SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 12 2025, 01:18pm EDT
Contact:
press@sanders.senate.gov
Sanders, King Introduce Bill to Ban Prescription Drug Ads
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) today introduced the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act, legislation that would ban prescription drug advertising on television, radio, print, digital platforms and social media. The bill would also answer Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s repeated calls to end prescription drug advertising, a position he promoted while campaigning for President Trump in 2024.
“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. “With the exception of New Zealand, the United States is the only country in the world where it is legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs on television. It is time for us to end that international embarrassment. The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”
“The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier,” King said. “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.”
Last year, the 10 largest drug companies made more than $100 billion in profits while the pharmaceutical industry spent over $5 billion on television ads. Prescription drug commercials now account for more than 30% of commercial time on major networks’ evening news programs. In the first three months of this year, Big Pharma spent more than $725 million advertising just 10 drugs. Meanwhile, the American people pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and one in four Americans cannot afford the costs of the medicine their doctors prescribe.
Banning direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising is not a radical idea. In addition to Secretary Kennedy, the American Medical Association endorsed a ban a decade ago. Studies have shown that more than half of prescription drug ads are misleading or false, causing many Americans to underestimate the associated risks. Harvard researchers found that the majority of the most advertised drugs had little to no therapeutic benefit compared to existing prescription drugs. America’s seniors are particularly at risk of being misled as pharmaceutical companies strategically target them by pushing high-priced medications that may cause them harm.
For example, in 2010, Eli Lilly spent $205 million on direct-to-consumer ads and made $3.2 billion in sales for the antidepressant drug Cymbalta, despite Food and Drug Administration (FDA) findings that the company’s ads made unsupported and misleading claims of effectiveness and minimized its safety risks. Merck spent $300 million marketing the painkiller Vioxx and made $2.5 billion in sales, despite finding in 2000 that their product raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Dr. David Graham, a senior FDA official, testified in 2004 that Merck’s failure to stop selling Vioxx had resulted in as many as 55,000 unnecessary deaths from heart attacks and stroke.
Drug companies are also spending huge amounts of money on prescription drugs that cost, in some cases, more than ten times as much in the United States than other countries. In 2023, Novo Nordisk spent $263 million on direct-to-consumer ads for Wegovy and $208 million on ads for Ozempic. Today, Novo Nordisk charges nearly $1,000 a month for Ozempic in the United States, while this same exact drug can be purchased for just $59 in Germany, $71 in France, $122 in Denmark, and $155 in Canada. Novo Nordisk also charges Americans with obesity $1,349 a month for Wegovy while this same exact product can be purchased for just $92 in the United Kingdom, $137 in Germany, $186 in Denmark and $265 in Canada.
Joining Sanders and King as cosponsors of the legislation are Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill).
Read the bill text here.
Read a summary of the bill here.
LATEST NEWS
War Profiteers Benefit as Nuclear Weapons Spending Soared Above $100 Billion Last Year
New analysis reveals that global nuclear weapons spending "could feed all of the 345 million people currently facing the most severe levels of hunger globally, including starvation, for nearly two years."
Jun 13, 2025
The world's nine nuclear-armed nations spent more than $100 billion on their atomic arsenals last year—up 11% from 2023—with the United States accounting for both the largest share and biggest increase in expenditures, a report published Friday by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons reveals.
The new ICAN analysis identifies a $9.9 billion increase in global nuclear weapons spending in 2024, with the U.S.—the only country to ever carry out a nuclear attack on another nation—spending $56.8 billion, more than the combined expenditures of the eight other countries with nukes. In addition to the U.S., Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have nuclear arsenals. The $5.3 billion annual spending increase by the U.S. was also more than any other nuclear power.
All that spending on doomsday weapons padded the profits of major arms makers. According to the report:
In 2024, at least twenty-six companies working on nuclear weapons development and maintenance held significant contracts for their work. These companies earned at least $43.5 billion in the year and hold at least $463 billion in outstanding contracts. In 2024, new contracts worth around $20 billion were awarded to these companies. The companies identified in this report paid lobbyists in France and the United States more than $128 million to represent their interests last year. They also had 196 meetings with high-level U.K. officials including 18 with the prime minister's office in 2024.
"Nuclear-armed countries could have paid the United Nations' budget 28 times with what they spent to build and maintain nuclear weapons in 2024," the report states. "They could feed all of the 345 million people currently facing the most severe levels of hunger globally, including starvation, for nearly two years."
Noting that "98 countries have signed, ratified, or acceded" to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), ICAN—which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work on the landmark accord—asserted that "it is up to each government, and the citizens of that country, to decide which path they will choose."
ICAN asserted that the stakes are higher than at any time in a generation.
"With two major wars involving nuclear-armed states in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as nuclear tensions escalating between India and Pakistan and on the Korean Peninsula, the risk that nuclear weapons could be used in combat is widely regarded as the highest it has been since the Cold War and possibly ever," the group warned Friday in a separate statement. "In response, the nuclear-armed states are clinging to the doctrine of deterrence which is based on brinkmanship and the threat to use nuclear weapons, exacerbating the risk of conflict."
Susi Snyder, ICAN program coordinator and report co-author, said Friday that the global crisis of nuclear proliferation and out-of-control spending can be solved, but that "doing so means understanding the vested interests fiercely defending the option for nine countries to indiscriminately murder civilians."
"The good news," she added, "is a majority are going in another direction. Ninety-eight states, supported by over 700 civil society organizations, have either signed, ratified, or directly acceded to the... TPNW that came into force four years ago."
This year's ICAN report highlighted the "hidden costs" of nuclear weapons.
"It's an affront to democracy that citizens and lawmakers in countries that boast of their democratic credentials are not allowed to know that nuclear weapons from other countries are based on their soil or how much of their taxes is being spent on them," ICAN policy and research coordinator and report co-author Alicia Sanders-Zakre said. "It is time for these democratically elected leaders to heed the call of their people to remove nuclear weapons from their countries and work for their total elimination."
Responding to the report, Oliver Meier, policy and research director at the European Leadership Network, a London-based think tank, said, "At a time when better transparency and accountability of nuclear weapon states range high on the agenda of many non-nuclear weapon states, the absolute secrecy and lack of engagement on the costs of Russian and NATO nuclear sharing arrangements are an anachronism."
"In democratic societies, legislators and other stakeholders must have opportunities to review these arrangements, including relevant expenditure," he added.
The day before ICAN published the report, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, was joined by retired military officers and national security experts in Washington, D.C. for the launch of Up In Arms, a four-year campaign "to bring common sense to the Department of Defense and the country's budgetary bottom line."
"There will be no peace, there will be no security, until we start using our resources to provide for the needs of our people at home and around the world," said Cohen. "And we have the money to do it, at no additional taxpayer expense. If we take half the money budgeted for the Pentagon and invested in the things people need and want, the American Dream can become a reality again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-GOP Budget Bill 'Takes From the Poor and Gives Most to the Rich,' CBO Analysis Confirms
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Republican legislation would cut household resources for the bottom 10% and boost them for the richest 10%, making it "uniquely regressive."
Jun 13, 2025
A new distributional analysis released Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office provided the latest confirmation that the GOP's sprawling budget bill would be highly regressive, further enriching the wealthiest households while leaving low-income families significantly worse off.
The CBO estimated that, if enacted, the House-passed Republican reconciliation package backed by President Donald Trump would slash household resources for the bottom 10% of the income distribution by roughly $1,600 per year over the next decade, primarily due to the bill's massive cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Households in the top 10%, by contrast, would see their resources increase by around $12,000 annually, the CBO found.
On the left: Bill Clinton’s 1993 deficit reduction bill - taxed the rich and gave to the poor while reducing deficits
On the right: Donald Trump’s 2025 deficit increase bill - takes from the poor and gives most to the rich while increasing deficits pic.twitter.com/mdUiBiTR7u
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) June 13, 2025
Chuck Marr, vice president for federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, toldThe New York Times that the extent to which the Republican bill would redistribute wealth upward is unprecedented in his experience.
"I've never seen anything that simultaneously really goes after poor people and then really helps rich people," said Marr.
The new CBO analysis adds to the growing body of reports detailing the harms the Republican reconciliation bill would inflict on poor households. Last week, the nonpartisan body estimated that the Republican bill would strip health coverage from nearly 11 million Americans while exploding the national debt by $2.4 trillion to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich.
The CBO has also found that the Republican attack on SNAP would take food benefits from more than a million people across the United States.
"The GOP reconciliation bill is something we haven't really seen before, and as a result it's uniquely regressive," wroteNew York Times reporter Emily Badger, the lead author of an analysis contrasting the Republican bill that's currently before the U.S. Senate with past legislation dealing with the U.S. tax code and safety net.
"To the extent that some prior bills have also been regressive," wrote Badger and her co-authors, "they still haven't looked quite like this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nuclear Facilities Must Never Be Attacked': IAEA Chief Condemns Israel's Bombing of Iran
"Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security, and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security," said the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Jun 13, 2025
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a grave warning about the potentially catastrophic environmental and human impacts of military attacks on nuclear facilities after Israel launched a massive assault on Iran's nuclear energy infrastructure, reportedly damaging the country's largest uranium enrichment site.
"This development is deeply concerning," said IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi. "I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment. Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security, and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security."
Grossi pointed to the IAEA's longstanding position that "armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked."
As of Friday afternoon local time, Iranian officials said radiation levels were not elevated at the Natanz enrichment site, according to Grossi. Iranian officials also said the country's Esfahan and Fordow nuclear sites were not affected by Israel's attacks.
"Despite the current military actions and heightened tensions," Grossi said Friday, "it is clear that the only sustainable path forward—for Iran, for Israel, the entire region, and the international community—is one grounded in dialogue and diplomacy to ensure peace, stability, and cooperation."
"Israel's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is a dangerous escalation from a nuclear-armed state that threatens to thwart negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program."
Israel's deadly attack on Iran came a day after the IAEA Board of Governors approved a U.S.-backed resolution accusing Iran of not complying with its commitments to international nuclear safeguards.
Iran responded furiously to the resolution's passage, saying it "has no choice but to respond to this politically motivated resolution" and announcing a "new enrichment facility in a secure location."
Contrary to the Israeli government's claim that Iran is racing toward a nuclear weapon, U.S. intelligence agencies have maintained that Iran is not building an atomic bomb—an assessment consistent with Iran's repeated public statements that its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes only.
Following Israel's attack, Iran—which is not a member of the IAEA board—requested that the United Nations agency hold an emergency meeting to discuss the Israeli strikes. Reutersreported that board members Russia, China, and Venezuela supported the request for a meeting.
Melissa Parke, executive director of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said in a statement Friday that "Israel's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is a dangerous escalation from a nuclear-armed state that threatens to thwart negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program."
"Israel and Iran must join the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons without delay," said Parke. "This would require Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and Iran to maintain its current nuclear safeguards framework under IAEA oversight. It is only through broad-based negotiated solutions that we can truly end the threat from nuclear weapons by agreeing to their total elimination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular