Inside Marty Makary's FDA Hearing

The Food and Drug Administration has long been compromised by its close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, at times operating more like a tacit business partner than an independent regulator. The revolving door between the FDA and Big Pharma incentivizes agency officials to approve drugs and medical devices with the expectation of landing cushy, lucrative industry jobs afterward, creating a clear conflict of interest. The FDA’s track record of fast-tracking high-profit drugs while dragging its feet on cheaper, off-patent treatments suggests that its priority is protecting industry profits, not public health. During the pandemic, the agency’s numerous failures — from downplaying myocarditis risks to flip-flopping on booster guidance — only reinforced the public perception that the FDA values political expediency and corporate interests over scientific integrity.

Against this backdrop, Dr. Marty Makary entered his Senate confirmation hearing on March 6 and delivered a performance that affirmed why he is the ideal candidate to lead the FDA. Federal health agencies have never faced more public scrutiny than they do today, thanks to their overtly political posture during the pandemic. Makary’s performance echoed the strong, principled testimony of Jay Bhattacharya the day before, demonstrating the independence and scientific clarity that has been sorely lacking in the agency’s leadership.

Makary made clear that his leadership at the FDA would mark a significant departure from the status quo. In response to Senator Tommy Tuberville’s questions about the FDA’s food regulations, Makary spoke to the growing concerns about toxic chemicals in the food supply, which the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement has highlighted. Makary’s willingness to address these concerns head-on reflects his broader commitment to prioritizing public health over corporate interests.

“When we eat foods with a lot of molecules that do not appear in nature, these are chemicals that the industry insists are safe, a subset of which are concerning,” Makary stated. “There’s a body of research now that suggests concern with some of these ingredients. We have to look at those ingredients, and you have my commitment to do so.”

Makary also addressed the growing evidence that certain food additives are contributing to chronic health issues in children.

“Some of these additives create an inflammatory response in the gastrointestinal tract and with an altered microbiome lining — that GI tract,” he explained. “It’s not an acute inflammatory reaction, it’s a chronic low-grade reaction, and they don’t feel well.”

Such scientific honesty and willingness to challenge powerful corporate interests sets Makary apart from previous FDA commissioners, who have largely turned a blind eye to these concerns. His remarks signal a shift toward greater scrutiny of the food and pharmaceutical industries — something the FDA has avoided for far too long.

Just last month, the FDA was back in the spotlight when Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, the former head of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, joined Pfizer as its Chief Medical Officer — mere weeks after stepping down from her regulatory post. Cavazzoni’s swift transition reignited concerns over the revolving door between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, especially given her involvement in reviewing multiple Pfizer products.

Makary addressed these conflicts when responding to Senator Rand Paul’s questions about the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical industry.

“People see things that appear to be a cozy relationship between industry and the regulators that are supposed to be regulating the products,” Makary said. “Now, I want American companies to thrive. I want life sciences companies to thrive, but we need to call balls and strikes and keep that independent scientific review process free of any conflicts.”

This statement underscores Makary’s willingness to confront the structural problems at the FDA, which previous commissioners have been unwilling or unable to do. His commitment to protecting scientific integrity from corporate influence marks a break from the agency’s deeply entrenched culture of regulatory capture.

Ironically, Makary was pressed on his own conflicts of interest by Senator Elizabeth Warren, who had sent a letter urging him to recuse himself from matters involving former clients and employers, such as Sesame Care and Harrow, for at least four years. Makary acknowledged the concerns and assured the committee that he would adhere to strict ethical standards. He had already pledged to sell his stocks in a telehealth company and a medical device company specializing in cataract surgery. Unlike previous FDA commissioners such as Robert Califf, Makary does not hold stock in any Big Pharma companies — a sign of independence from industry influence.

Makary also deftly handled questions from Democratic senators about recent firings at the FDA, making clear that he had no involvement in those decisions while expressing his intention to improve efficiency at the agency.

“At the same time, I want to make sure that the scientists and food inspectors and staff central to the core mission of the agency have all the resources they need to do their job well,” he added.

Courage Under Fire: Makary’s Covid Record Sets Him Apart

Makary’s moral courage during the Covid-19 pandemic stands as one of the strongest arguments for his leadership of the FDA. While most public health officials toed the government line, Makary spoke out early and often against misguided lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates — even when it was professionally risky to do so. He was one of the most powerful voices warning about the risks of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young men, long before the CDC and FDA acknowledged the issue.

He also pushed back against the scientific groupthink surrounding natural immunity, arguing that Covid infection and recovery offered meaningful future protection that should have been factored into public health recommendations. Makary’s willingness to follow the data rather than political narratives — even when it meant standing alone — reflects the kind of principled leadership that the FDA desperately needs.

Unlike many in the public health establishment, Makary never relied on fear-based messaging. He consistently advocated for balanced, evidence-based policies, resisting the pressure to silence dissenting voices or enforce scientific orthodoxy. His conduct during the Covid crisis demonstrated that he values scientific integrity over political convenience.

The Right Person at the Right Time

Makary’s combination of scientific expertise, independence from industry, and moral courage makes him the right candidate to lead the FDA at this pivotal moment. His willingness to take on Big Pharma and clean up the FDA’s cozy relationship with industry is exactly what the agency needs to restore public trust. At the same time, his track record of standing up for medical truth during the pandemic proves that he has the backbone to lead with integrity — even when the political winds are blowing against him.

Makary is not just the best person for the job — he may be the only person capable of fixing what’s broken at the FDA. His nomination was reported favorably by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee last week, notably with the approval of Democratic Senators John Hickenlooper (CO) and Maggie Hassan (N.H). The Senate should now confirm him without hesitation.