“This current administration is like nothing that we've seen before,” said a managing partner of a global venture capital firm who spoke to BioWorld on the condition of anonymity. “President Trump’s first term was bad,” he said, “but nobody knows what’s coming.” “This is truly nationalism at its worst, because he won on the campaign [largely] to protect American jobs, claiming that Americans have been unfairly treated.” And it's not just China, he said, but India and other countries will also likely be affected.

Carrying out his campaign promises to reform government, President Donald Trump signed 46 executive orders (EOs) between Jan. 20-31 that have been published in the Federal Register. Of those, 26 were signed after noon and between all the inaugural events on Trump’s first day in office. Since then, he’s signed at least eight more orders, and the administration has issued numerous memos, several of which are intended to implement the EOs. Given the quantity, scope and content of the EOs Trump has issued over the past few weeks, it’s no surprise that they’ve generated controversy, a lot of uncertainty and at least a few court challenges.

The second Trump administration already left a large footprint on the administrative state as it took on trading nations with tariffs that affect device makers. Among these controversies is the question of whether gender should be included in regulatory considerations, such as in the case of a recent update on a 2014 guidance that has been removed from the device guidance webpage.

BioWorld’s three-part analysis of M&As sought to discover successful transactions and to understand the trend of multibillion-dollar deals that have become commonplace in the last decade. Instead, more than 80% of the acquisitions explored simply indicate that buyers are paying too much, suggesting that transactions meant to restore pipelines and revenues with innovative and marketed products are sometimes akin to high-stakes gambling. In part three, the final part of this series, we examine four more disappointments in which the return on investment (ROI) remains well behind the price paid in acquiring the company.

Eli Lilly and Co.’s end last year to its PI3Kα inhibitor program didn’t mean the pharma player was giving up on the target – far from it, as signaled by the potential $2.5 billion deal signed recently to take over Scorpion Therapeutics Inc. and gain rights to phase I/II-stage STX-478 for breast cancer and other solid tumors. The list of developers at work in the space includes Roche AG plus smaller entities such as Celcuity Inc., Menarini Group, Onkure Therapeutics Inc., Relay Therapeutics Inc. and Totus Medicines Inc.

Due diligence plays a significant role in M&A transactions, but the eventual return on investments don’t always add up to the purchase price. While some companies such as Abbvie Inc. and Bristol Myers Squibb Co. – as shown in part one of this three-part series – have succeeded in acquiring products able to surpass M&A sticker prices, the vast majority of deals analyzed by BioWorld showed that most buyers remain significantly in the red.

As the number of mega-mergers have increased in recent years, and the purchase price of innovative companies rises, it is apparent that many lucrative buyouts fail to meet expectations, although a few outperform from time to time.

Biopharma deal value continued its upward trend in 2024, reaching $230.53 billion, a 6% increase from $217.69 billion in 2023, setting a new record in BioWorld’s data. Deal volume also grew, with 1,429 agreements across licensing, joint ventures and collaborations, up 3.5% from 1,380 in 2023, though still below the peak activity seen from 2019 to 2022.