Trump Cracks Down on Drug Ads

Donald Trump increases the pressure on pharmaceutical companies to be more transparent about the risks associated with their prescription products.

In a memorandum signed Tuesday, the president ordered federal health agencies to enforce the existing rules concerning the advertisements of misleading prescription drugs.

The order is below the commitment of the Secretary of Health and Social Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the campaign track last year to “prohibit pharmaceutical advertising on television” to resolve “the epidemic of chronic diseases of the United States”, as part of its movement “Make America Healthy Sain”. But Kennedy described the “historic change” order in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday. “In some cases, it could create an advertisement that lasts four minutes,” he said, because companies must list the side effects of their products.

TV ads will not be the only ones affected by the order. The Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, in a video published on X, said following the memorandum that the agency will send around 100 “application action” and thousands of other warning letters to industry members, including online pharmacies, which have “increasingly promoted drugs without mention of side effects”.

“We take drug marketing demands seriously and make our regulatory standards transparent,” said Makary. “In the end, we think that the decisions on the drugs to be taken belong to a patient and his doctor.”

While the United States remains the only other country in addition to New Zealand to allow direct advertising of pharmaceutical products to consumers, the new repression is likely to upset a more billion dollar industry that Trump has targeted on several occasions, the Americans, the Americans have been increasingly sick of high drugs.

Here’s what you need to know.

Why the United States is an aberrant value

Around the world, direct drug advertising to consumers faces restrictions: in the European Union, it is prohibited; In Australia, there is a strict ban on advertising on prescription drugs; And in Canada, these announcements are subject to strict regulatory requirements. In 2007, during the 30th annual meeting of countries participating in the WHO program for international surveillance of drugs, the participants made a “unanimous recommendation” to prohibit such advertising.

It has been found that advertising of direct drugs presents certain risks for public health, in particular patients who go beyond themselves and the search for unnecessary treatments which could end up becoming more expensive for them.

But a complete ban on direct drug advertising to consumers in the United States could come up against the freedom of expression protected by the Constitution.

Unless a complete ban, in 1985, the FDA established strict directives for advertising on prescription drugs. If the manufacturer wanted to mention a condition that the drug is intended to process, the directives required more information available to consumers, including all possible side effects. But it required more advertising bandwidth and more money, many companies have seen guidelines as a de facto barrier. Most of the announcements mentioned only the names of the medication or a reminder of consulting a doctor, resulting in patients.

But in 1997, the FDA softened its strict rules. The justification consisted in “helping to promote greater awareness of consumers on prescription drugs”, according to the deputy commissioner of the FDA at the time, Michael J. Friedman. The change allowed advertisements that had an “adequate provision” of information, which could mean mentioning the side effects in part and redirect consumers to doctors for other information on the drug. This has led to a boom of expenditure for advertising on drugs on direct prescription to consumers.

Advertising on direct consumption medicines has continued to be a large company: according to the advertising data company Mediaradar, pharmaceutical companies spent $ 10.8 billion in 2024 in direct pharmaceutical advertising to consumers.

But advertising standards have decreased because certain advertisements have been published online. A 2015 study revealed that, although 100% of pharmaceutical social media publications analyzed included alleged advantages of drugs, only 33% discussed potential damage.

The professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Caleb Alexander, said in 2023 that “although the regulations governing the advertising on drugs are designed to target drug manufacturers, we are now living in a time when other parties – are health care insurers, start -up clinics, telemedicine start -ups are that these entities are not drugs. Question – Products such as ketamine, testosterone and stimulants for the treatment of ADHD, to name only a few – and they not only misinterpret the evidence, in many cases, they make bizarre allegations and pants on fire on these products. »»

The FDA recognized Tuesday in a statement that it had not monitored and respected these standards over the years. “The FDA sent more than a hundred letters of warning each year, and the misleading advertisements were rare,” he said. “But over time, the application has decreased and the number of warning letters sent to pharmaceutical companies fell into one in 2023 and zero in 2024.”

What will happen with Trump’s new order

Although the ordinance applies only existing laws, the FDA said that it would also study potential policies to modify the “adequate provision” standard, which was part of the 1997 change. This provision, said the agency, provided a “escape” to companies to redirect consumers elsewhere for more information on the drug while keeping the advertising file.

During a Tuesday call with journalists, senior administration officials said that the memorandum would also target advertisements on social media sites, such as Instagram and Tiktok.

An official said, according to ABC News, that “there was a broad frustration in the face of the growing prevalence of these advertisements creating a misleading impression, in particular do not disclose the side effects appropriately – of ADS who have now encroached in the same rules as many pharmaceutical companies follow.”