Late last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is overseen by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., drew a line in the sand over direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies: In a post on X, the agency declared that drug ads “can push people to take drugs they don’t actually need. Americans often end up harmed instead of helped.”

That’s why, the post continued, President Donald Trump and Kennedy “are taking action.” Globe Cross Section

The most immediate evidence of those efforts came the previous week, in the form of a presidential memorandum on what the administration views as “misleading” direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads. The same day, HHS and the Food and Drug Administration released a joint press release outlining that drug makers would now be required to substitute the abbreviated disclosures they’ve used since 1997 with full safety warnings, including conditions or situations that make taking the drug unsafe.

Despite the change in stance, however, it’s unclear if or when Americans will see fewer ads — or even ones that reflect the memo’s objectives. Legal challenges will almost certainly stymie the Trump administration’s most aggressive actions, and the history of pharmaceutical advertising in the United States is one of uneasy tension between consumer interest and corporate free speech.

The U.S. is one of just two wealthy countries where DTC ads for prescription drugs are legal. Estimates vary on how much money major drug companies spend on advertising. An upper bound estimate by The Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, a coalition that promotes lower drug prices in the U.S., put the figure at nearly $14 billion, which includes the cost of promoting drugs to physicians.

Free speech. Unless, like, you’re against genocide or something.

Lawyers are going to make bank off the years of protracted challenges, and nothing will change for consumers subsidizing heavy advertising spends.