President Donald Trump wants America to manufacture more, strengthen supply chains, and depend less on foreign adversaries. Those are understandable goals. But broad tariffs on medical technology could undermine them.
Tariffs are taxes collected from American importers. Their costs ultimately show up as higher prices, lower profits, lower wages, and reduced investment. The Federal Reserve reports that core goods (excluding food and energy prices) inflation accelerated after tariffs increased in 2025, with larger price increases in categories more exposed to tariffs.
Medical technology shows why results can differ from intent.
America already leads in medtech. The industry generates more than $250 billion annually and supports nearly 3 million jobs through about 16,000 manufacturing facilities across all 50 states. Roughly 70% of medical technology used domestically is made here. Medtech employment has grown three times faster than manufacturing overall since 2018, with average salaries near $97,000.
American companies also exported $80 billion of medtech in 2024, more than automobiles or semiconductors, while investing more than $20 billion annually in research and development. This is the manufacturing success Washington says it wants.
Consider a pacemaker assembled in America with a specialized imported component. A tariff raises the cost of that input. If no comparable domestic supplier exists, the American manufacturer cannot simply switch to one.
Nor can medical supply chains move overnight. For certain devices, the Food and Drug Administration requires approval for changes to manufacturing facilities, methods, components, and sterilization procedures. Moving production of some approved devices to a new facility can require a 180-day PMA supplement and potentially a preapproval inspection.
The immediate result of a tariff may therefore be higher costs at an American factory rather than new American production.
Healthcare magnifies the problem. Medical devices are often incorporated into broader procedures paid through government reimbursement formulas, bundled payments, and negotiated contracts. Input costs can rise faster than reimbursements adjust, leaving manufacturers and hospitals with fewer ways to absorb them.
Innovation has an opportunity cost, too. Every additional dollar spent paying tariffs cannot simultaneously finance workers, equipment, research, or expansion. That matters in an industry investing more than $20 billion annually in R&D for rapidly evolving medical technologies.
National security deserves serious consideration. But resilience is not self-sufficiency.
Imports supply only about 30% of the U.S. medtech market, and most come from trusted partners in North America and Europe. Depending on an adversary for a critical technology can create a genuine vulnerability. Buying specialized inputs from allies presents a different economic and security question.
Washington should recognize that distinction.
A stronger manufacturing agenda would address why businesses choose to invest here. Keep taxes low. Reduce unnecessary regulation. Accelerate permitting. Produce abundant, reliable energy. Protect intellectual property. Expand access to foreign markets. Let American manufacturers purchase competitive inputs from reliable suppliers.
Trade lets American companies specialize where they have an advantage while drawing on global supply chains where needed. That can make domestic manufacturing more competitive, not less.
Trump wants more manufacturing, investment, and innovation in America. Medtech already delivers all three while producing technologies Americans depend on every day.
CONGRESS IS ABOUT TO DESTROY DECADES OF BRAIN INJURY RESEARCH IN ONE VOTE
Broad tariffs could instead raise production costs, squeeze healthcare providers, and divert investment from innovation.
If Washington wants more made in America, it should avoid taxing the companies already making it here.
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, host of the Let People Prosper show, and former associate director for economic policy at the White House Office of Management and Budget.