For the drug in­dus­try, Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump's tar­iffs haven't start­ed to re­al­ly hurt. At least not yet.

On Thurs­day, sev­er­al of the world’s largest phar­ma com­pa­nies — Mer­ck, Bris­tol My­ers Squibb, Sanofi and Roche — re­port­ed quar­ter­ly earn­ings and shared their fi­nan­cial fore­casts for the year. The mes­sage from the in­dus­try is that the im­pact of the tar­iffs is re­al, but man­age­able. And the drug­mak­ers were ea­ger to po­si­tion them­selves as ful­ly pre­pared for what­ev­er may come next.

“We have run all sce­nar­ios,” Sanofi CFO François-Xavier Roger said on a call with re­porters Thurs­day.

Mer­ck CEO Rob Davis told in­vestors on Thurs­day that he’s con­fi­dent in the com­pa­ny’s abil­i­ty to pro­tect its top-sell­ing prod­uct from the po­ten­tial im­pacts of in­dus­try-spe­cif­ic tar­iffs.

With­out go­ing in­to much de­tail on the im­pli­ca­tions of phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal tar­iffs threat­ened by the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion, Davis said dur­ing the com­pa­ny’s first-quar­ter earn­ings call that Mer­ck is “as well-po­si­tioned on Keytru­da as you can be.”

Keytru­da is Mer­ck’s “biggest ex­po­sure” in the near term, but the com­pa­ny has “ba­si­cal­ly on-hand in­ven­to­ry in the Unit­ed States to pro­tect us through all of 2025,” with plans un­der­way to pre­pare for 2026 and 2027, he said.

“Ob­vi­ous­ly, we have to wait and see what the tar­iffs are, so I don't want to speak to the spe­cif­ic im­pli­ca­tions,” Davis said. “But I think we're po­si­tioned on both Keytru­da and the new prod­ucts.”

The grow­ing drug dis­count pro­gram for low-in­come Amer­i­cans, known as the 340B pro­gram, has "trans­paren­cy and over­sight con­cerns" and needs to be re­formed, Sen. Bill Cas­sidy (R-LA), chair of the Sen­ate Health, Ed­u­ca­tion, La­bor and Pen­sions Com­mit­tee, said in a sweep­ing new re­port re­leased Thurs­day.

The re­port is the re­sult of an in­ves­ti­ga­tion that be­gan in 2023 on how 340B op­er­ates, and it calls for wider con­gres­sion­al re­forms to en­sure 340B dis­counts trans­late to bet­ter ac­cess and low­er costs for pa­tients. An­nu­al re­port­ing on how hos­pi­tal­s' 340B rev­enue is used to en­sure pa­tient sav­ings is among the trans­paren­cy re­forms Cas­sidy pro­pos­es.

In re­sponse to Cas­sidy's in­quiries from last Sep­tem­ber, the re­port states that Eli Lil­ly, Am­gen and John­son & John­son said they've pro­vid­ed bil­lions of dol­lars in dis­counts on drugs through 340B. All cri­tiqued the pro­gram for parts of what it's be­come, al­though none called for the elim­i­na­tion of 340B.

San Diego biotech Halozyme is su­ing Mer­ck over an in­jectable ver­sion of its block­buster can­cer drug, al­leg­ing that the new for­mu­la­tion will in­fringe on Halozyme's un­der-the-skin de­liv­ery patents.

The com­pa­ny al­leged Thurs­day that sub­cu­ta­neous Keytru­da will in­fringe on patents that Halozyme filed be­gin­ning in 2011. Mer­ck is set to hear back from the FDA on its ap­pli­ca­tion for the prod­uct by the end of Sep­tem­ber and plans to launch this year, ac­cord­ing to Halozyme.

The law­suit, filed in fed­er­al dis­trict court in New Jer­sey, fol­lows through on a warn­ing Halozyme is­sued last month.

“Mer­ck has long been aware of Halozyme's patents and still pro­ceed­ed to ap­pro­pri­ate Halozyme's tech­nol­o­gy in or­der to de­vel­op SC Keytru­da," Halozyme chief le­gal of­fi­cer Mark Sny­der said in a re­lease.