Upholstered furniture refers to any furniture that includes padding, springs and fabric or leather coverings. In a separate post, he announced a 25 percent tariff on “Heavy (Big!) Trucks” imported by the US from other countries. These tariffs will also go into effect on October 1. Trump did not specify his reasons for increasing tariffs on branded pharmaceutical products. However, he wrote that the tariffs on kitchen and toilet materials, as well as furniture, were down to “the large scale ‘FLOODING’ of these products into the United States by other outside Countries”. Trump called this “flooding” unfair. “We must protect, for National Security and other reasons, our Manufacturing process,” he wrote. Follow Al Jazeera English:...

The celebrations were wild. As Pedro Neto's 93rd-minute stunner completed a defiant Chelsea fightback at Fulham, there was no doubt about the importance of the strike. Chelsea leapfrogged rivals Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest to return to the Premier League top five, a spot which would earn the club qualification for the Champions League next season. And, after weeks of negativity around Chelsea's form and hostility from sections of supporters towards head coach Enzo Maresca, the players and fans celebrated as one - with the scenes carrying on long after the final whistle. Chelsea's first away league win of the year was sparked by the introduction of 18-year-old academy product Tyrique George, with his 83rd-minute equaliser the prelude to a dramatic finale. And it all came just when Chelsea's top-five challenge was in danger of fizzling out. Had Chelsea drawn, we would be talking about a club without a win in nine away matches, seventh in the table with goalkeeper Robert Sanchez's struggling and several goalless forwards. But, instead, Maresca was able to speak in bullish fashion about his side's season. "Chelsea in the last two years have never been in the Champions League spot and this season we spent the whole season there," he said. "Today doesn't change my view, it is already a good season and can become very good if we finish in the Champions League spot. "But for sure today was an important win because it is a derby and can give us a chance - it was probably also the most difficult win - because our rivals all played yesterday so it is was must-win." After celebrating on the touchline, Maresca went down the tunnel rather than join his players and coaching staff in soaking in an important victory with the 3,000-strong away support. He will know Chelsea's first-half performance left a lot to be desired at Craven Cottage, with the late goal showing the mission to return to the Champions League after two seasons away is still on a knife edge. There are still some causes for concern at Chelsea after the comeback win, with struggling forward Christopher Nkunku left out due to a "technical decision". In addition, Maresca said that defender Malo Gusto's muscular injury is "not a good one" and the Frenchman joins defender Wesley Fofana and striker Marc Guiu on the injured list, with winger Mykhailo Mudryk provisionally suspended following a failed drugs test. After the match, Maresca said his decision not to celebrate with the away end was more about giving his players time in the spotlight. He said: "I was very happy because it is a nice feeling to win the game at the end but I think it was a moment for the players because they deserve to celebrate with the fans. "That's the reason I left the pitch immediately. And then when we scored the second one, I celebrated and this was the reason they give me the yellow card, but it was a nice moment between the players and the fans to share that moment. I said many times, the players need to feel that support." There remains concern about the 16-game goal drought of Cole Palmer and Chelsea's general lack of production from their forward line. Jadon Sancho's strike against Ipswich last week, ending a run of 21 games without scoring, was the first by a Chelsea forward in the league since 25 February. Striker Nicolas Jackson has not found the net in 13 matches, while match-winner Neto's goal was his first in eight matches. Tyrique George was promoted from the academy team to the first team on 19 December in a touching moment filmed by the club's channels. He and defender Josh Acheampong were both given permanent first-team lockers after signing new deals in 2024, and most of their opportunities for game time have come in the Conference League. George, who has been with Chelsea since the age of eight, made 10 Conference League appearances, scoring his first goal for the club away at Legia Warsaw in the last round. He is the fifth youngest Premier League scorer for Chelsea and youngest since Callum Hudson-Odoi against Burnley in 2020. "I think Tyrique, when he scored, it was a nice moment but also gave an extra energy to the players to try to win the game in the last minute," said Maresca. "I'm very happy for Tyrique, Ty and Josh both from the academy are good talents, they have to work hard."

Former New York state governor trails Zohran Mamdani in the polls as he pitches a more centrist economic policy. By Andy Hirschfeld Share Save Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who lost the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City to Zohran Mamdani by significant margins and is now contesting as an independent, is second in the race to clinch the mayor’s title in the largest city in the United States. Mamdani won on a message of affordability, but Cuomo has slammed his plans as extreme and not feasible. Al Jazeera did an analysis of Cuomo’s economic policies to see what he has to offer for New Yorkers. Cuomo – who only moved into New York City in September 2024 after living in Westchester, a suburban community north of the city – has promised to build over the next decade half a million new apartments, two-thirds of which will be “affordable”. The plan offers tax incentives to private developers to build more residential developments. It also says it will loosen zoning laws to promote office-to-residential conversions. However, much of what he’s touting is already city policy. New York launched an office-to-housing programme in 2020 under former Mayor Bill de Blasio, followed by reforms last year to speed up conversions under incumbent Eric Adams. According to a report from City Comptroller Brad Lander, who also ran in the primaries but has since endorsed Mamdani, those initiatives have already produced 44 conversions. Projects finished or under way are expected to create as many as 17,400 units citywide – mostly studios and one-bedroom apartments – including one of the largest office-to-housing conversions in the country in Lower Manhattan. Cuomo’s plan to expand housing options across the city also taps into publicly owned land, including vacant lots, to allow for development of new housing and mixed-use development – the same as both other leading candidates, Mamdani, a former State Assembly member, and Adams. Cuomo wants to pump $2.5bn into public housing over the next five years, which would be a 75 percent increase from the city’s current funding. For housing protections, he wants to add more lawyers in the city’s housing court system to help renters with issues like tenant harassment and unlawful eviction and provide more housing vouchers to help address homelessness. However, Cuomo’s history says otherwise. When he was governor, he pushed the state to cut funding for a rental voucher programme called Advantage. The cuts from Albany, the state capital, left City Hall no choice but to cut the programme altogether. One of the few new ideas from Cuomo, who has been US secretary of housing and urban development in the past, is called “Zohran’s Law”, a jab at the most likely next mayor of New York. The new law would put in place income limits on those who are seeking rent-stabilised apartments across the city, which account for about half of the rental housing stock. Cuomo said the law would not penalise those who see their incomes increase while already living in a rent-stabilised unit. New York City’s rent-stabilisation programme was never designed with certain income levels in mind. It was intended to regulate the broader housing market and protect residents from rent price surges that market-rate apartments face in times of housing scarcity. “I think that’s been the playbook all along, kind of pick a fight, steal an idea, deliver less ambitiously than New Yorkers really need or deserve,” Adin Lenchner, founder of the New York based political consultancy Carroll Street Campaigns told Al Jazeera. Cuomo’s most ambitious proposal is to bring New York City’s transit system under the control of the city itself. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which oversees subways, buses and commuter railroads, has been under state jurisdiction since the agency was created in 1968. That structure gives the governor disproportionate power over the operations of the nation’s largest transit system. Shifting control to City Hall would be a steep challenge because much of its funding comes from state-collected taxes and revenues. And even if it were to happen and Cuomo would want to increase the city’s tax rate to pay for it, he would still need a buy-in from the governor, who either accepts or denies the city’s proposed tax rate. That funding dynamic is a key reason why Mamdani’s free-bus proposal has drawn scepticism. Implementing it would demand coalition-building and leverage in Albany, which critics have said are best used for other pressing issues like universal childcare. As a state lawmaker, Mamdani was able to help champion a free-bus pilot programme, but expanding such an initiative citywide would be far more complicated from the mayor’s office without control of the MTA, a key weakness in the Mamdani campaign that Cuomo has tried to capitalise on. Cuomo, on the other hand, is not pushing for free transit quite like Mamdani but has suggested he would consider some free routes. He also said he would expand access to what is called the fair fares programme, which offers discounted rates to low-income New Yorkers. Cuomo’s push to claim city control of the MTA also comes with a fairly chequered political history. During his time as governor, he was frequently accused of weaponising the state’s authority over transit against then-Mayor de Blasio, taking credit for successes while deflecting blame for service breakdowns onto City Hall. The tug-of-war over responsibility for transit performance has long been a point of contention between Albany and City Hall. Cuomo does have a track record of delivering on major transportation projects. Under his watch, a subway line expanded, the long-delayed construction of another subway line began and Penn Station, one of the city’s largest transit hubs, began a substantial revitalisation. He also oversaw the rebuilding of LaGuardia Airport. Lencher pointed out that Cuomo proudly took credit for those wins but when the city’s subway system faced widespread delays in 2017 during the construction – colloquially referred to as the summer of hell, in which there were constant equipment failures and the worst on-time performance of any mass transit system in the world – Cuomo said it was “the city’s MTA”. Cuomo has pitched a jobs plan that he has called the $1.5bn Five-Borough Economic Transformation Capital Fund, which would fund projects all over the city. He is also proposing an innovation hub that would give grants to start-ups and offer them tax exemptions if they can prove they can provide job growth opportunities to the city. He is also adding a 90-day “fast-track regulatory review”, a promise to cut red tape for business development. Both of his competitors have made similar promises, but Mamdani’s is focused on the small-business economy. Cuomo’s plan for workforce training and development programmes includes expanding existing training and apprenticeship programmes for people who want to pursue jobs in fields like healthcare. While he has offered to promote more training programmes that would help with “preparation for jobs that don’t require a college degree”, he hasn’t offered any details about what that would be. Representatives for Cuomo did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for more details.   In 2021, Cuomo was behind one of the biggest tax increases on the ultrawealthy in New York state’s history. His administration raised the corporate tax rate by 0.75 percent. He also raised the taxes for those making $1m to $2m to 9.65 percent from 8.82 percent and built in two new tax brackets: For those making $5m to $25m, it was 10.3 percent, and 10.9 percent for those making more than $25m annually. His new plan as mayor includes no tax on tips for restaurant workers and eliminating income tax for New Yorkers making at or less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level – $31,300 annually for a single-person household and $64,300 for a family of four. For wealthy New Yorkers, he said he would increase the threshold for the mansion tax, an additional tax for a real estate transaction, to $2.5m, up from its current level of $1m. His planned tax cuts are raising questions among experts about how he would pay for his proposals. Unlike Mamdani, Cuomo has not provided a detailed plan on how he intends to pay for his platform, and Adams has his own existing record to point to, including increased tax collections and decreased spending. “They [Mamdani’s campaign] always get asked how are you going to pay for it [Mamdani’s policy proposals]. Cuomo and people to the right of him don’t face that same line of questioning,” Kaivan Shroff, a New York State delegate for the Democratic National Committee and senior adviser to the Institute for Education, told Al Jazeera. “The reality here is that [the Cuomo campaign] has come up with a plan to have a plan.” Follow Al Jazeera English:...