Trump Administration Mulls Crackdown on Pharma Ads, Threatening $10 Billion Market
The Trump administration is considering policies that could make it more difficult and expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, potentially disrupting more than $10 billion in annual ad spending. The move is part of a broader effort to regulate the way medicines are promoted, according to sources familiar with the plans.
Currently, the US is the only place, along with New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise to patients. Banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so instead, the administration is focusing on adding legal and financial hurdles to cut down on the practice.
Two policies the administration has focused on would be requiring greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad, which could make broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive, or removing the industry’s ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.
The discussions are ongoing, and plans could still change before the agency undertakes any action. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long wanted to more strictly regulate how medicines are promoted, believing that Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries due to the US drug companies’ ability to directly advertise to consumers.
The new policies could threaten a key source of revenue for advertising and media companies, as well as the US pharmaceutical industry. Companies spent $10.8 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, according to a report from the advertising data firm MediaRadar. AbbVie Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were particularly big spenders, with AbbVie alone spending $2 billion on direct-to-consumer drug ads last year.
If the Trump administration brings back some of the restrictions on pharma ads, broadcast ads may become more “impractical,” according to Meredith Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at Harvard University’s school of public health. More specific drug ads could have benefits for patients who might be prompted to talk to their doctor for the first time about a medical condition like depression or erectile dysfunction. However, there are also drawbacks, as drug ads can be used to drive sales of expensive, brand-name medicines when lower-cost generic alternatives may be appropriate.
The Trump administration could also work with Congress to prohibit pharmaceutical companies from deducting direct-to-consumer advertising costs as business expenses on their taxes. House lawmakers discussed the idea in talks over President Donald Trump’s tax cut legislation, but ultimately left the measure out of the bill. The Senate omitted it as well. However, HHS has been supportive of those discussions.
The pharmaceutical industry has warned that allowing lawmakers to regulate advertising by changing the tax code to single out pharmaceutical companies could set a dangerous precedent and raise the specter of lawsuits. Other industries also can deduct advertising costs as business expenses, heightening concerns they could be targeted next. “If you choose a sector, if one becomes a target, everyone becomes a target,” said Jim Potter of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication.
The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents companies that own radio and television stations, said the group opposes restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising, and that revenue from ads allows local broadcasters to staff newsrooms and invest in weather technology. “Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns,” said NAB spokesperson Alex Siciliano.
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
