TV Networks Face Advertising Apocalypse After Trump Admin Mulls Pharma Restrictions
Last week independent Senators Bernie Sanders (VT) and Angus King (ME) introduced legislation that would ban pharmaceutical companies from promoting prescription drugs directly to consumers – including through television, radio, print, digital platforms, and social media.
Today, Bloomberg reports that the Trump administration is now 'discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients.'
Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it's instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making 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, these people said.
If this happens, it would mark a major victory for Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr., who says he believes Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries due to the ability of US drug companies to directly advertise to consumers.
While running for president, Mr. Kennedy said he would issue an executive order removing pharmaceutical ads from television, citing overmedication and industry influence on news coverage.
As we noted last week, the move would mark a sweeping shift in the U.S. advertising landscape, where pharmaceutical companies are among the largest spenders. Prescription drug brands accounted for roughly 13 percent of all ad spending on linear television in 2025, totaling approximately $2.18 billion so far this year, according to iSpotdata. In 2024, the industry spent $3.4 billion on traditional TV ads between January and August alone, according to ad-tracking data.
Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration relaxed disclosure requirements for DTC ads, pharmaceutical companies have increasingly leaned on consumer advertising to drive demand. Under current rules, companies need only disclose a drug's 'most important' risks during commercials.
The result has been a media environment saturated with pharmaceutical messaging. Drug ads made up 24.4 percent of all advertising minutes on evening news broadcasts across major networks — including ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC — through May of this year, according iSpot. On CBS Evening News , pharmaceutical companies appeared in more than 70 percent of commercial breaks, per Kantar Media.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
11 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
White House Seeks Meeting With Iran's Foreign Minister As Iran Eases Punishing Strikes: Axios
As tensions soar and Americans anxiously contemplate the possibility of yet another major US war in the Middle East, the Trump administration has been in contact with the Iranian government, discussing a possible meeting this week between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff, Axios reports, citing 'four sources briefed on the issue.' The outlet also says Trump officials reassured Middle East allies that the administration doesn't plan to join the war unless Americans are targeted — a clear red line that incentivizes Israel to find a way to drag Iran across it, or to fabricate an incident altogether, much as Israel did in 1954's famed 'Lavon Affair.' An Arab diplomat in deep contact with Iran says the red line is already very much in mind in Tehran: 'The Iranians are very careful so far not to do anything that can push the U.S. to get involved.' Following those reports, Iran over Monday night pared back the pace of its heavy bombardment of Israel, after consecutive nights of deadly, damaging strikes demonstrating the power of Iran's hypersonic missiles. In a new twist, however, Iran hit Israel with a daylight barrage on Tuesday morning — albeit one that was reportedly modest in volume, perhaps only 20 missiles. Of course, there's nothing modest about it if you happen to be in one of the impact areas: One of several footages, triangulation of which have allowed to suggest that IDF's Intel gathering unit 8200 was hit in Herzliya, outside Tel Aviv: — Bashkarma🇺🇸🌏🇷🇺 (@Karmabash) June 17, 2025 Earlier on Monday, Israel struck various targets in Iran, including the state-run television network IRIB in mid-broadcast (though it quickly resumed broadcasting with the same host). The IDF also claimed it killed a highly senior Iranian general who himself succeeded another general assassinated in Israel's opening of the war. JUST IN: Israeli Air Force strikes the studio of Iranian state run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) in Tehran while they were on live newscaster was in the middle of a show when the building was hit. — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 16, 2025 The Axios reports come in stark contrast to a stream of bellicose rhetoric emanating from Trump, along with potentially ominous moves of US military assets. On Monday, Trump used social media to say that 'everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' Also yesterday, Fox News reported that the USS Nimitz -led aircraft carrier group was steaming toward the Middle East from the South China Sea, where it will join the already on-station USS Carl Vinson strike group. At the same time, a large number of military refueling aircraft were being deployed to Europe. Even if the reports of US diplomatic outreach are true, from Iran's perspective, little or nothing the Trump administration says can be trusted, and even ostensibly peaceful overtures must be evaluated as a potential tactic to set up a surprise US strike. After all, Israel's initiation of a war on Iran came two days before American and Iranian delegations were scheduled to meet in Oman for a sixth round of discussions pursuant to a new deal about Iran's nuclear program. Since Israel's attack, Trump has repeatedly stated that he knew about it in advance, saying for example that 'We were well-informed about everything,' and 'I always knew the date.' Here's what one official told Axios about the pursuit of a new meeting: 'A meeting with the Iranians this week is under consideration… They do want to talk. But what we don't know is, have they been brought to their knees fully so that they realize that in order to have a country, they have to talk? And assuming they get there, is there any degree of [uranium] enrichment you would allow them to have?' The suggestion that Iran is anywhere close to being 'on its knees' seems fanciful, considering Iran has launched multiple missile barrages, the effects of which have significantly exceeded expectations. Two dozen Israelis have been killed and at least 400 injured, with the country also enduring major hits to government buildings, apartment towers and power plants. The starring role in those barrages has been played by Iran's highly advanced hypersonic missiles — a weapon that neither Israel nor even the United States has in its arsenal: The unnamed official's rhetorical question about whether there's 'any amount of enrichment' the US would allow may offer a glimmer of hope for an end to the Israel-initiated war. Iran sees enrichment as a right it possesses as a sovereign state, and has repeatedly said an outright ban on enrichment is completely out of the question. Iran has long been under a religious order, or 'fatwa,' forbidding the development of any weapon of mass destruction, and the country has long assured the world that it has no intention of building a nuclear weapon — an assurance the US intelligence community validated in 2007 and has repeatedly re-confirmed since then — most recently, just this March. Meanwhile, anti-Iran hawks have been warning of an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb for more than three decades: In this major New York Times article from 30 years ago, one senior official said Iran's 'intensive effort' put them on pace to have all the requisite atomic bomb components' in two years' The seeds of today's crisis were sown in May 2018, when Trump withdrew the United States from the nuclear deal that had been negotiated between Iran and various Western governments and signed in 2015. Under that deal, Iran agreed to a wide array of safeguards. They included eliminating its medium-enriched uranium, reducing its low-enriched uranium inventory by 98%, capping future enrichment at 3.67%, slashing its number of centrifuges, submitting to enhanced external monitoring and rendering its heavy-water reactor unusable by pouring concrete in it. At the time of Trump's withdrawal, Iran was in full compliance, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In response to the re-imposition of US sanctions, Iran began straying from the deal's terms, seemingly pushing the only lever it had to bring the deal back and get out from under sanctions that have sapped Iran's economy and inflicted a cruel toll on innocent Iranian citizens. The 2015 deal was so thorough that Trump's pursuit of a new agreement puts him in the awkward position of finding a way to differentiate it from the one he repeatedly railed against on the 2016 campaign trail, and again as he killed it. Iran hawks have been pushing for a deal that bans nuclear enrichment altogether. Some may take that position out of sincere concern, but the most powerful hawks in Israel and America certainly take it with full knowledge that Iran will never accept it, helping pave the way for the US-led war they've long yearned for. Indeed, soon after Israel's war on Iran began, Israel and its US-based collaborators began pressing Trump to commit the American military to the fight — in defiance of his campaign promises to end the era of endless US wars. Trump needn't burden himself with that decision: The US Constitution vests the power to initiate war with Congress . This is not our if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement.I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution. — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 16, 2025
Gulf Insider
12 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
TV Networks Face Advertising Apocalypse After Trump Admin Mulls Pharma Restrictions
Last week independent Senators Bernie Sanders (VT) and Angus King (ME) introduced legislation that would ban pharmaceutical companies from promoting prescription drugs directly to consumers – including through television, radio, print, digital platforms, and social media. Today, Bloomberg reports that the Trump administration is now 'discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients.' Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it's instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making 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, these people said. If this happens, it would mark a major victory for Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr., who says he believes Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries due to the ability of US drug companies to directly advertise to consumers. While running for president, Mr. Kennedy said he would issue an executive order removing pharmaceutical ads from television, citing overmedication and industry influence on news coverage. As we noted last week, the move would mark a sweeping shift in the U.S. advertising landscape, where pharmaceutical companies are among the largest spenders. Prescription drug brands accounted for roughly 13 percent of all ad spending on linear television in 2025, totaling approximately $2.18 billion so far this year, according to iSpotdata. In 2024, the industry spent $3.4 billion on traditional TV ads between January and August alone, according to ad-tracking data. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration relaxed disclosure requirements for DTC ads, pharmaceutical companies have increasingly leaned on consumer advertising to drive demand. Under current rules, companies need only disclose a drug's 'most important' risks during commercials. The result has been a media environment saturated with pharmaceutical messaging. Drug ads made up 24.4 percent of all advertising minutes on evening news broadcasts across major networks — including ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC — through May of this year, according iSpot. On CBS Evening News , pharmaceutical companies appeared in more than 70 percent of commercial breaks, per Kantar Media.
Gulf Insider
6 days ago
- Gulf Insider
Muslim Nations Should Give Land for Palestinian State
The US ambassador to Israel has suggested 'Muslim countries' should give up some of their land to create a future Palestinian state. Mike Huckabee told the BBC: 'Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land that are controlled by Israel. 'So maybe, if there is such a desire for the Palestinian state, there would be someone who would say, we'd like to host it.' The ambassador also strongly criticised US allies, including the UK and Australia, for sanctioning two far-right Israeli ministers over 'repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian communities' in the occupied West Bank. In his interview, the ambassador called a two-state solution – a proposed formula for peace between Israel and the Palestinians that has generally received international backing, including from multiple US administrations – 'an aspirational goal'. The two-state solution envisages an independent Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital. It would exist alongside Israel. In a separate interview with Bloomberg, Huckabee said the US was no longer pursuing the goal of an independent Palestinian state. US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce later said the ambassador 'speaks for himself', and that it was the president who is responsible for US policy in the Middle East. Later this month, at the United Nations in New York, French and Saudi diplomats will host a conference aimed at laying out a roadmap for an eventual Palestinian state. Although Huckabee did not say where any future Palestinian state could be located specifically or whether the US would support such an effort, he called the conference 'ill-timed and inappropriate'. 'It's also something that is completely wrong-headed for European states to try to impose in the middle of a war,' he said, arguing that it would result in Israel being 'less secure'. 'At what point does it have to be in the same piece of real estate that Israel occupies?' he said on the BBC's Newshour programme. 'I think that's a question that ought to be posed to everybody who's pushing for a two-state solution.' Asked if the US position was that there could not be a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Huckabee said: 'I wouldn't say there can never be, what I would say is that a culture would have to change. 'Right now the culture is that it's OK to target Jews and kill them and you're rewarded for it. That has to change.' Israel rejects a two-state solution. It says any final settlement must be the result of negotiations with the Palestinians, and statehood should not be a condition. Huckabee has previously been a strong supporter of the idea of a 'greater Israel', seeking permanent Israeli control of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and using the biblical term 'Judea and Samaria' for the West Bank. Some of his language echoes positions frequently taken by ultranationalist groups in Israel. Some in this movement, including far-right ministers in the Israeli governing coalition, have argued for the expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied West Bank and Gaza, saying any future Palestinian state could exist in Arab or Muslim countries. If such a policy were enacted, rights groups and European governments say it would be a clear violation of international law. Click here to read more Also read: US On High Alert In Anticipation Of Potential Israeli Strike On Iran, WaPo Reports
