Connect with us

Europe

US intensifies pressure on Germany over pharmaceutical pricing policies

Published

on

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.

Europe

Right-wing calls to ban left parties and groups mount in Europe

Published

on

Youth protests spreading across European nations, particularly in France, are serving as an occasion for right-wing parties and governments to escalate demands for bans.

In France, for example, right-wing conservative politicians such as Senate President Gérard Larcher and presidential candidate Bruno Retailleau of The Republicans (LR) are now openly demanding that the party La France Insoumise (LFI) be banned.

Matthieu Valet, a Member of the European Parliament from Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN), said at the party congress held in Orléans on 24–25 October: “We will dissolve all anti-fascist organisations.”

Polls unanimously show that RN candidate Marine Le Pen leads the vote for the presidential election in April 2027.

In Spain, the rising right-wing party Vox submitted a draft bill to parliament in December 2025 aimed at dissolving organisations linked to the anti-fascist movement.

Vox is polling at 19% in recent surveys, and the party hopes to enter government by forming a coalition with the conservative Popular Party (PP) following the elections on 29 November.

In such a scenario, banning anti-fascist organisations in Spain could become possible.

Acts of violence linked to protests are currently being used increasingly to threaten left organisations with bans.

Belgium offers another example. Since last year, Interior Minister Bernard Quintin has been attempting to ban organisations that threaten “national security or the foundations of the rule of law”.

In this context, government officials cite “Antifa” as an example. Even in the autumn of 2025, Georges-Louis Bouchez, president of Quintin’s Reformist Movement (MR), openly called for the “dissolution of Antifa”.

When property damage occurred on the fringes of student protests in Liège in early October this year, Quintin once again pointed to “Antifa-type” organisations in light of plans to ban such groups.

In June, Defence Minister Theo Francken of the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) also claimed, without providing evidence, that the opposition Workers’ Party of Belgium (PTB-PVDA) was responsible following property damage on the fringes of protests in Brussels.

PTB-PVDA supports the protests gaining momentum in Belgium against the government’s policies of militarisation and social spending cuts.

According to polls, the party is currently the second strongest in the country with 23% of the vote nationwide, and the strongest in the Brussels-Capital Region with 26%.

In Germany, the possibility of banning The Left (Die Linke) was raised by the influential mainstream newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

A recent editorial in the newspaper asked: “Why not ban Die Linke?”

Meanwhile, banning youth demonstrations is currently under discussion. As in Belgium, isolated violent incidents on the margins of peaceful protests are cited as justification, discrediting the demonstrations as a whole.

Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt is not only levelling blanket accusations against “left-wing groups” without providing evidence; he is also attributing instances of property damage to “agitators emerging from the migrant community”.

The Interior Minister of the state of Hesse, Roman Poseck, acknowledged that those detained on Saturday on assault charges were “predominantly German citizens”, but nonetheless claimed that they were “predominantly of migrant background”.

These statements therefore attribute responsibility for violence to leftists on the one hand, and to people of non-German origin on the other.

A representative from the Federal Ministry of the Interior under Dobrindt also attended a conference where White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller equated anti-fascists (“Antifa”) broadly with terrorism and categorised them as “enemies of civilisation”.

According to an investigation by the online portal FragDenStaat, this representative was Christian Klos, head of the Public Security Directorate.

Klos reportedly appeared in Washington as part of a “morning panel” on “The Threat Landscape of Far-Left Terrorism”.

What he said there remains unclear: FragDenStaat reported that the Federal Ministry of the Interior refused to publish several preparatory documents related to the presentation, citing their classified status.

However, it is now known that the Interior Ministry took part in a preparatory workshop in the US in May with two officials at the “relevant specialist division level”.

In addition, the federal government confirmed in early October that a follow-up event to the Washington conference would be held this autumn.

The event’s focus will be the “sharing of professional experience among security and law enforcement agencies from various countries”, centring specifically on “manifestations, developments, and challenges in the field of violent left-wing extremism”.

The US Department of State had hosted a conference on 16 July with the participation of representatives from more than 60 countries across North and South America, Europe, and parts of Asia.

The focus of the conference was the “international resurgence of far-left political terrorism”.

Alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Stephen Miller set the tone of the conference.

In a speech, Miller claimed that leftists were “fundamentally driven by envy, hatred, and malice”, adding that no one at anti-fascist demonstrations looked like a “normal human being”.

Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt has played a prominent role for years in crackdowns on left-wing organisations.

While serving as CSU general secretary in 2011 and 2012, his rhetoric caused astonishment even within his own party.

In August 2011, for instance, he demanded that authorities “examine whether proceedings to ban Die Linke should be initiated”.

In January 2012, he stated that he believed “in the medium term, we must make every effort to also launch proceedings to ban [the party Die Linke]”.

At the time, Gerda Hasselfeldt, then leader of the CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, expressed her surprise: “At present, I see no grounds for proceedings to ban Die Linke.”

Even after taking office as Federal Interior Minister, Dobrindt continued to stand out with striking rhetoric.

In June 2025, during the presentation of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution report, he displayed graphs with different scales, implying that the number of “far-left extremists” in Germany exceeded that of right-wing extremists.

In December 2025, he suggested that “left-wing extremists” could engage in “espionage or sabotage” activities on behalf of foreign powers.

Continue Reading

Europe

Low EU gas stocks risk stoking global prices, IEA report warns

Published

on

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has stated that the global gas market could remain tight “until later in 2027” as European gas storage levels stand at their lowest point in a decade ahead of the winter season.

Presenting its “Global Gas Security Review 2026” report, the IEA noted that depleted storage inventories will heighten Europe’s reliance on global liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies to meet peak demand, particularly in the event of a colder-than-expected winter.

“Under colder-than-average weather conditions and prolonged disruptions to LNG flows through the Strait of Hormuz, EU gas storage levels could drop to below 10% of working capacity by the end of March 2027,” the report said.

Depleted stock levels could intensify competition for the limited volume of flexible LNG cargoes with countries in Asia and South America that have limited storage options, putting upward pressure on prices this winter.

The IEA noted, “Low storage levels in Europe could also significantly increase gas injection requirements to replenish stocks through the summer of 2027, potentially extending tightness in the global market well into next year.”

With the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz cutting more than 60 billion cubic metres of supply from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, Asian and European prices have already reached their highest levels since the 2022-23 gas supply crisis.

The report stated that an increase in LNG supply, particularly from North America, alongside more flexible trading arrangements, has helped cushion the impact of the Hormuz supply shock.

The report forecasts that global LNG supply will drop in 2026 by a record 3%, or around 20 billion cubic metres, compared with 2025.

Global gas demand is expected to fall by roughly 1.5%, or nearly 65 billion cubic metres, driven by lost demand across the Middle East, declining industrial gas consumption in Europe, and power sectors switching from gas to coal across multiple Asian countries.

The IEA said, “These findings highlight the importance of strengthening international cooperation on gas supply security, even as global markets become more flexible.”

The EU was expected to fill its underground gas storage facilities to at least 90% ahead of the winter season.

However, after that requirement was relaxed because of the ongoing crisis, the average fullness rate stood at just 74.6% as of 1 November.

This shortfall was primarily driven by lower-than-normal inventories in Germany and the Netherlands.

The IEA observed that because storage levels for this time of year are at their lowest since 2013, the EU has become uniquely dependent on LNG shipments.

In the event of an exceptionally cold winter, EU storage fullness could drop below 10% by March, leaving the bloc vulnerable to “additional cold spells, technical failures, or other supply disruptions”.

However, the Paris-based energy security agency added that these challenges could extend well beyond the winter months.LNG

Continue Reading

Europe

Pro-Ukraine Republicans in US Congress dwindle after departures

Published

on

The number of influential Republicans advocating support for Ukraine in the US Congress is expected to decline following the midterm elections.

According to reporting by Politico, several senior figures, including former Senate Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell, are set to leave Congress.

Michael Sawkiw, head of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, described the departing lawmakers as “real heavyweights” among Ukraine’s supporters.

An unnamed adviser to a Republican member of the House of Representatives said these departures could reduce the number of comprehensive legislative bills drafted in Kyiv’s favour.

The adviser noted concerns that Congress may no longer retain a coalition capable of drafting legislation that could secure the approval of Donald Trump’s administration while simultaneously conducting back-channel contacts to persuade the White House.

New candidates keep military aid at arm’s length

Mitch McConnell had advocated providing military aid and sharing intelligence with Ukraine.

However, several candidates seeking the seats of departing Republicans remain distant toward Kyiv. Andy Barr, who launched a candidacy to replace McConnell, had voted against legislation supporting Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the report stated that Republicans could retain their roles as channels of communication with Trump and as providers of the majorities required to override a presidential veto.

The death of Senator Lindsey Graham, an architect of sanctions against Russia, was also reported to have caused grief among Ukraine supporters. The House member’s adviser pointed to Senator Katie Britt among Graham’s possible successors, noting that Britt had supported initiatives imposing restrictions on Russia.

According to the report, pro-Ukraine Republicans may attempt to block the White House’s agenda before the current congressional term concludes.

Concerns that Republican losses in the midterms could affect Ukraine aid and NATO had surfaced previously.

It is noted that if Congress curtails Trump’s domestic authority, he could turn his focus toward foreign policy. An unnamed NATO diplomat remarked that the US president’s posture could harden under such circumstances.

Other sources speaking to Politico suggested that Trump could respond to an electoral defeat by drawing down the American military presence in Europe, trimming contributions to the NATO budget, curbing the PURL programme involving weapons procurement for Ukraine, and pursuing closer ties with Russia.

Jennifer Kavanagh, an expert at the think tank Defense Priorities, pointed out that European nations would struggle to compensate for any reduction in US support across electronic warfare, air defence, intelligence, aerial refuelling, and logistics.

Race continues for House and Senate

In the US congressional midterm elections, voters will head to the polls to decide all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.

The outcome will determine which party holds the majority in both chambers of Congress for two years.

According to opinion polls cited by Reuters, Democrats appear to have a chance of winning a majority in the House of Representatives, whereas their odds of seizing control of the Senate are judged to be low.

It is noted that if Democrats secure a majority, they could open investigations into Trump, constrain spending priorities, and block various initiatives.

The US leader, however, will continue to retain broad powers over trade, foreign policy, and the federal bureaucracy.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey