Read theMandate

Project 2025Chapter 14 › Proposal

Impose a long cooling off period on drug regulators

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, chapter 14, p. 452. Written by Roger Severino.

Impose a long cooling off period on drug regulators

The document says “shouldWho acts: HHS, CongressHow: legislationp. 452 in the PDF
What the document says

“Regulators should have a long “cooling off period” on their contracts (15 years would not be too long)”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 452

The chapter says the revolving door between government and pharmaceutical companies should be shut and locked, that executives should likewise be restricted from moving into regulatory agencies, and that regulators at the health agencies should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding, which it calls agency capture and a thin veneer for corporatism. It cites a finding that more than two-thirds of FDA reviewers later joined companies whose products they had reviewed.

What the document actually says

“Regulators should have a long “cooling off period” on their contracts (15 years would not be too long)”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 452
That sentence, in plain words

Regulators should have to wait a long time. Fifteen years would not be too long.

What this is about

People who regulate drug firms often go to work for them later. The book says that is a problem. It says they should have to wait many years.

No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken. See what the tracker does not yet cover.

Share this page

How to read this page

The quotation is the document's own words, exactly as printed, and we check the page number against the book itself before publishing. The paragraph underneath is our summary, not the document's words. So is the plain English version, which is why it sits beside the quotation rather than replacing it.

All proposals in this chapter →