
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill Backing RFK Jr., Elon Musk Priority
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Senator Bernie Sanders is leading a new bill to address a key priority of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as President Donald Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary.
Why It Matters
Sanders, a Vermont independent, alongside Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, introduced the "End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act," which, if passed, would ban prescription drug advertising on TV, radio, print and digital platforms as well as social media.
Critics say these ads contribute to the high price of healthcare while doing little to improve care in the United States, though proponents say the advertisements can improve patients' knowledge of healthcare. Most wealthy countries, with the U.S. and New Zealand being two notable exceptions, ban pharmaceutical drug advertisements.
The bill also represents an issue where Sanders, viewed as perhaps the most progressive senator, has found common ground with Kennedy inside the Trump administration, though the secretary has not commented on this bill specifically.
What to Know
Sanders and King announced the legislation on Thursday, highlighting that the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $5 billion on TV ads in 2024 and that many of these drugs cost more in the U.S. than in other countries that do not allow drug companies to run ads on TV.
"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, describing the fact that the U.S. stands mostly alone in allowing pharmaceutical ads as an "international embarrassment."
vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C.Sanders' director of communications Anna Bahr confirmed to Newsweek his office has reached out to Republicans to join the bill. Bahr pointed to lobbying from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries as to why the U.S. has not joined other countries in bannign the ads.
"Over the past 25 years, the drug companies have spent $8.5 billion on lobbying. Today, they have some 1,800 well-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. – including former leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties," she said in a statement to Newsweek. "Unbelievably, that is more than three lobbyists for every member of Congress. During that same period, they have provided over $700 million in campaign contributions. And they are equal opportunity contributors. They contribute heavily to both Republican and Democratic candidates."
Secretary Kennedy—as well as Elon Musk, who previously served in Trump's administration—have expressed support for ending pharmaceutical advertising.
"Let's get President Trump back in the White House and me to DC so we can ban pharmaceutical advertising," Kennedy wrote in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on November 3, 2024. During his own presidential campaign, Kennedy said he would have issued an executive order ending the advertisements on his first day in office.
Newsweek reached out to DHS for comment via the department's press contact form.
Caleb Alexander, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Newsweek that while a potential ban's impact on drug prices remains uunclear, there would be benefits to ending these advertisements. Pharmaceutical advertisements can drive up "inappropriate demand" for prescription drugs in settings where they may not be needed, he said.
"In terms of the potential benefits of banning [direct-to-consumer advertisements], the most immediate and likely is that it would temper demand for products in settings where they may not be needed," Alexander said.
The U.S. has "evolved to believe" the benefits of the ads, such as empowering patients to identify health concerns, outweigh the risks, though much of the research on the topic indicates that the benefits may not be worth the drawbacks, he said.
What People Are Saying
Alexander told Newsweek: "Direct to consumer advertising has been a lightning rod for controversy, and it remains a curious and unique feature of the U.S. marketplace. While a ban on direct advertising may be welcomed by many, it's not going to fundamentally transform the marketplace for prescription drugs in the United States, simply because DTCA is highly concentrated among a small number of products. It may be a reasonable political and public health target, but I think that if you just look at the way the dollars flow, there's vastly more money spent on marketing drugs to prescribers."
Senator Angus King wrote in a statement: "The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn't necessarily make patients healthier. The End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act would prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs to protect people. This bill is a great step to ensure that patients are getting the best information possible and from the right source: their providers and not biased advertisements."
Elon Musk wrote to X in November 2024: "No advertising for pharma."
What Happens Next
It's unclear whether a majority of senators are also in support of the bill. So far, Democratic Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Peter Welch of Vermont, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Dick Durbin of Illinois have co-sponsored the bill, according to Sanders' office.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia pleads not guilty to human smuggling charges in Tennessee federal court
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, pleaded not guilty on Friday to human smuggling charges in a federal court in Tennessee. The plea was the first chance the Maryland construction worker has had in a U.S. courtroom to answer the Trump administration's allegations against him since he was mistakenly deported in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The Republican administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last week to face criminal charges related to what it said was a human smuggling operation that transported immigrants across the country. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. His lawyers have called the allegations 'preposterous.' Friday's hearing will also focus on whether Abrego Garcia should be released from jail while awaiting trial on the smuggling charges. A federal judge will hear arguments from Abrego Garcia's lawyers and attorneys for the U.S. government. Before the hearing began in Nashville, Abrego Garcia's wife told a crowd outside a church that Thursday marked three months since the Trump administration 'abducted and disappeared my husband and separated him from our family.' Her voice choked with emotion, Jennifer Vasquez Sura said she saw her husband for the first time on Thursday. She said, 'Kilmar wants you to have faith,' and asked the people supporting him and his family ''to continue fighting, and I will be victorious because God is with us.'' Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador who had been living in the United States for more than a decade before he was wrongfully deported by the Trump administration. The expulsion violated a 2019 U.S. immigration judge's order that shielded him from deportation to his native country because he likely faced gang persecution there. While the Trump administration described the mistaken removal as 'an administrative error,' officials have continued to justify it by insisting Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. His wife and attorneys have denied the allegations, saying he's simply a construction worker and family man. U.S. attorneys have asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes to keep Abrego Garcia in jail, describing him as a danger to the community and a flight risk. Abrego Garcia's attorneys disagree, pointing out he was already wrongly detained in a notorious Salvadoran prison thanks to government error and arguing due process and 'basic fairness' require him to be set free. The charges against Abrego Garcia are human smuggling. But in their request to keep Abrego Garcia in jail, U.S. attorneys also accuse him of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims, although he is not charged with such crimes. The U.S. attorneys also accuse Abrego Garcia of taking part in a murder in El Salvador. However, none of those allegations is part of the charges against him, and at his initial appearance June 6, the judge warned prosecutors she cannot detain someone based solely on allegations. One of Abrego Garcia's attorneys last week characterized the claims as a desperate attempt by the Trump administration to justify the mistaken deportation three months after the fact. 'There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,' private attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. In a Wednesday court filing, Abrego Garcia's public defenders argued the government is not even entitled to a detention hearing — much less detention — because the charges against him aren't serious enough. Although the maximum sentence for smuggling one person is 10 years, and Abrego Garcia is accused of transporting hundreds of people over nearly a decade, his defense attorneys point out there's no minimum sentence. The average sentence for human smuggling in 2024 was just 15 months, according to court filings. The decision to charge Abrego Garcia criminally prompted the resignation of Ben Schrader, who was chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee. He posted about his departure on social media on the day of the indictment, writing, 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.' He did not directly address the indictment and declined to comment when reached by The Associated Press. However, a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter confirmed the connection. Although Abrego Garcia lives in Maryland, he's being charged in Tennessee based on a May 2022 traffic stop for speeding in the state. The Tennessee Highway Patrol body camera video of the encounter that was released to the public last month shows a calm exchange between officers and Abrego Garcia. It also shows the officers discussing among themselves their suspicions of human smuggling before sending him on his way. One of the officers says, 'He's hauling these people for money.' Another says Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in an envelope. Abrego Garcia was not charged with any offense at the traffic stop. Sandoval-Moshenberg, the private attorney, said in a statement after the video's release that he saw no evidence of a crime in the footage. Meanwhile, the lawsuit over Abrego Garcia's mistaken deportation isn't over. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have asked a federal judge in Maryland to impose fines against the Trump administration for contempt, arguing that it flagrantly ignored court orders forseveral weeks to return him. The Trump administration said it will ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it followed the judge's order to return him to the U.S. ___ This story has been corrected to show the Trump administration said that the human smuggling operation transported immigrants across the country, not that it brought immigrants into the country illegally. ___ Finley reported from Norfolk, Va.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Second judge blocks parts of Trump order overhauling elections
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from implementing parts of President Trump's executive order seeking to overhaul elections. U.S. District Judge Denise Casper granted a request from a group of Democratic attorneys general to halt five sections of the executive order, most focused on Trump's new requirements for proof of citizenship to register to vote in U.S. elections. Casper is the second judge to block portions of Trump's directive. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction in April in three consolidated cases, which also focused on the new proof of citizenship requirements. 'There is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,' wrote Casper, an appointee of former President Obama. 'The issue here is whether the President can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress, its statutes … do not require it, and the statutorily created [Election Assistance Commission (EAC)] is required to go through a notice and comment period and consult with the States before implementing any changes to the federal forms for voter registration,' she continued. Casper enjoined the administration from implementing new rules mandating documentary proof of citizenship in federal voter registration forms. She also blocked conditioning any funding for states from the EAC — an independent election administration agency — on their adoption of a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day. She also blocked a directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi to take civil or criminal action against states that violate any provisions by counting absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the final tabulation of votes for president or members of Congress. The portions of the order relating to ballots received after Election Day apply to 13 of the 19 states that filed the challenge, she ruled. 'There is nothing in the text of the Election Day statutes that bars the Ballot Receipt States from counting ballots received in accordance with their ballot receipt laws or that provides for civil enforcement or criminal action by the Attorney General against the Ballot Receipt States,' the judge wrote in her 44-page opinion. Trump's executive order, signed in March, said it was his administration's policy to enforce federal law and 'to protect the integrity of our election process.' The president has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of American elections, most notably the 2020 election won by former President Biden. 'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Casper wrote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Americans' – and Republicans' – increasingly complicated relationship with Israel
The president who promised to easily and quickly bring about peace has now found himself accounting for yet another major escalation. President Donald Trump had publicly discouraged Israel from striking Iran in recent days, as he pushed to instead secure a deal to curtail Iran's nuclear program. But it didn't pan out. Israel launched a massive attack overnight that targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and killed high-ranking officials – strikes that Trump told CNN by phone early Friday were 'very successful.' It all reinforces how the world we live in is much more complex than the one Trump pitched on the campaign trail. And from a domestic perspective, the situation with Israel is arguably more complex than it has been in many decades. Multiple indicators suggest Americans' support for Israel has reached historic lows as its war in Gaza has dragged on. And while Republicans are much more likely to back Israel than Democrats, even that is getting more complicated – particularly as influential voices on the right voice skepticism of a hardline approach to Iran. Much remains to shake out amid the historic escalation in the Middle East. Things will shift. There is a real question about whether Iran is even capable now of the kind of significant retaliation that could lead to a wider war. But the US decisions that lie ahead aren't as easy as they once might have seemed, politically speaking. A Quinnipiac University poll released this week – ahead of Israel's strikes – epitomized the shifting landscape. Polls for decades have asked Americans to choose whether they sympathize more with Israelis or Palestinians, and Israel is almost always the runaway favorite. But this one showed Americans sided with the Israelis by a historically narrow margin: 37% to 32%. After Hamas' October 2023 terror attack on Israel, that margin had been 61-13% in the Israelis' favor. So a 48-point edge has shrunk to five. That's not only the lowest advantage for Israel since Quinnipiac began polling this question in 2001, but it appears to be about the lowest since at least 1980 across multiple polls, according to data compiled by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Those findings, while telling, don't strictly apply to a conflict between Israel and Iran. But it's also clear that overall support for Israel has waned over the past year and a half. To wit: A March poll from the Pew Research Center showed 53% of Americans – a majority – had an unfavorable opinion of Israel. That was up from 42% in 2022, before the current war in Gaza. The same poll showed Americans said by more than a 20-point margin that they lacked confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A March poll from Marquette University Law School showed Americans evenly split on Israel: 43% favorable to 43% unfavorable. And a February Reuters/Ipsos poll showed about 4 in 10 Americans leaned toward the idea that Israel's problems are 'none of our business.' What was particularly striking about that last one: These views were almost completely nonpartisan. It was about 4 in 10 Democrats, independents and Republicans who said Israel's business was none of ours. That suggests that Trump's injection of non-interventionism in the conservative movement has caught on, even as it relates to our most significant ally in the Middle East. But it's more than just non-interventionism; there are also plenty of signs that even Republicans have soured on Israel. The Quinnipiac poll showed the percentage of Republicans who sympathized more with the Israelis than Palestinians dropping from 86% in October 2023 to 64% today. (Almost all of the shift was to a neutral position, rather than to the Palestinians.) And the Pew poll showed unfavorable views of Israel among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents rising from 27% in 2022 to 37% in March. Most remarkably, right-leaning voters under the age of 50 were about evenly split in their views of Israel. These modest but significant shifts have come as certain corners of the MAGA movement have adopted a more skeptical view of the American alliance with Israel and cautioned against a hardline approach to Iran. Those tensions are perhaps best exemplified by an intense and ongoing feud between Fox News host Mark Levin and his former Fox colleague, Tucker Carlson. Carlson on Friday morning went so far as to say the United States should decouple itself from Israel altogether. He said the Trump administration should 'drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars.' Carlson said the United States not only shouldn't send troops, but that it shouldn't provide any funding or weapons. Also this week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard used her personal X account to promote a cryptic video. She urged people to 'reject this path to nuclear war' and said certain 'elite warmongers' were carelessly pushing us toward it, in the knowledge that they personally had nuclear shelters that others didn't. It's not clear if Gabbard was alluding to the tensions in the Middle East – as opposed to, say, the war between Russia and Ukraine. But she has long advocated a softer approach to Iran. Back in 2020, while she was still a Democrat, she called Trump's killing of a top Iranian commander an unconstitutional 'act of war.' Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana responded this week that Gabbard should 'change her meds.' In other words, this isn't even simple on the right anymore. Trump leads a country and a movement that are increasingly torn about the path ahead. He has landed firmly in Israel's corner thus far. But very difficult decisions could lie ahead.