(ZeroHedge)—Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, both independents, on Thursday will introduce legislation that would ban pharmaceutical companies from promoting prescription drugs directly to consumers – including through television, radio, print, digital platforms, and social media, the WSJ reports.
The proposal would mark a sweeping shift in the U.S. advertising landscape, where pharmaceutical companies are among the largest spenders. Prescription drug brands accounted for roughly 13 percent of all ad spending on linear television in 2025, totaling approximately $2.18 billion so far this year, according to iSpot data. In 2024, the industry spent $3.4 billion on traditional TV ads between January and August alone, according to ad-tracking data.
“The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television,” Sanders said in a statement. “They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”
The legislation follows longstanding criticism from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly called for a ban on prescription drug advertising. While running for president, Mr. Kennedy said he would issue an executive order removing pharmaceutical ads from television, citing overmedication and industry influence on news coverage.
“We’re one of only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers,” Mr. Kennedy said in a video posted to X. “Everybody agrees it’s a bad idea.”
The United States and New Zealand are currently the only countries that permit direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads.
Mr. Sanders and Mr. King, who each voted against Mr. Kennedy’s confirmation, have long expressed skepticism of consumer drug marketing. In February, Mr. King introduced a bill that would prohibit pharmaceutical advertising in the first three years following a drug’s approval.
Other lawmakers from both parties have taken similar steps. In May, Senators Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, and Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, introduced legislation to eliminate tax deductions for pharmaceutical consumer advertising.
Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration relaxed disclosure requirements for DTC ads, pharmaceutical companies have increasingly leaned on consumer advertising to drive demand. Under current rules, companies need only disclose a drug’s “most important” risks during commercials.
The result has been a media environment saturated with pharmaceutical messaging. Drug ads made up 24.4 percent of all advertising minutes on evening news broadcasts across major networks — including ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC — through May of this year, according iSpot. On CBS Evening News, pharmaceutical companies appeared in more than 70 percent of commercial breaks, per Kantar Media.
The industry has defended the practice. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a leading trade group, points to its “guiding principles,” arguing that direct‑to‑consumer ads increase disease awareness, encourage patients to seek treatment, and prompt conversations with doctors.
Any move to ban pharmaceutical advertising could face legal challenges under the First Amendment’s protections for commercial speech.
Still, Mr. Sanders and Mr. King maintain their efforts are necessary to push back against what they describe as an overcommercialized influence on public health messaging.
The Biggest Threat to Your Retirement Is Actually a Very Good Thing
When you look at the headlines today, you’ll see experts in the retirement industry warning about big threats to your financial security:
- De-dollarization and the rise of BRICS
- Soaring national debt
- Unstable interest rates
- Weakened U.S. dollar
All of these are real concerns. But they aren’t the biggest threat to your retirement savings. The true risk isn’t political, monetary, or global.
It’s longevity.
Why Longevity Is the Silent Threat
For most of human history, the problem was the opposite — life expectancy was short, and few people even reached retirement. Today, thanks to medical advancements, healthier lifestyles, and better living conditions, people are living longer than ever before.
And while that’s a wonderful thing, it comes with a financial catch: Your retirement account has to last far longer than you might expect.
- A 65-year-old couple today has a 50% chance that one of them will live to 90.
- Some projections suggest that many of us will live well into our 90s, even 100+.
- This means your nest egg may need to stretch not for 15 years, but 25, 30, or even 40 years.
That’s where the real danger lies: running out of money before you run out of life.
The Retirement Equation Has Changed
While market volatility, debt crises, or central bank policies may feel like the scariest threats, they’re temporary storms. Longevity, however, is a structural shift. Every extra year of life is another year of expenses, another year of inflation erosion, and another year of financial pressure.
If your retirement plan doesn’t account for longevity, you could face tough choices later in life — downsizing, working when you’d rather not, or becoming financially dependent on others.
How to Take Control
The good news? Longevity is a blessing — as long as you’re prepared for it. With the right planning, your retirement savings can work for you instead of against you. The key is learning how to protect your wealth, outpace inflation, and ensure your savings grow even as you live longer.
That’s why our friends at Augusta Precious Metals created a free resource to help you get started:
👉 Get Instant Access to the report, “How to Take Full Control of Your Financial Future”
This brief report will show you practical strategies to safeguard your retirement from the biggest threat of all — the one that comes from the gift of living longer.
Don’t let longevity catch you unprepared. Take the steps today to secure tomorrow.
