Unpacking the Framework: Inside the US-UK Tech Prosperity Deal

While the recent suspension of the US-UK "Tech Prosperity Deal" has dominated the headlines, smart stakeholders know that to navigate the future, you must understand the blueprint. Signed during President Trump’s state visit to the UK in September 2025, this agreement was designed to be a "generational step-change" in the transatlantic special relationship.

Based on the Memorandum of Understanding and the US Embassy’s summary, here are the three core pillars of the deal that every tech and energy leader needs to know.

1. Artificial Intelligence: Aligning Standards & Science

The deal focuses heavily on regulatory alignment to prevent a fragmented AI market.

• Standards & Safety: It establishes a direct partnership between the U.S. Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) and the UK AI Security Institute (AISI) to harmonize model testing and risk management.

• AI for Science: A flagship program was created to link U.S. agencies (DOE, HHS, NSF) with UK counterparts to accelerate biotechnology breakthroughs, specifically in cancer research and precision medicine.

2. Civil Nuclear Energy: Cutting Red Tape & Russian Dependence

For the energy sector, the deal proposes a radical streamlining of regulatory hurdles.

• Faster Licensing: The agreement targets a timeline of just two years for reactor design reviews and one year for site licensing by aligning the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and UK Office for Nuclear Regulation.

• Energy Security: It commits the UK to full independence from Russian nuclear fuel by 2028, ensuring a secure, allied supply chain.

3. Quantum Computing: The Race for Standards

Recognizing that Quantum is the next frontier, the deal emphasizes interoperability. It creates a joint benchmarking task force to set shared standards for hardware and algorithms, ensuring that U.S. and UK quantum ecosystems can grow together rather than as competitors.

The "Operative" Clause

Crucially, the MOU includes a provision that the deal only becomes "operative" alongside progress on the broader Economic Prosperity Deal. This legal nuance is exactly why the current trade disputes have halted implementation—a reminder that in international agreements, the fine print always matters.

Call to Action Whether this deal is revived or renegotiated, the regulatory intent of both nations is clear. If your organization operates in AI, nuclear energy, or quantum computing, you need a strategy that anticipates these converging standards. Contact Lanton Strategies today to position your business for the future of transatlantic tech policy.

Policy Alert: What the £31bn Tech Deal Suspension Means for US and UK Innovation

With the Trump administration’s sudden suspension of the £31bn "Tech Prosperity Deal," the future of transatlantic innovation faces immediate and critical uncertainty. As reported, this landmark agreement—intended to bolster cooperation in AI, quantum computing, and civil nuclear energy—has been paused due to frustrations over non-tariff trade barriers and digital services taxes.

This development highlights the volatility of international trade agreements and the transactional nature of the current regulatory environment. To understand the full scope of the cooperation and specific provisions that are now at risk, I encourage stakeholders to review the details of the of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the “Tech Prosperity Deal” click here.

The suspension places pledged investment from major tech players on ice and creates significant headwinds for innovation hubs in both nations. For stakeholders, this is a stark reminder that policy and prosperity are inextricably linked.

At Lanton Law and Lanton Strategies, we specialize in helping Transatlantic organizations navigate these complex government affairs and legal challenges. When the geopolitical landscape shifts, your strategy must adapt immediately.

Don't let diplomatic friction stall your innovation pipeline. Contact us today for strategic consulting on how this suspension impacts your business. Let’s discuss how we can help you pivot and thrive despite these headwinds.

New Trans-Atlantic Drug Pricing Deal: What Supply Chain Stakeholders Must Know

In a major development for the global life-sciences landscape, the United States and the United Kingdom have reached an agreement in principle that reshapes how both countries approach pharmaceutical pricing and cross-border trade.

Under the agreement, the U.K. will raise the net price of new medicines by 25%, reversing years of downward pressure that had strained returns on innovative therapies. The government will also ease the financial burden of its VPAG rebate structure, capping repayment levels and committing to maintain rebate rates at or below approximately 15% starting in 2026. These changes reflect a broader acknowledgment that sustaining innovation requires restoring reasonable margins across the branded pharmaceutical marketplace.

In exchange, the United States will exempt U.K.-origin pharmaceuticals, active ingredients, and medical technologies from current and prospective Section 232 tariffs. This concession reduces supply-chain volatility and removes a major source of uncertainty for U.S. companies sourcing components or finished products from the U.K. It also signals a more cooperative posture between two major life-sciences hubs as they seek to reinforce global competitiveness.

For 2026, this agreement provides both opportunity and complexity. Companies should monitor how implementation unfolds and assess how pricing, market access, and supply-chain exposure may shift.

If you are a pharmaceutical supply-chain stakeholder seeking help assessing potential risks or developing a 2026 strategy, contact Lanton Strategies today. Our team can guide you through the policy, regulatory, and market implications of this evolving landscape.

Trump’s Pharmaceutical Tariffs: A New Operating Era for Healthcare

The Trump administration's recent trade and healthcare policies are poised to introduce significant uncertainty into the U.S. healthcare industry. Two pivotal executive actions—the initiation of a Section 232 national security investigation into pharmaceutical imports and the signing of the executive order titled “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First”—highlight the administration's approach.​

On April 1, 2025, the Department of Commerce commenced a Section 232 investigation to assess the national security implications of importing pharmaceuticals and their ingredients. This encompasses finished drug products, active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and key starting materials. The investigation aims to determine whether reliance on foreign sources compromises national security, potentially leading to the imposition of tariffs ranging from 10% to 25% on these imports.

Simultaneously, President Trump signed the executive order “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First” on April 15, 2025. This order seeks to reduce prescription drug costs by enhancing Medicare drug price negotiations, reinstating discounted insulin programs, and increasing transparency in hospital drug acquisition costs.

While these measures aim to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce drug prices, they introduce several uncertainties:​

1. Supply Chain Disruptions: Tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals could disrupt existing supply chains, leading to potential shortages and increased costs for healthcare providers and patients.​

2. Regulatory Ambiguity: The executive order lacks detailed implementation plans, leaving stakeholders uncertain about how the policies will be enforced and their practical implications.

3. Market Volatility: The potential for tariffs and changes in drug pricing regulations may lead to market instability, affecting investment decisions within the pharmaceutical industry.​

In this evolving landscape, healthcare entities must navigate the complexities of new trade policies and regulatory reforms. Lanton Law offers expertise in crafting targeted messaging and engaging with policymakers to advocate for client interests. Our team is equipped to assist clients in understanding and responding to these changes effectively. Contact us to learn more.​

Senator Wyden Requests FTC To Investigate Retail Pharmacy Market Consolidation

In a recent press release Senator Wyden (D-OR) has sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to according to “investigate recent consolidations in Oregon’s retail pharmacy market to assess whether large national pharmacy chains and health plans have acted to make this market less competitive.”

“Wyden’s letter highlights ongoing industry dynamics that pose significant challenges to small, independent pharmacies. One particular practice known as direct and indirect remuneration, a form of retrospective fees imposed on pharmacies by pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) has been cited as a particular challenge for these pharmacies to maintain healthy finances. According to a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), PBMs increased pharmacy DIR fees under Medicare Part D by 91,500 percent from 2010 to 2019.”

DIR fees have been something that the Senator has been monitoring. His press release states “In October, Wyden also urged the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to review pharmacy closures nationwide in the last five years with a focus on how fees imposed by Medicare Part D plans and middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers are driving those closures.”

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences and technology. Our pharmacy practice has been helping pharmacies nationwide with operational issues, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory inquiries, audits, licensure, employment issues and contracting. Our lobbying efforts help pharmacies nationwide achieve improved business climates through carefully crafted legislation.  

If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

White House Releases Report Outlining Steps to Strengthen Critical Supply Chains

In February 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order to direct a government-wide “approach to assessing vulnerabilities in, and strengthening the resilience of, critical supply chains.” 

The key findings highlight recommendations from its “comprehensive 100-day supply chain assessments for four critical products: semiconductor manufacturing and advanced packaging; large capacity batteries, like those for electric vehicles; critical minerals and materials; and pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs).” 

Lanton Law has several years of experience with supply chain issues. Our firm is a national boutique regulatory law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. 

If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

How Will the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement Affect Biosimilars?

This article appeared in The Center for Biosimilars.

For years we have witnessed the fierce debate over whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is serving the best interests of the United States. In following up on a 2016 campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA, the new NAFTA, called the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), is currently being debated by Congress, and there are concerns as to whether the agreement will be ratified.

Since Democrats control the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is a major factor in determining how fast this agreement moves through Congress. One of the major Democratic points of concern is how prescription drugs, namely biologics, are handled in the USMCA.

The point of contention for biologics occurs in the agreement’s exclusivity period. Biosimilar manufacturers have raised concerns about the fact that the USMCA would award biologic manufacturers 10 years of market exclusivity.

The USMCA would not change the current biologic exclusivity in the United States. According to the current US law, “With regard to protecting new biologics, a Party shall, with respect to the first marketing approval in a Party of a new pharmaceutical product that is, or contains, a biologic, provide effective market protection...for a period of at least ten years from the date of first marketing approval of that product in that Party.”

However, the USMCA would raise the exclusivity timelines in Canada and Mexico, which could impact biosimilar manufacturers operating in those markets.

Supporters argue that the exclusivity period doesn’t change existing US law, innovators need time to recoup research and development costs, and drug costs may be reduced in the United States, since subsidization would be reduced due to the expansion of biologic exclusivity in Mexico and Canada.

USMCA critics, however, argue that the Administration’s Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices featured greater biosimilar utilization, and the USMCA contradicts this goal. The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) argues in its position that the “USMCA expands the definition of biologics, doubling exclusivity for certain medicines” and “expands the scope of drug exclusivities beyond US law.” According to AAM, “All of these issues should be conformed to the US Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the Biosimilars Law [the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act].”

So where does all this leave us? Negotiations between the Democrats and the Administration’s trade czar, Robert Lighthizer, continue. Going into an election year, the USMCA could serve as political fodder. Democrats may use this to criticize the President’s foreign policy while the President could make good on his threat to invoke the 6-month notice period and withdraw from NAFTA, but that action could be risky, since the economic effects are unknown going into 2020’s election.

One thing is certain; prescription drug prices remain a potent political issue where change has been called for by the electorate. Will the USMCA’s current form be enough or will further changes be realized?