Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted in an op-ed last year that one of the ways President Donald Trump can make America healthy again is by reviewing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ad guidelines.
“The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public,” wrote Kennedy. “News channels are filled with drug commercials, and reasonable viewers may question whether their dependence on these ads influences their coverage of health issues.”
The administration is now poised to tackle this issue with policies that might make it costlier and/or more difficult for pharmaceutical giants to push their products directly to patients.
Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that “Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins.”
“Consistent with Secretary Kennedy’s public health commitments, we are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers, who deserve nothing less than radical transparency,” added Hilliard.
Bloomberg reported that the administration is considering two policies in particular.
The first would require drugmakers to to be more forthright in their ads about the side effects of their products.
Given that pharma products often have myriad side effects, this would likely increase the run time of TV ads, thereby making them far more costly. Since a total ban on pharma direct-to-customer ads would expose the administration to litigation, this potential disincentive could have a similar effect without the consequence.
Individuals said to be familiar with the plans told Bloomberg that the second policy would entail denying pharmaceutical companies the ability to write off DTC advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.
Recent analysis from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing indicated that the average annual global spending on advertising and promotions in 2023 among the drugmakers AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer was $1.4 billion, with Pfizer spending the most.
The advertising data firm MediaRadar reportedly found that companies spent $10.8 billion last year on direct-to-consumer pharma advertising.
Drugmakers spent a combined $729.4 million to run TV commercials for the top 10 brands in just the first three months of 2025, reported Fierce Pharma.
‘The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television.’
Bloomberg suggested that these potential policies could impact a key source of revenue for advertising, media, and pharmaceutical companies.
AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart reportedly told analysts in May that if there were a crackdown on pharma ads, the company “would have to pivot,” potentially focusing its advertising online rather than on mass media.
Alex Siciliano, a spokesperson for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Bloomberg, “Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns.”
Those concerned about HHS purging the airwaves of Big Pharma propaganda need not only fear initiatives from the Trump administration.
Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) introduced legislation last week that would ban drugmakers from using direct-to-consumer advertising outright, not only on TV and radio, but on social media, digital platforms, and in print as well.
“The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs,” Sanders said in a statement.
“The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”
An Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last year found that 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.
Unlike the Trump administration’s potential policies, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act might not survive a constitutional challenge, given that Congress is barred from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.
The independent lawmakers noted in their joint statement that HHS Secretary Kennedy is not the only relevant party who has expressed an interest in clearing the airwaves; the American Medical Association has similarly endorsed a ban.
“The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier,” said King.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The post Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he’s not the only one mulling a crackdown appeared first on TheBlaze.
