Margaret Manto, NOTUS, June 26, 2025
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made ending “corporate capture” of the federal health agencies a key tenet of his plan to eradicate what the MAHA Commission Assessment describes as “threats to American childhood that have been exacerbated by perverse incentives.”
But health care lobbyists, regulatory experts and advocates for reduced industry involvement all told NOTUS the same thing: So far, Kennedy’s words don’t match his actions.
“The rhetoric is quite different, but it doesn’t seem like the reality is obviously different,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, who has criticized the Food and Drug Administration’s funding structure that relies on collecting fees from the companies whose products it regulates. “There’s all kinds of conflicts of interest that have been absolutely ignored by HHS and, as far as we can tell, still are.”
Since ascending to the top of the U.S. public health system, Kennedy has made grand gestures towards his supposed goal of clamping down on corporate influence at the Department of Health and Human Services. He’s held press conferences to tout agreements made with food producers to end the use of certain synthetic food dyes and with insurance companies to speed up the prior authorization process, both of which companies have lobbied against for years.
But these agreements have all been entirely voluntary. In the case of the food dye announcement, that was a direct result of industry influence, said one lobbyist granted anonymity to speak frankly.
“Their biggest win was not real,” the lobbyist said.
[….]
“Secretary Kennedy’s commitment to eliminating undue corporate influence and restoring public trust in health policy is backed by decisive action. Under the Secretary’s leadership, HHS has taken concrete steps to increase transparency, strengthen ethical standards, and prioritize the health and well-being of the American people over industry profits,” the spokesperson wrote.
But the MAHA report, which took aim at a range of public health interventions that the MAHA movement is suspicious of, including vaccines and ultraprocessed foods, was noticeably light on criticism of the agriculture industry and pesticide use — which Kennedy has pledged to reform.
In a hearing last month before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Kennedy assured senators that he would “not do anything to jeopardize that business model.”
Other than reworking their pitches to use new, more MAHA-friendly language, companies and the lobbyists who work for them haven’t had to do much to adapt to the new HHS leadership, the lobbyist said.
“I haven’t noticed anything different at all,” they said. “I don’t know anybody who’s had a problem getting a meeting.”
[….]
Since these meetings, HHS has embarked on policies that both advance the MAHA movement’s public health goals and provide potential benefits to industries deemed acceptable.
Earlier this month, STAT News reported that HHS put out a call for proposals for a “bold, edgy” public messaging campaign to “inspire and empower Americans to reclaim control over their health.” The request specifically asks for proposals that highlight health wearables as “cool, modern tools.”
“My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years,” Kennedy said during a congressional hearing this week.
Other policy decisions seem poised to benefit not just certain niches of the health care industry, but key players within the MAHA movement. In early June, the Food and Drug Administration declined to contest a court ruling that overturned a 2024 FDA rule regulating laboratory-developed tests.
The agency had previously argued that increased regulation was necessary to “better protect the public health by helping to assure the safety and effectiveness” of tests that are manufactured and used by a single laboratory, as opposed to commercially available in-vitro diagnostics that are used by labs nationwide and which the FDA requires to be thoroughly verified and validated.
[….]
The FDA is the main arbiter of which drugs, medical devices and food additives are allowed to enter the U.S. market. It has long borne the brunt of Kennedy’s and other HHS critics’ “corporate capture” accusations thanks to its user-fee funding structure, where companies pay to have their products reviewed by the FDA and help supplement the agency’s congressionally allocated funds.
Corporate influence watchdogs are scrutinizing other recent FDA shifts, too.
While FDA commissioner Marty Makary promised “radical transparency” during his confirmation process, earlier this month he announced a nationwide “listening tour” where he will meet with pharmaceutical and biotech CEOs to solicit their input on “how the FDA can modernize its regulatory framework to better support innovation and patient access to safe and effective therapies.”
Companies are required to have an active drug or device application with the FDA in order to send a representative to meet with Makary.
“The listening tours usually actually involve listening to the public, not just listening to each other,” said Zuckerman. “In the past they’d have it at some university or medical center or something, a public meeting. Anybody could sign up to attend, anybody could sign up to ask questions or make comments.”
The HHS spokesperson said the listening tour is intended to “break through the bureaucratic echo chambers that have long hindered the FDA” and that “direct engagement with regulated industry is essential for real reform and accountability.”
Makary also recently announced a new “Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher” program that would speed up the FDA review process for companies whose products “enhance the health interests of Americans.”
Reshma Ramachandran, a professor of medicine at Yale University who studies the influence of pharmaceutical companies, said the new voucher would likely worsen the existing conflict of interest issues at the FDA. She pointed to the shorter review time and deep personnel cuts at the agency as issues that would increase the FDA’s reliance on what the companies themselves say about their products.
“Will FDA have enough capacity to even push back against companies?” Ramachandran said.
HHS’ spokesperson disputed this characterization, saying that the National Priority Review Voucher program is about urgency, not favoritism.
“Expediting reviews for high-impact products does not compromise scientific integrity — it enhances timely access to innovations that can save lives,” they wrote.
One industry expert said he felt that both could be true at the same time.
“The National Priorities Voucher initiative at FDA goes right to the top of my lists of things that make you go ‘hmmm,’” said Steve Grossman, a regulatory consultant and co-founder of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA. “I like the boldness in thinking about FDA’s contribution to public health, the clear commitment to quicker decisions by the agency and the good sense of starting with a pilot program. At the same time, I worry about diluting the focus on unmet medical needs, the subjectivity of who receives the vouchers and the potential manpower crunch.”
Makary also announced earlier this year that the FDA would limit industry representation on FDA committees to what was “statutorily allowed” — something that Zuckerman said has been “pretty much true for years.”
While changes to committee membership may get plenty of attention, “there’s a much bigger universe of ways in which industry interfaces with HHS and all its subsidiary agencies,” said Matthew McCoy, an assistant professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania who studies conflicts of interest.
“It’s not as if that’s the only way in which industry influences can shape the way that policy making happens within these health care agencies,” said McCoy.
—
Margaret Manto is a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated Steve Grossman’s title. He is a regulatory consultant and co-founder of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.