How have pharmaceutical industry reactions and lobbying differed between the two administrations?
Executive summary
The pharmaceutical industry's posture and playbook shifted noticeably between the Biden years and the Trump second term: under Biden, drugmakers concentrated on legal and legislative fights against concrete price‑lowering initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act and import orders, while under Trump the industry ratcheted up raw lobbying and political outreach to blunt aggressive executive threats and to negotiate discrete price deals — even as firms continued routine list‑price increases [1] [2] [3] [4]. Both administrations drew heavy spending and strategic responses from the industry, but the mix of courtroom challenges, public messaging, high‑volume lobbying, and campaign/transition gifts differed in emphasis and tactic [3] [1] [5].
1. Litigation and policy pushback under Biden: defensive lawfare and targeted lobbying
Throughout the Biden administration pharmaceutical companies and their trade groups mounted sustained legal challenges and concentrated lobbying against regulatory and statutory changes that threatened margins — most notably resisting the IRA’s Medicare drug‑price negotiation framework and opposing drug importation and other price controls — a pattern reflected in record lobbying expenditures aimed at defeating or narrowing those policies [1] [2] [6]. Trade associations signaled willingness to litigate and used traditional advocacy channels to blunt policy implementation, framing arguments around constitutional and administrative grounds and the need to protect innovation — a stance thoroughly documented in coverage of the industry’s post‑2021 activity [3] [2].
2. Public messaging and global‑patent fights: protecting IP as political argument
Under Biden the industry also leaned heavily on public relations to contest proposals such as international patent waivers and importation, pushing narratives that patents and pricing protections are necessary to sustain R&D — a line that dovetailed with trade group lobbying and congressional outreach, and that at times put the industry at odds with the Administration’s more consumer‑facing rhetoric on prices [7] [2]. Coverage indicates firms and associations repeatedly invoked innovation concerns while lobbying members of Congress and opposing international waiver efforts [7] [1].
3. Under Trump: concentrated spending, relationship building, and political gifts
When the Trump administration returned, the industry shifted toward heavier, more transactional political engagement: lobbying totals jumped in 2025 as drugmakers and firms like Ballard Partners intensified outreach to influence trade and health provisions, and reports document substantial contributions and inaugural committee gifts from major companies to curry favor with the new administration [8] [5]. That strategy corresponded with an environment in which the White House pressed companies for price cuts, floated aggressive tools (most‑favored‑nation pricing, tariffs) and sought one‑off deals with manufacturers, prompting firms to prioritize rapid political access alongside traditional lobbying [3] [5].
4. Deals, threats, and a paradox: price commitments plus continued list increases
The Trump team touted negotiated price agreements with a slate of drugmakers, but reporting shows a paradox: despite headline deals, many of the same companies still implemented routine list‑price hikes — illustrating the limits of publicity‑driven bargains versus structural reform like Medicare negotiation that the industry had fought under Biden [4] [9]. This dynamic exposed competing industry incentives: placate regulators publicly while preserving pricing levers in normal commercial channels.
5. Grassroots and advocacy framing: industry allies and opposition coalitions
Across both administrations the sector marshaled surrogates and allied groups to amplify its case; watchdogs and public‑interest organizations documented extensive hiring of lobbyists and coordinated campaigns to undermine negotiation policies, especially after the IRA, while industry sources emphasized patient access and innovation risk as counterarguments [10] [1]. The result has been mirror tactics — heavy spending and coalition building — deployed in response to differing executive priorities and threats.
6. Limits of the record and what remains unreported
Public reporting makes clear patterns of spending, lawsuits, donations, and rhetoric, but does not fully illuminate behind‑the‑scenes bargaining, the confidentiality of specific price agreements, or internal corporate calculus on when to litigate versus negotiate; several outlets note that exact deal terms are often kept private and that campaign and inauguration gifts complicate assessments of influence [9] [5]. Where the sources are silent, this analysis does not speculate about private boardroom motives beyond what coverage documents.