Should India worry about Trump’s 100% tariff on branded pharma drug imports?

India’s US pharma exports are mostly generics, so direct exposure to a 100% tariff on branded or patented drugs is small for now, but careful tracking is needed as definitions and scope evolve. India shipped about $8.7–13.1 billion of pharma to the US in 2024, roughly a third of India’s total, with generics forming the lion’s share. Multiple estimates suggest 78–90% of India’s US-bound pharma is generic, placing branded at roughly 10–22% in value, and likely lower in unit terms because brand prices are higher.

By company, the biggest US revenue exposures include Dr Reddy’s at about 46–47% of sales, Sun Pharma around 33–37%, Lupin near 36%, Zydus about 48%, Biocon around 46%, Cipla roughly 29–30%, and Aurobindo with US at about half of exports, though mixes are largely generic. Where branded risk sits is in specialty and innovator portfolios: Sun’s US sales are $2.1–2.3 billion FY26 with 55–57% specialty brands, and only about 10% of specialty output made in the US, so specialty brands face higher tariff sensitivity if captured by the rule. Analysts also flag DRL’s limited US-made share under 15% FY27 and Zydus’s minimal US production, implying mitigation would need exemptions via US buildouts or supply chain shifts if branded lines are hit.

At an industry level, India supplies about 40–47% of US generics by volume, while generics form around 90% of US prescriptions but ~20% of spend, so the dollar impact of a branded-only tariff falls more on higher-value brands than on Indian volumes today. Estimates put India’s generic exports to the US at about $10.5 billion in FY25, roughly 78% of India’s pharma exports to the US, underscoring the current cushion if generics remain exempt. The key risks are policy creep into complex generics or biosimilars and how “branded generics” are classified, so firms with specialty brands should evaluate US manufacturing exemptions, contract structures, and alternative sourcing plans early.