“The primary purpose of pharmaceutical advertising is not to influence consumers, but rather the television networks and news itself”
President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to helm the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) is reportedly rattling drugmakers in light of Kennedy’s prior calls to ban pharmaceutical advertising.
If confirmed by the Senate to serve as HHS secretary, Kennedy could marshal the country’s public health agencies to implement his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) priorities, leading one pharmaceutical industry observer to claim that Kennedy is likely to attempt a ban on direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising. However, any attempt from Kennedy to crack down on pharmaceutical advertising would almost certainly be challenged by drugmakers on First Amendment grounds and may lack the support of Trump and Republican lawmakers who have so far refrained from commenting on Kennedy’s proposal.
“One of the things I’m going to advise Donald Trump to do in order to correct the chronic disease epidemic is to ban pharmaceutical advertising on TV,” Kennedy said to thunderous applause during a Tucker Carlson Live Tour event in Glendale, Arizona, on Oct. 31. “There’s only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical advertising on the airwaves. One of them is New Zealand and the other is us and we have the highest disease rate, and we buy more drugs and they’re more expensive than anywhere in the world.”
Spending on DTC pharmaceutical advertising in the United States ballooned to more than $7 billion in 2023, with ad buys on weight loss and diabetes drugs surpassing $1 billion for the first time, according to analysis from MediaRadar.
‘Threat To The Public Good’
“Whilst we have a relatively benign view of RFK’s impact on the Pharma industry, one thing that does worry us is the potential for the U.S. government to ban DTC advertising of drugs,” United Kingdom-based research firm Intron Health wrote in a report excerpted by FiercePharma, a pharmaceutical industry-focused news outlet. “We see this as the biggest imminent threat from RFK and the new Trump administration.”
Kennedy could wield considerable influence over the second Trump administration’s approach to pharmaceutical advertising since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — the chief regulator of the pharmaceutical industry’s advertisements — is housed within HHS.
The Biden FDA issued new guidelines on DTC advertising that went into effect on May 20, requiring advertising to state drugs’ side effects and medication risks in a “clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.” Kennedy called for a review of these guidelines in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 5.
During his run for president and as a Trump campaign surrogate, Kennedy claimed that media outlets who receive substantial ad revenue from pharmaceutical companies cannot report on Big Pharma with objectivity.
“The primary purpose of pharmaceutical advertising is not to influence consumers, but rather the television networks and news itself,” according to a statement on Kennedy’s website. “It gives Big Pharma the power to dictate what goes on the news — and what doesn’t — because the networks won’t bite the hand that feeds them.”
“Every other country in the world recognizes that pharma ads represent a threat to the public good,” Kennedy’s website also claims.
Kennedy’s concern that mainstream media has been co-opted by the pharmaceutical industry to buy news outlets’ silence on scrutinizing drugmakers in exchange for ad revenue has been embraced by influential voices in the MAHA movement and other Trump allies.
“The news ad spending from pharma is a public relations lobbying tactic, essentially to buy off the news,” Calley Means, a Kennedy advisor and MAHA advocate, told Tucker Carlson during an interview on Feb 2. “The news is not investigating pharma.”
“No advertising for pharma,” Elon Musk wrote on X on Nov. 19 in response to a post alleging a correlation between the growth of pharmaceutical advertising and rising media bias.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health, has also argued that media organizations that rake in pharmaceutical advertising revenue should face increased scrutiny when reporting on public health matters. Bhattacharya was notably blacklisted by Twitter before Musk bought the platform over his criticism of the medical establishment’s lockdown approach to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Another argument against direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies: Because of DTC ads, drug companies like Pfizer hold a vice grip on the editorial policies of conventional American media, which can ill afford to lose the advertising money,” Bhattacharya wrote on X on May 30, 2023.
Dr. Marty Mackary, Trump’s pick to lead the FDA, has not commented on Kennedy’s proposal nor allegations that the mainstream media has been corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.
Ban Denies ‘Opportunity To Be Informed’
Although a ban on pharmaceutical advertising would put the U.S. more in line with the rest of the world, an attempted prohibition of the practice by the incoming Trump administration would likely infringe upon the First Amendment’s protection of “commercial speech,” according to Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a general surgeon and senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.
“His calls to ban pharmaceutical advertising violate the First Amendment right to freely share and exchange information, including scientific information, and infringe on the individual right to self-medicate,” Singer wrote in a statement following Trump’s nomination of Kennedy to serve as HHS secretary.
Banning pharmaceutical advertising would also make Americans less informed about the availability of drugs and their side effects and widen the information gap between medical practitioners and patients, an apparent contradiction to Kennedy’s pledge to fight for Americans’ ability to question the medical establishment and do their own research, Singer told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.
“On the one hand, RFK Jr. says — and I agree with him — that people need to be empowered. They need to do their own due diligence. We should be doing our own investigations,” Singer told the DCNF. “Well, how are you going to do that if you are barred from hearing what the pharmaceutical companies have to say about their medication, and its risks and benefits and side effects, which the FDA requires them to mention?”
“If you want an empowered population of adults to be able to do their own due diligence, you can’t block them from the information that a pharmaceutical [ad] is going to give them — especially when they’re [pharmaceutical companies] allowed to give it to healthcare practitioners,” Singer added. “Denying us the information actually denies us the opportunity to be informed.”
Uncertain Political Prospects
Kennedy’s call to ban pharmaceutical advertising is likely to face skepticism from Republican lawmakers who have traditionally preferred a deregulatory approach to the pharmaceutical industry. The current legislativeeffort to ban DTC pharmaceutical advertising in Congress has no support from Republican lawmakers.
“Sometimes when I hear his [Kennedy’s] agenda discussed, people are like ‘sounds great — he’s never going to do it’. There’s zero chance he’s going to be able to undo these conflicts of interests and the power of Big Ag and these Republican lawmakers who have a lot of big donors in these industries,” Megyn Kelly told Casey Means, during a Nov. 20 interview on her show about whether Kennedy’s MAHA priorities have enough support to be achieved during the next four years.
The pharmaceutical industry notably has roughly 1800 registered lobbyists in the United States, and industry PACs have doled out more than $15 million to candidates this year.
Trump tried to further regulate pharmaceutical advertising during his first administration by requiring DTC ads on television to include the list price for nearly all drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Three large drugmakers filed suit in response and a federal judge struck down the regulation before it went into effect, ruling that HHS overstepped its authority to compel drugmakers to include their list prices in advertising.
Trump’s transition team did not respond to the DCNF’s inquiry about whether the president-elect supports Kennedy’s advocacy to crack down on pharmaceutical advertising.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade association that lobbies on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, declined to comment on Kennedy’s calls to ban pharmaceutical advertising.
A Kennedy spokesperson did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
President Donald Trump hosted President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Friday afternoon, in hopes of inching Ukraine and Russia closer to peace.
Trump told the media Friday evening that the two had a “very good meeting, a very cordial meeting.”
However, the president said that he has told both Eastern European leaders to stop the war and “go by the battle line wherever it is or else it gets too complicated.”
“The meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine was very interesting, and cordial, but I told him, as I likewise strongly suggested to President Putin, that it is time to stop the killing, and make a DEAL! Enough blood has been shed, with property lines being defined by War and Guts,” the president posted to Truth Social Friday evening. “They should stop where they are. Let both claim Victory, let History decide!”
The president pleaded with the leaders to stop shooting, “no more Death, no more vas and unsustainable sums of money spent.”
The meeting comes a day after Trump had a “lengthy” and “productive” conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which the two agreed to meet in Hungary.
One of the topics of interest during the bilateral meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy is Ukraine’s desire to purchase U.S. Tomahawk missiles.
During a news conference between the two leaders, they both emphasized their desire to reach a peace agreement. However, Zelenskyy underscored the need for more weapons, including the Tomahawks.
Zelenskyy suggested a trade between Ukrainian drones for U.S. Tomahawk missiles, which the president suggested he would be open to the exchange. However, the president appears to be reluctant to sell Tomahawks, potentially leaving the U.S. short in case they are needed.
The president indicated that the threat of Tomahawks may be bringing Putin to the table; however, he noted that the Russian president wants to end the war, acknowledging that “bad things can happen” with the missiles.
Overall, the president appears confident that he can solve the war. “I am the mediator president,” Trump told the media.
Trump addressed concerns that Putin is trying to buy more time in wanting to meet, which he acknowledged.
The president said he is eager to strike a peace deal between the two countries, noting that he thought the war would be easier to solve, adding that there is a lot of bad blood between the two leaders.
Has the time come for America to seriously reassess its participation in and support for the United Nations (U.N.)?
It’s a question that some prominent people are asking this week after the increasingly woke and essentially useless globalist body attempted to sneak a global carbon tax in through the back door while no one was looking.
Except someone was looking, as it turns out. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who chairs the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is part of the majority on both the Senate Judiciary and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, said in an X post Thursday evening that this latest bit of anti-American action “warrants our withdrawal from the UN.”
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his own X post on the matter on Wednesday that the Trump administration “will not allow the UN to tax American citizens and companies. Under the leadership of POTUS (President Donald Trump), the U.S. will be a hard NO. We call on other nations to stand alongside the United States in defense of our citizens and sovereignty.”
On Friday afternoon, Mr. Rubio took to X again to announce the news that efforts by himself and others in the Trump administration succeeded in killing an effort to move the tax forward during a meeting in London. However, the proposal is not fully dead – a final vote on it was simply delayed for a year.
The issue at hand stems from an attempt by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – an agency of the U.N. – to impose net-zero rules on fuels used for seaborne shipping operations. The Trump administration estimates the imposition of the new requirements will increase the cost of shipping goods by about 10%, thus creating yet another round of inflation hitting the poorest citizens the hardest thanks to the globalist obsession with the amount of plant food – carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere.
Known as the IMO Net-Zero Framework, the proposal claims it would effectively “zero out” emissions from the shipping industry by 2050.
The potential implications if the U.N. ultimately succeeds in implementing its own global carbon tax are obvious. If this unelected, unaccountable globalist body can levy a carbon tax on Americans, a concept that America’s own elected officials have steadfastly rejected across the terms of the last five U.S. presidents, what would then prevent it from imposing other kinds of taxes on the world to support its ideological goals?
President Trump’s opposition to exactly this kind of international intrusion into America’s domestic policy choices is the reason why he has twice won the presidency, each time de-committing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords.
It has become increasingly obvious in recent years that the central goal of the global climate alarm movement is to dramatically raise the cost of all kinds of energy in order to force the masses to live smaller, more restricted lives and make their behavior easier for authoritarian governments to control. This camel’s nose under the tent move by the U.N. to sneak a global carbon tax into reality is just the latest in a long parade of examples that serve as proof points for that thesis.
At some point, U.S. officials must seriously reassess the value proposition in continuing to spend billions of dollars each year supporting and hosting a globalist organization whose every action seems designed to inflict damage on our country and its people. Now would be a good time to do that, in fact.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
