What public statements have Dr. Phil’s representatives made about endorsements and product licensing?
Executive summary
Dr. Phil’s public-facing communications about endorsements have been mixed: he has at times appeared at a political rally and offered supportive remarks yet has publicly denied formally endorsing a candidate, a distinction he and his spokespeople have emphasized in media interviews [1] [2] [3]. On product licensing, historical disclosures show McGraw lent his name and image to a line of nutritional supplements in 2003 under a licensing agreement that directed a portion of proceeds to his foundation, but the reporting provided contains no contemporaneous representative statement explaining that deal [4].
1. Public posture on political endorsements: appearances, disclaimers and walkbacks
When Dr. Phil appeared at Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally and praised aspects of the former president, mainstream outlets reported both the appearance and his subsequent public clarifications — McGraw spoke favorably at the rally but then publicly denied that he had formally endorsed Trump, calling his appearance an “act of rebellion” and insisting he does not routinely endorse candidates [1] [2] [3]. Coverage in Deadline documented the rally remarks and noted his prior interview comments about not endorsing candidates while siding with some of Trump’s claims [1], while Variety and The Independent quoted McGraw’s later denial and explanation that he was not there to endorse the former president [2] [3].
2. How those denials were framed and why it matters
The language used in follow-up statements — “I do not endorse candidates” and that the rally was an “act of rebellion” — frames McGraw as distancing himself from formal political endorsement even while expressing affinity for certain positions or personalities, a nuance repeatedly recorded in the press [5] [2] [3]. Media reports highlight the tension between on-stage praise and public disclaimers: outlets like IMDb and Variety relayed his claimed refusal to endorse candidates while also noting instances where his rhetoric aligned with a candidate’s narrative, underscoring why outlets and critics treated his denials as partial or qualified [5] [2].
3. Product licensing: the Shape Up deal and public record vs. spokesperson commentary
The clearest public record about Dr. Phil’s commercial licensing comes from long-form summaries: in 2003 he lent his name and image to a line of nutritional supplements called Shape Up under a licensing agreement with CSA Nutraceuticals, with the contract specifying that a percentage of sales be given to the Dr. Phil Foundation — a factual summary recorded in biographical reporting [4]. That record documents the licensing arrangement itself but the set of sources provided does not include a contemporaneous statement from Dr. Phil’s representatives explaining the rationale, safeguards or marketing claims tied to that licensing; thus public statements from his team about the Shape Up licensing are not present in the supplied reporting [4].
4. Competing narratives, reputational risk and what the available records don’t say
News outlets and critics have framed McGraw’s rally appearance either as an endorsement in substance or as a non-endorsement in form, and his subsequent media comments reflect an attempt to thread that needle — an ambiguity documented across Deadline, Variety and The Independent [1] [2] [3]. Separately, consumer-protection and industry commentary about celebrity endorsers has referenced Dr. Phil’s past product deals in discussions about labeling and responsibility, but the supplied sources do not contain recent formal statements from his representatives addressing contemporary sponsorship practices, nor do they present direct quotes from his licensing partners beyond the summary of the 2003 deal [4] [6]. Therefore, while there is clear, sourced evidence of both on-stage political support and public denials of formal endorsement, and also a public record of a past licensing agreement, there is a gap in the supplied reporting on explicit spokesperson statements about the rationale, disclosures or legal protections tied to his product licensing.