When Endpoints Signal released the Q1 Biopharma Sentiment Index on Jan. 28, it showed broadly rising confidence across the industry. But beneath those headline gains, there’s a story the numbers alone don’t tell — one that spilled out of the open-text fields of our survey in blunt language.
Of the 988 verified respondents who completed the BPSI survey this quarter, hundreds took the time to write out their views in our comments section. About one in five (169 comments) focused on politics, regulators and the state of the US government.
And they did not hold back. Respondents described “systematic destruction,” questioned the competence of US political appointees, and warned of damage that could take years to unwind. Some of the most pointed feedback came from people inside the regulatory system itself — reviewers, scientists, and veterans who have spent decades building the institutions now under stress. The median commenter had 16 to 20 years of industry experience.
What follows is a selection of those voices, which we’ve organized by common themes.
In their own words: Trump administration / executive actions
“There is a false impression that things have improved, and companies are ignoring the disaster caused by the administration in the US.”
“There is dry powder on the sidelines, but regulatory uncertainty and the total unpredictability of this bat-sh*t crazy administration has everyone sitting on their hands due to the risk of policy changes having unknown impacts on the industry.”
“Whether you like him or hate him, Trump pushes to get things done. He instills a no-unnecessary-roadblocks culture that’s been sorely lacking. You can see across the board. People just work harder now.”
“People can hope for a better year, but given this administration who the hell really knows.”
“Disastrous! Trump and RFK Jr. are upending the biopharma industry for the worse, creating significant uncertainty and instability.”
“Trump administration is gutting science spending and intimidating cowardly pharma execs.”
The Trump administration’s actions — from executive orders to personnel decisions — were the single largest topic in political comments, accounting for 19.3% of government-related responses. Concerns about the FDA were a close second.
Regulatory uncertainty continues to cast a shadow over the industry. An overwhelming 69% of survey respondents said the regulatory environment had deteriorated compared to a year ago — only 7% said it had improved. There was little optimism things would get better in 2026.
In their own words: FDA operations & stability
“I work in drug reviews. We have many fewer reviewers, and the people who know processes and policy are gone. The quality of submissions is declining. Pharma continues to use FDA as a sounding board and as consultants instead of having a complete development program. Perilous.”
“Biotech is back. Term sheets are flowing. But instability/revolving door at CDER is a major issue at the FDA. That’s what’s holding more investors back.”
“Things are completely unpredictable. I have heard that the exodus from FDA, deeper in the organization than those that are reported on, is massive. Funding seems to be free-flowing in obesity and a few other areas, but very constrained in others. What will happen with tariffs/MFN?”
“Thaw will continue, but FDA is a wild card at this point.”
“The FDA is just making things up as they go along and not following normal procedures, and we are just stuck on this rollercoaster.”
“It’s always hard — what is harder now is different. Some things worse than before, such as FDA uncertainty as a result of talent departure and turbulence, some things better than before, such as speedier regulatory review possibilities. AI will change hiring and deployment as well as drug discovery and development. And all made more entertaining and unpredictable by the current bat-sh*t crazy administration.”
Sentiment improved this quarter, but the industry is not yet on firm footing. More respondents still judge conditions to be deteriorating. When we asked respondents what’s keeping them pessimistic, the answers were dominated by policy and politics.
In their own words: Political climate & anti-science
“The political leadership has destroyed biotech in the USA. There is a massive lack of funding for startups. China is getting way ahead of the US, which was once light-years ahead.”
“Uncertain — there are too many changes in the geopolitical environment, and at the major regulatory agency FDA, to be sure of what the future holds. Science is under attack by ignorant politicians, social media influencers, and the combination of the two, and that is frightening. A measles outbreak in 2025? We should be ashamed.”
“Horrible. 35 years in the industry. Hard to believe science is being shifted aside for quack theories and podcast news. This is the most corrupt administration by far in US history, and it’s definitely having an impact on science and biotech.”
“Corruption — rife in American life now.”
“The anti-science culture that is being propagated by the current administration will continue to drive distrust of the pharma industry and will ultimately slow more speculative therapeutic advances.”
“I find few reasons to be optimistic — between profound regulatory uncertainty, a challenging funding environment, and weakened trust in basic science, it’s tough to see how the industry will improve.”
After politics, the next category was about money. Respondents described what they see as an existential threat to the pipeline — cuts to government-funded science.
The elimination of funding, mass layoffs at the NIH and FDA, and the departure of experienced staff have created what multiple respondents called the worst conditions for biopharma they’ve seen in decades-long careers.
Read more from the Q1 Biopharma Sentiment Index.
In their own words: HHS agencies & government research funding
“I have 35 years of industry experience. This is probably the worst condition for biopharma that I have seen. The ripple effect of the current administration reducing funding, lack of any scientific / medical knowledge at HHS, and FDA advisors supporting debunked theories etc. have led to us becoming a second-class nation in biopharma.”
“With $200B+ USD eliminated from non-dilutive funding support, I do not expect PE or VC to fill this gap. More academic labs will layoff or shutter and move entrepreneurs out of the market or into non-science related industries.”
“Conditions are being destroyed by reckless, authoritarian government interference, staff cuts at FDA, CDC, NIH, and unwarranted attempts to stifle academic research and institutional stability.”
“The lack of well-versed leadership at HHS and the FDA has left investors just trying to prop up their existing portfolio companies, leaving little room for additional funding. Of course people are starting to see more M&A, but the obvious question is will big pharma truly be able to maximize the potential of what they have bought. I see some financings in Q4, but it will take a significant 180 degree turn to try to make up all that has been lost in 2025. Once we see how Q1 2026 goes we will know if or how The Phoenix will rise.”
“Conditions are surprisingly strong coming out of a period of serious financing difficulty and given the insanity around HHS, FDA, tariffs, ‘Biosecure,’ and the federal government generally.”
Drug pricing, tariffs, and trade policy formed another persistent undercurrent. The Inflation Reduction Act’s negotiation provisions, which became law during the Biden administration, continue to weigh on the industry’s outlook.
Additionally, respondents talked about the threat of most-favored-nation pricing and the uncertainty around tariffs on pharmaceutical imports — policies they described as impossible to plan around.
In their own words: Drug pricing, IRA & trade policy
“The IRA was very bad for our industry and it is taking a while to recover.”
“More complicated than ever. China competition, trade tariffs, most favored nation, technology uncertainty. But there does seem to be a willingness to invest more by the government and remove roadblocks to research.”
“Things are completely unpredictable. I have heard that the exodus from FDA, deeper in the organization than those that are reported on, are massive. Funding seems to be free-flowing in obesity and a few other areas, but very constrained in others. What will happen with tariffs/MFN?”
“It’s more stable than a year ago but pricing challenges are more entrenched.”
“Hopefully 2025 was a low point for the industry given the uncertainty created by the first year of the Trump administration. Year 2 of Trump will likely improve for pharma and allow companies to focus on pipelines and not MFN pricing and building US manufacturing facilities.”
“I expect the political and regulatory chaos to continue. A LOT of talent has been lost that will take years to rebuild. The damage will be long-term.”
Read more from the Q1 Biopharma Sentiment Index.
AUTHOR
Tom Randall
VP Endpoints News, Head of Signal
trandall@endpoints.news
TRENDING NOW
AstraZeneca’s obesity pill hits in Phase 2, key cancer trials pushed back
CSL’s CEO Paul McKenzie exits after rough few years
Hengrui, Kailera push obesity pill ahead on promising mid-stage China data
FDA rejects Regenxbio’s Hunter syndrome gene therapy
With scant data, RFK Jr. credits Trump tariffs for higher drug prices in Europe
SPONSORED
7 Real-World Ways RWE Is Transforming Healthcare
You are reading this article for free. Enjoy! Upgrade for unlimited access.
UPGRADE
Bioscience & Technology Business Center
The University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas
