A key hurdle in psychedelic trials is that patients often know if they received the active drug. The industry is addressing this "functional unblinding" by aiming for therapeutic effects so large in Phase 3 that they significantly outweigh any potential placebo bias, making the unblinding issue less critical for approval.

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.

CellSci's drug trial ran into a stricter FDA under one administration after a period of more lenient approvals under the previous one. This political "pendulum swing" can derail promising drugs, showing that regulatory risk is not static but subject to unpredictable political change.

Amidst growing turmoil at the FDA, a viable strategy is to "invest around" the risk. This involves prioritizing companies whose drugs show clear data on well-understood, validated endpoints, as these are most likely to navigate the current political environment successfully, regardless of leadership changes.

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.

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.

Despite widespread concern about political disruption at the FDA, key metrics for innovation in new drug approvals—such as first-in-class drugs and new targets—were almost completely flat in 2025 compared to previous years. This suggests the core regulatory engine has remained consistent, for now.

For the next wave of psychedelic therapies, the pivotal regulatory question is treatment durability. The FDA's view on "as-needed" (PRN) dosing versus the fixed-interval schedule of approved drugs like Spravato will determine the commercial viability and clinical pathway for companies like Compass Pathways.

While Compass Pathways' psychedelic drug was internally approved for an accelerated review voucher by the FDA, a White House veto blocked it. Experts suggest this may be beneficial by forcing the drug through a traditional review, avoiding perceptions of political influence and building credibility for the controversial field.