The Trump administration is continuing to press the German government to raise pharmaceutical prices in Germany.

According to German Foreign Policy, Washington argues that the pharmaceutical industry’s research and development investments are financed primarily through the US market.

The White House contends that other countries continue to benefit from medical innovation despite contributing little to its cost.

President Donald Trump has accused Germany and other countries of “global freeloading.” On June 18, the United States launched a Section 301 investigation against Germany, citing the country’s “persistent underpayment for innovative medicines” in an effort to improve profit conditions for the pharmaceutical industry operating there.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz rejected the demand, although the Economy Ministry said it remains open to negotiations.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck have already made concessions by offering selected medicines at lower prices through the new TrumpRX platform.

At the same time, together with companies including Bayer, they are pressing for higher drug prices across EU countries, warning that they could otherwise delay or withhold the launch of new medicines in Europe in order to prevent international price comparisons.

Trump accuses Germany and the EU of “freeloading”

The United States has the highest pharmaceutical prices in the world, followed by Switzerland, Germany and Canada.

The Trump administration says it intends to change that. Claiming to have identified “global freeloading,” the White House blames what it describes as “socialist healthcare systems” in Germany and across the European Union.

In May 2025, Trump signed an executive order stating that the United States would henceforth use the lowest price charged for a medicine in any industrialized country as the benchmark for its domestic pharmaceutical market.

The order states that the objective of US trade policy is “to support manufacturers in raising prices abroad while using the resulting additional revenue to reduce prices directly for American patients and taxpayers.”

The White House embraces pharmaceutical industry arguments

The previous administration frequently clashed with the pharmaceutical industry. After reducing the prices of 10 widely used medicines in 2024, then-President Joe Biden declared, “We beat Big Pharma.”

The issue has taken a different direction under the Trump administration. In contrast to Democrats, Republicans have broadly accepted high drug prices as justified.

The administration has embraced the pharmaceutical industry’s argument that elevated prices are necessary to finance research spending.

The report argues that this claim conflicts with the fact that companies such as AstraZeneca and Bayer have been reducing their own laboratory operations while increasingly acquiring promising biotechnology startups.

It also argues that the administration overlooks the industry’s practice of grouping substantial marketing expenditures under the category of “development.”

Confrontation with Germany, compromise with Britain

In line with Trump’s May 2025 executive order, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer spent months attempting to persuade the German government to reallocate healthcare resources in favor of the pharmaceutical industry.

Those negotiations failed. As a result, in mid-June Greer initiated Section 301 proceedings against Germany over what he described as “persistent underpayment for innovative medicines.”

Greer also openly criticized Germany’s proposed Health Insurance Contribution Stability Act, saying he was “particularly concerned by reports that Germany will rapidly enact legislation that would further reduce spending on innovative medicines.”

The United States has already reached an agreement with the United Kingdom. To avoid the threat of higher tariffs on British pharmaceutical exports, London agreed, among other measures, to pay higher prices for newly launched medicines.

According to an analysis published in the British Medical Journal, the agreement will cost the National Health Service (NHS) approximately 51.5 billion euros by 2036.

The study’s authors argue that the required reallocation of resources will create major gaps in healthcare provision and could result in as many as 229,000 additional deaths.

Berlin stands firm: “Drug pricing is our domestic affair”

The German government has firmly rejected Washington’s claims as unfounded.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Health Minister Nina Warken pointed to the EU-US trade agreement, which includes a 15% tariff on pharmaceutical imports.

Merz described pharmaceutical price regulation in Germany as “entirely a domestic matter,” while Warken rejected any concessions, saying there was “very little room for maneuver.”

Only the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs indicated a willingness to negotiate. A ministry spokesperson said Berlin would seek dialogue with the United States on the issue.

On Tuesday, representatives from the Health Ministry and the Federal Chancellery met with European Commission Director-General for Trade Ditte Juul Jørgensen to discuss a common strategy.

German pharmaceutical companies yield to Trump

In July 2025, Trump sent letters to 17 pharmaceutical companies demanding that they reduce US prescription drug prices to the lowest level charged in any other developed country.

Two German drugmakers, Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck, received the letters, which called on them to apply “most-favored nation” pricing in the United States.

Both companies agreed.

Boehringer Ingelheim said, “We will continue to work constructively with governments, regulators and patient organizations to ensure patients have access to affordable medicines while making sure life-saving medical innovation remains possible.”

The company now offers three medicines at substantially discounted prices through the TrumpRX platform.

Merck also lists three medicines on the platform and has agreed to expand domestic production of fertility treatments in the future.

“Through our collaboration with President Trump and his administration, more families in the United States will now have access to innovative fertility treatments and, we hope, realize their dream of having children,” Merck Chief Executive Danny Bar-Zohar said.

Bayer backed Trump’s election campaign

Other pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Bayer, are also seeking a “proactive” agreement with the administration out of concern that they could otherwise face stricter cost-cutting measures.

The Leverkusen-based company has not criticized Trump’s policies. It donated $122,000 to his election campaign, sponsored his inauguration and now supports his criticism of Berlin and Brussels.

Chief Executive Bill Anderson said in an interview:

“Yes, I understand the US government’s frustration with European pharmaceutical policy. Every European government wants to create jobs in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. But when it comes to pricing innovative medicines, they are willing to pay only a fraction of what the United States pays. That is unacceptable.”

Stefan Oelrich, a member of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Executive Committee, also argued that “prices for new products in Europe must increase.”

Oelrich said he personally conveyed that position to EU Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi during the commissioner’s visit to Bayer’s Berlin office in June.

According to the EU Transparency Register, Bayer lobbyists and members of Várhelyi’s cabinet have held numerous meetings, suggesting the issue has remained high on the agenda.

The Leverkusen-based company also joined other pharmaceutical manufacturers in sending a letter on the matter to the European Commission.

Major pharmaceutical companies pressure the EU

Seeking additional leverage, major drugmakers argue that fewer medicines are being submitted for approval in EU countries because manufacturers want to avoid creating price benchmarks that could be used by the US government.

“These are not empty threats; this is already happening. Europe is on a path where, in the end, almost no new medicines will be approved,” said Matthias Berninger, Bayer’s chief public affairs officer.

The German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA), founded by Bayer, previously used the same argument in its campaign against the Health Insurance Stability Act.

In a full-page newspaper advertisement, the lobbying group urged lawmakers not to undermine pharmaceutical industry profits in order to safeguard medicine supplies.

“Members of the Bundestag, you will decide whether tomorrow’s medicines reach Germany,” the advertisement stated.

The report argues, however, that the legislation places virtually no burden on the pharmaceutical industry while preserving favorable business conditions for the sector.

“Spending on pharmaceuticals is expected to continue increasing,” the advertisement added.

Since the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s tariff increases were unlawful, the administration has based much of its aggressive trade strategy on Section 301 proceedings such as the case against Germany.

The legal basis for those proceedings is a provision of the US Trade Act of 1974. In the case against Germany, Berlin has until Aug. 10 to submit its response, while a public hearing is scheduled for Sept. 22.

Germany’s Lower Saxony Ministry for the Environment has approved the expansion of the nuclear fuel plant in the city of Lingen.

According to Die Zeit, the facility will use technology developed by TVEL, a subsidiary of Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom, to produce hexagonal fuel assemblies for Russian-designed nuclear reactors.

The plant is owned by Advanced Nuclear Fuels (ANF), a subsidiary of the French nuclear group Framatome. The expansion authorization allows the facility to manufacture fuel assemblies compatible with Russian-designed reactors.

Lower Saxony Environment Minister Christian Meyer criticized the decision, describing cooperation with Rosatom as “fundamentally the wrong” political choice. He argued that Germany should reduce its dependence on Russia, particularly in the nuclear energy sector.

According to Welt, the approval is subject to additional security conditions. Employees of TVEL and Rosatom will not be permitted to enter the facility. Equipment and software of Russian origin will undergo separate inspections and be isolated from the plant’s broader information technology infrastructure.

Fuel rods supplied from Russia will also be subject to comprehensive inspections before being used.

Germany backed sanctions targeting Russia’s nuclear sector in 2023. Before the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, Russia was among the leading uranium suppliers to both the United States and the former Soviet republics that are now members of the European Union.

However, Eurostat data show that, in value terms, the European Union’s imports of nuclear fuel from Russia during the first four months of 2026 increased more than fivefold compared with the same period a year earlier.

About three years ago, Germany’s Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA) declined to grant Siemens Energy all of the export licenses required for gas-insulated switchgear that was to be supplied to the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant being built by Rosatom in Türkiye.

Shortly before that, BAFA also blocked the shipment of certain equipment intended for the Paks II Nuclear Power Plant in Hungary, which is likewise being constructed by Rosatom.

The European Commission has formally rejected a European Citizens’ Initiative launched earlier this year by two white supremacists seeking the mass deportation of people through what they describe as “remigration.”

“The initiative will not be registered by the Commission,” EU Commissioner for Social Rights Roxana Mînzatu said.

Speaking to reporters in Brussels on Wednesday (July 22), Mînzatu said the initiative lacked a valid legal basis.

In a more detailed explanation, the Commission said the proposal would constitute discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin.

Brussels focused in particular on the initiative’s proposed temporary moratorium on new “non-Western” migration channels, including visas for education and family reunification.

The Commission said the campaign sought to justify the moratorium by invoking the “ethnic and cultural continuity” of Europe’s “indigenous peoples” and opposition to what its charter describes as “demographic replacement” by non-Western and non-European migrants.

Despite the Commission’s decision, the “Save Europe Act” had gathered nearly 600,000 signatures as of publication, including support from ultranationalist politicians, ethnonationalist activists and several members of the European Parliament calling for Europe to remain predominantly white and Christian.

Beyond the proposed migration moratorium, the initiative calls for tighter external border controls, faster deportation procedures, asylum system reform, the removal of welfare incentives it identifies as encouraging migration, and the creation of an EU-wide framework for remigration supported by voluntary or financial incentives.

Among those who signed the initiative was former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, along with newly elected European Parliament member Balázs Orbán.

Also backing the proposal were Björn Höcke, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader in the German state of Thuringia who was previously fined for using a Nazi-era slogan, and Maximilian Märkl of Germany’s Identitarian Movement.

Members of the European Parliament who signed the initiative also include Italian lawmaker Roberto Vannacci, who recently founded the National Future party, which is ideologically similar to the AfD.

Other prominent MEP signatories include Austria’s Petra Steger, Belgium’s Filip Dewinter and Barbara Bonte, Germany’s Tomasz Froelich, Slovakia’s Milan Uhrik, Slovenia’s Branko Grims and Poland’s Dominik Tarczyński.

The initiative was launched in late May by Dutch white supremacist Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Austrian neo-Nazi Martin Sellner, calling for an end to all non-Western and non-European migration.

It also sought to persuade other individuals, including those deemed to impose “a significant cultural or financial burden on member states,” to leave voluntarily.

Earlier this month, Vlaardingerbroek staged a promotional event outside the European Parliament to rally support for the proposal.

“The people want remigration!” she wrote on X.

Remigration is a term commonly used by Western right-wing and ethnonationalist movements to describe the mass deportation of migrants, including individuals who hold European citizenship.

In a post on X, the campaign criticized the Commission’s decision, saying, “Their motivation is vague, weak and reveals their true anti-democratic nature,” and accused the Commission of ignoring “the voices of nearly 600,000 European patriots.”

Following Wednesday’s rejection, the campaign team said it would announce its next steps shortly, presenting the decision not as the end of the movement but as further evidence of the political confrontation it was created to provoke.