Health at Risk in Trade Wars

This article was exclusively written for The European Sting by Mr. Julian Pascal Beier (30), a second-year medical student at the Medical Faculty of Ulm University, Germany. He is affiliated with the International Federation of Medical Students Associations (IFMSA), cordial partner of The Sting. The opinions expressed in this piece belong strictly to the writer and do not necessarily reflect IFMSA’s view on the topic, nor The European Sting’s one.

When nations weaponize tariffs, sanctions, and export controls, health systems feel it first. Trade tensions disrupt supply chains for medicines, active pharmaceutical ingredients, diagnostics, vaccines, and protective equipment. Prices rise, deliveries slow, and clinics ration care. Less visible – yet equally harmful – are the chilling effects on scientific collaboration, regulatory cooperation, and investment in local manufacturing. The result is avoidable illness, eroded trust, and widened inequities.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how concentrated and fragile our medical supply chains are. Export restrictions on essential goods, bottlenecks in shipping, and semiconductor shortages that affected medical devices all reverberated from factory floors to hospital wards. Even modest tariffs on medical products can tip thin hospital budgets, while non-tariff barriers – like divergent standards or opaque licensing – delay access to lifesaving tools. Sanctions, though aimed at governments, can complicate procurement and payments for civilian health services unless humanitarian carve-outs are clear, broad, and workable.

These shocks hit low- and middle-income countries hardest. They face later delivery windows, smaller purchasing power, and greater currency risks. Intellectual property can enable innovation, yet in crises it may also constrain rapid, affordable access. Voluntary licenses and patent pools have helped, but unevenly. We should normalize the use of existing TRIPS flexibilities, invest in technology transfer, and build regional manufacturing hubs so that access is not hostage to geopolitics.

There is a more resilient path. Countries can codify “health corridors” in trade policy – pre-agreed exemptions that keep essential health goods, services, and data flowing during disputes. A plurilateral pledge to zero tariffs on a core list of essential health products would cushion shocks. Regulators can expand reliance pathways to speed approvals without lowering standards, while global pooled procurement and transparent tendering can dampen price spikes. Diversifying suppliers, maintaining strategic stockpiles, and mapping supply chain risks should become routine public health practice. For digital health, protect cross-border data flows for surveillance and research, with strong privacy safeguards. And ensure all sanctions regimes include broad, practical humanitarian exemptions with clear guidance.

Medical students have a role beyond the clinic. We can document stockouts, study price impacts, and advocate for rational substitution protocols when imports stall. We can support open science, equitable licensing, and regional manufacturing capacity. We can engage with ministries and trade negotiators to stress that agreements must pass the “waiting room test”: if a policy makes patients wait longer, it needs revision.

Trade wars may be cyclical; the right to health is not. Designing trade rules that shield health is both possible and urgent. In the next crisis, let care – not conflict – set the terms.

About the author

Julian Pascal Beier (30) is a second-year medical student at the Medical Faculty of Ulm University, Germany. He is a member of the national medical student organisation bvmd-Germany, which is a member association of the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA). In addition to health policy, where he is particularly interested in Digital Health, he acts as a student evaluator for the accreditation of study programmes.