The Trump administration is reportedly considering measures that could significantly impact the pharmaceutical industry's ability to advertise directly to consumers, potentially disrupting over $10 billion in annual advertising expenditure.
The proposed policies could impose legal and financial obstacles that would make it more challenging and costly for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products directly to patients.
The United States, along with New Zealand, is one of the only countries where pharmaceutical companies can advertise directly to consumers. However, an outright ban on such advertisements could expose the administration to potential lawsuits.
As a result, the administration is reportedly focusing on reducing the practice by introducing legal and financial hurdles, according to sources familiar with the matter who wished to remain anonymous.
The administration is primarily considering two policies. The first would necessitate more comprehensive disclosures of a drug's side effects within each advertisement, which could significantly lengthen broadcast ads and make them prohibitively expensive. The second policy would eliminate the industry's ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes. However, these discussions are still ongoing, and plans could change before any action is taken.
According to American Military News, the proposed limitations on pharmaceutical advertisements would be a significant victory for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long advocated for stricter regulation of how medicines are promoted. Kennedy has expressed his belief that Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries due to U.S. drug companies' ability to advertise directly to consumers.
The potential policies could pose a threat to a significant source of revenue for advertising and media companies, as well as the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. In 2024, companies spent a total of $10.8 billion on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, according to a report from advertising data firm MediaRadar.
Pharmaceutical giants AbbVie Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were among the biggest spenders. AbbVie alone spent $2 billion on direct-to-consumer drug ads last year, primarily advertising its anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq. These medications generated over $5 billion for AbbVie in the first quarter of 2025.
"We are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers," said HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon, adding that no final decisions have been made.
The proposed changes could have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry. Shares of AbbVie fell by as much as 2.3% on Tuesday, marking their biggest drop in a month, while Pfizer shares slipped by up to 1.7%.
Before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relaxed advertising regulations in 1997, U.S. pharmaceutical companies were required to list all potential side effects of a medication if they wanted to advertise the condition the drug was intended to treat. This requirement increased the cost of airtime and limited the amount of broadcast advertising.
The FDA's changes allowed ads to disclose fewer side effects and enabled companies to direct customers to their doctors, call a telephone number, or visit a website for more information on the advertised drugs. This led to a surge in TV pharmaceutical ad spending. In 2024, 59% of the pharmaceutical industry's expenditure was on television advertising, making it the third-highest spending industry on television ads, according to MediaRadar.
If the Trump administration reintroduces some of these restrictions, 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, who has studied the impacts of pharma advertising.
However, 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, Rosenthal said. On the other hand, drug ads can be used to drive sales of expensive, brand-name medicines when lower-cost generic alternatives may be appropriate.
When asked if a crackdown on ads would hurt its business, AbbVie's chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart said the company "would have to pivot." He suggested that the company could shift its investment to "disease awareness" or through advertising on digital channels rather than through mass media.
The Trump administration could also collaborate with Congress to prohibit pharmaceutical companies from deducting direct-to-consumer advertising costs as business expenses on their taxes. This idea was discussed during talks over President Donald Trumps tax cut legislation but was ultimately left out of the bill. The Senate also omitted it. HHS has been supportive of these discussions, according to a person familiar with the talks.
Kennedy has also publicly stated that he's having conversations about tax changes within the administration, telling Senator Josh Hawley during a May hearing on Capitol Hill that he expected an announcement on the matter "within the next few weeks."
Joe Grogan, who served as White House Domestic Policy Council chief during President Donald Trumps first term and now consults for health-care companies, said its unclear whether lawmakers will have an appetite to crack down on the pharmaceutical industry further given Trumps tariff threats and demands to dramatically lower drug prices.
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, executive director 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," NAB spokesperson Alex Siciliano said.
As the Trump administration continues to explore these potential changes, the pharmaceutical industry, advertising companies, and consumers alike will be watching closely to see how these policies could reshape the landscape of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.
Login