Stocks in the food and pharmaceutical industries took a nosedive Friday following President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The appointment has Big Pharma on high alert, bracing for potential policy upheavals under Kennedy, a fierce critic of the industry.
If confirmed, Kennedy will oversee an expansive $2 trillion department that manages federal health insurance programs and oversees regulatory agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH. His leadership could reshape the health care landscape, with significant implications for pharmaceutical companies that have long relied on the department as a recruitment ground for influence through the so-called “revolving door.”
Before Kennedy can take the helm of HHS, the Senate Finance Committee will vote on his nomination. This committee, however, has raised over $6.7 million from pharmaceutical companies between 2019 and 2024, according to an analysis of data compiled by OpenSecrets.
Republican senators on the committee raked in nearly $5 million of that total, while Democrats collected over $1.7 million. Contributions came from an industry now wary of Kennedy’s pledge to target predatory advertising and eliminate taxpayer subsidies that fuel corporate profits.
Some senators on the Finance Committee have received substantial financial backing from Big Pharma.
- Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): The top recipient across both parties, Tillis received more than $679,000 in donations from pharmaceutical companies.
- Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA): A close second among Republicans, Cassidy secured more than $667,000.
- Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV): Among Democrats, Cortez Masto leads with nearly $460,000 in contributions.
- Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Follow with $360,000 and $352,000, respectively.
While such donations raise concerns about undue influence, lawmakers insist that contributions don’t necessarily dictate their decisions.
Kennedy has built his career on challenging pharmaceutical interests, including his outspoken criticism of vaccine policies and drug advertising practices. During a Senate roundtable in September, he criticized the American health care system as a profit-driven machine that benefits from widespread illness.
“Every major pillar of the U.S. health care system, as a statement of economic fact, makes money when Americans get sick,” Kennedy declared.
Kennedy also argued that the nation’s declining health—marked by rising rates of obesity, depression, infertility, and chronic illness—poses a threat to national security and economic stability.
Republican senators on the Finance Committee have largely remained silent about their stance on Kennedy’s nomination. Behind the scenes, however, pharmaceutical lobbyists are likely intensifying efforts to sway lawmakers, given the stakes of Kennedy’s proposed reforms.
Democrats, too, face pressure from industry donors. While some members have expressed skepticism about Kennedy’s controversial views, others remain noncommittal as they weigh the broader implications of his confirmation.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who has received over $124,000 from pharmaceutical companies, has already voiced his support for Kennedy. Johnson lauded Kennedy’s ability to “lay out many truths” and described him as well-suited to lead HHS.
Kennedy’s confirmation would signal a seismic shift for the pharmaceutical industry. His proposed reforms include:
- Gutting Predatory Advertising Practices: Limiting the direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising that fuels demand for unnecessary medications.
- Ending Taxpayer Subsidies: Eliminating federal funding mechanisms that disproportionately benefit drug companies.
- Increasing Transparency: Shedding light on regulatory capture and conflicts of interest within agencies like the FDA and NIH.
These changes threaten to disrupt Big Pharma’s long-standing influence over health policy, which could ripple across Wall Street and beyond.
Kennedy’s nomination has already stirred significant public debate. Critics point to his controversial views on vaccines as evidence that he’s unfit to lead a health agency. Supporters, however, argue that his independent stance could bring much-needed accountability to an industry plagued by allegations of corruption and overreach.
Pharmaceutical companies, meanwhile, are mobilizing their lobbying efforts to protect their interests. The stakes are particularly high as Kennedy prepares to implement policies that could undermine their profit margins.
The Senate Finance Committee’s vote on Kennedy’s nomination will set the tone for what could be a contentious confirmation process. With Big Pharma’s financial ties to lawmakers under scrutiny, the decision will likely be viewed as a litmus test for Congress’s independence from corporate influence.
For Kennedy, the path to leading HHS is fraught with opposition, but his appointment could mark a turning point in America’s approach to health care policy. Whether the Senate will confirm a leader committed to dismantling the status quo remains to be seen.
