The presence of Emma Walmsley, the chief executive of British pharmaceutical giant GSK, at a state banquet for Donald Trump was a clear display of high-level CEO diplomacy. The intention was to showcase the strength of the US-UK business relationship and subtly lobby for the interests of a critical UK sector. The subsequent threat of a 100% tariff on pharmaceuticals shows that this effort fell short.
The failure of the “Walmsley effect” to secure protection for her industry highlights a fundamental truth about the current US administration: access and personal rapport do not necessarily translate into policy influence. While the CEO of one of the world’s largest drug companies was dining with the king and the US leader, her industry’s future was being decided by a protectionist agenda that prioritizes onshoring over alliances.
This outcome is a sobering reality check for corporations that have historically relied on their top executives to build relationships with political leaders. In an era of transactional, “America First” politics, a seat at the table is no guarantee of a favorable outcome. The decision-making process appears insulated from the traditional levers of corporate diplomacy.
The episode leaves the UK pharmaceutical sector “in limbo,” a stark contrast to the optimistic atmosphere of the state visit. It underscores the vulnerability of an industry that was inexplicably left out of a US tariff deal five months ago, forcing it to rely on informal channels of influence that ultimately proved ineffective.
As the UK government now takes the lead in formal negotiations, the lesson for the corporate world is clear. While CEO diplomacy remains important, it cannot be a substitute for the hard-won security of a comprehensive and legally binding trade agreement, especially when dealing with an administration as unpredictable as the current one.