The drama surrounding Sarepta's gene therapy, where a top regulator was ousted after political pushback and later reinstated, shows the FDA is now more amenable to outside influence. This case study indicates that presidential and activist pressure can directly impact regulatory enforcement and personnel decisions, moving beyond purely scientific considerations.

Unicure's setback with its Huntington's gene therapy demonstrates a new political risk at the FDA. A prior agreement on a trial's design can be overturned by new leadership, especially if the data is not overwhelmingly definitive. This makes past regulatory alignment a less reliable indicator of future approval.

An ideologically driven and inconsistent FDA is eroding investor confidence, turning the U.S. into a difficult environment for investment in complex biologics like gene therapies and vaccines, potentially pushing innovation to other countries.

Internal power shifts at the FDA, such as Vinay Prasad's rising influence, create a chilling effect on review teams. Even without direct orders, reviewers feel less emboldened to be flexible when leadership's public stance favors greater rigor. This 'tone from leadership' can shift regulatory outcomes more than explicit policy changes.

The replacement of CEDAR Director Richard Pazder with Tracy Beth Hoeg, who is viewed as an ideologue lacking regulatory experience, signals a shift toward politically driven decisions at the FDA. This move creates significant uncertainty and raises concerns that ideology, not science, will influence drug approvals.

The FDA is shifting policy to no longer allow reliance on immunogenicity data (immunobridging) for approving new or updated vaccines. This move toward requiring full clinical efficacy trials will make it harder to combat evolving pathogens and would have prevented past approvals of key vaccines like those for HPV and Ebola.

The HHS Secretary's unprecedented interview of a candidate for FDA's CEDAR Director marks a significant politicization of a traditionally scientific, civil service position. This shift suggests future directors may need political alignment with the administration, leading to greater risk aversion, erratic decision-making, and less predictability for the biopharma industry.

The current disconnect between the FDA leadership's public calls for flexibility and its divisions' strict actions is not new. For decades, the agency's hierarchy has acted as a promotional arm to encourage industry, while the review divisions have maintained a more conservative, old-school approach to rigor. This historical pattern is often overlooked.

Industry sentiment on the FDA is not monolithic. A recent survey reveals that while biotechs largely maintain confidence in the agency's hardworking staff and their day-to-day interactions, there is deep concern and a lack of trust in the agency's top leadership. This nuanced view highlights that the perceived problems are rooted in politicization and leadership competence, not frontline operations.