Top 10 metro areas for manufacturing biologics in 2026

Top 10 metro areas for manufacturing biologics

While legacy hubs like New York, Boston and San Diego remain key anchors, the report ranked the following metropolitan areas based on their suitability for supporting new or expanded therapeutic biologics manufacturing, as well as their estimated annual operational costs.

1. Raleigh–Cary, NC. Annual operating cost: $50.7M.
2. Salt Lake City–Murray, UT. Annual operating cost: $47.3M.
3. Durham–Chapel Hill, NC. Annual operating cost: $51.6M.
4. Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE–MD. Annual operating cost: $55.9M.
5. Indianapolis–Carmel–Greenwood, IN. Annual operating cost: $50.7M.
6. Madison, WI. Annual operating cost: $50.6M.
7. Houston–Pasadena–The Woodlands, TX. Annual operating cost: $48.5M.
8. Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX. Annual operating cost: $47.4M.
9. Phoenix–Mesa–Chandler, AZ. Annual operating cost: $50.3M.
10. Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH. Annual operating cost: $72.7M.

Despite being edged out by higher operating expenses, six other locations were named in the report for being "competitive alternatives", including the following:

1. Austin–Round Rock–San Marcos, TX,
2. Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia, NC–SC
3. Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN
4. Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL
5. St. Louis, MO–IL
6. Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL

Due to affordable industrial land and expanding talent pools, GLS also identified Cincinnati, OH, as a fast-rising contender.

Skilled workforce shortages -- exacerbated by recent changes in federal immigration rules -- and Trump's tariffs are among the main factors shaping investment in biologics manufacturing in the United States, the report noted.

Together, these challenges are reshaping the geography of American drug production, influencing where companies deploy capital and expand production.

Trade and pricing policies

Trump's long-promised, sweeping tariff policy ended decades of near-zero import duties on pharmaceuticals, creating major challenges for many drugmakers.

At the beginning of this month, the Trump administration imposed a 100% tariff on imported branded and patented drugs as part of a continued effort to boost investment in U.S. manufacturing.

While companies that commit to and show progress on reshoring projects are exempt from the tariffs, many of the largest global drug manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, already have U.S.-based facilities or plan to build them.

As of 2024, there were nearly 6,000 FDA-registered biologics facilities worldwide, with roughly 90% located domestically, according to FDA data included in the report. And yet, 91% of biologics sold in the U.S. are imported, highlighting a critical supply chain issue.

The report warns that "margins are likely to tighten regardless of whether production is moved to U.S. facilities, unless companies can successfully reshuffle their supply chains to offset increased operational costs or the impact of tariffs."

Other experts have also warned that placing tariffs on pharmaceuticals will disproportionately impact smaller biopharma companies that lack the financial resources and scale to build American manufacturing facilities or absorb the increased costs.

Talent availability

Despite a wave of investment in manufacturing, R&D and supply chain functions, the report states that a shortage of skilled labor is the biggest threat to the domestic growth of manufacturing therapeutic biologics.

As noted in the report, the U.S. therapeutic biologics industry employs around 46,000 workers but faces an 8% vacancy rate, leaving nearly 60,000 positions unfilled. These manufacturing roles heavily rely on expertise in biomanufacturing processes, which cannot be quickly or easily trained for or substituted.

Meanwhile, wages in biologics manufacturing remain among the highest in the U.S. industry, reflecting intense competition for specialized talent.

The average wage for biologics manufacturing has increased nearly 10% in five years to $127,000, which is 50% higher than the average wage of $84,000 for other manufacturing jobs, according to JobsEQ data cited in the report.

And yet, from a site selection standpoint, the report says the biologics industry's small size "limits workforce availability," as only a few regions can supply enough talent to support large biologics facilities.

To close these skill gaps, biologics manufacturers have long relied on international talent, but Trump's recent changes in immigration policy are making it increasingly difficult for companies, especially smaller ones, to find enough qualified workers.

"The amount of investment across the U.S. biologics industry is encouraging to see, but it's only sustainable if we invest as much in people as we do in plants," Didi Caldwell, President and CEO, Global Location Strategies, said in a press release.

The report calls for a two-pronged workforce strategy that simultaneously grows the domestic talent pipeline and restores access to international specialists

GLS warns that, without coordinated investment in education, training and immigration policies, skilled labor shortages acould hinder the future growth of biopharma manufacturing and weaken competitiveness.

"Workforce readiness is now the true competitive edge," Caldwell added. "[The] ability to respond to skilled labor shortages will determine where investment goes from here."

Alivia Kaylor is a scientist and the senior site editor of Pharma Life Sciences.