Trump bought tobacco stocks and raked in industry donations as FDA eased standards

President Donald Trump’s stock portfolio includes up to $1.64 million in Philip Morris, a leading tobacco company, alongside holdings in Altria and another unnamed tobacco firm, though discrepancies in his disclosures obscure the full extent of his investments. In 2025, tobacco industry groups donated $6 million to MAGA Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC, with an additional $5 million from Reynolds American deposited just before the FDA issued guidance in late April that eased restrictions on flavored e-cigarettes. The Trump administration has pursued a pro-tobacco policy agenda, accelerating FDA approvals for nicotine pouches and vapes despite resistance from public health officials. The FDA’s guidance this year allowed flavored e-cigarettes to remain on the market, while enforcement against illicit competitors intensified. Staff cuts in anti-tobacco policy units further weakened regulatory oversight, critics say. Public health advocates condemn the policies as a “lucrative payday” for tobacco companies, citing scientific evidence ignored in favor of industry-friendly decisions. Brian King, a former FDA tobacco official now with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the shift “public health malpractice,” warning that nicotine products remain addictive and harmful. The White House defended the FDA’s actions, citing recent studies suggesting vapes and pouches help smokers quit, though critics dispute the claim. Tobacco companies like Philip Morris argue their products offer safer alternatives to cigarettes, with Goldman Sachs analysts projecting higher profits from newer nicotine formats like Zyn pouches. The financial ties between Trump’s administration and the industry—including stock trades and super PAC donations—have fueled accusations of conflict of interest. Philip Morris and other companies declined to comment on the connections, while the White House did not address Trump’s investments or the donations. Lawmakers, including Senate Democrats, have demanded answers, framing the FDA’s decisions as politically motivated. The controversy underscores broader concerns about regulatory capture, where industry influence shapes public health policies with long-term consequences for millions of Americans.