In lieu of a total pharma ad ban that may or may not be feasible through executive action, the Trump administration is reportedly mulling two policy changes to limit pharma's propaganda capacity through the legacy corporate state media, heavily dependent on ad cash to finance its lavish and increasingly unpopular programming.

Via Bloomberg (emphasis added):

"The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending…

The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry's ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes, these people said."

While failing to disclose its own interests in keeping the gravy train rolling, CNN cites concerns among generic "broadcasters" that would stand to lose out on a critical source of revenue.

Via CNN (emphasis added):

"For decades, pharmaceutical companies have shelled out big bucks to broadcasters to place ads between TV segments. But a pair of policies being considered by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could change that and leave broadcasters in financial straits.

While not an outright ban*, the two policies would make it significantly more difficult and expensive for drug companies to push their products across broadcasters' airwaves… The policies look to either mandate that advertisers elaborate on the risks posed by their drugs — forcing ads to be longer and, therefore, more expensive — or bar drugmakers from writing off direct-to-consumer ads as business expenses on their taxes, also padding the bill."