Drug stocks sink as FDA’s top vaccine official is ousted in Trump overhaul

New York Post - Mar 31st, 2025

Shares of U.S. drugmakers fell sharply on Monday following the resignation of Peter Marks, the FDA's top vaccine official. This marks the highest-profile exit amid the Trump administration's ongoing overhaul of federal health agencies. Marks, who was instrumental in the development of COVID-19 vaccines during Trump's first term, will leave his position effective April 5. His resignation has resulted in significant market turbulence, with the S&P 500 biotech ETF sliding 4.9% and vaccine-focused companies like Novavax and BioNTech experiencing notable stock drops. Marks' departure has further amplified investor uncertainty, contributing to the already declining biotech sector, which is facing pressure from broader macroeconomic issues and Trump’s potential tariff plans that may include drugs.

The resignation of Marks, a staunch advocate for vaccine safety, comes amidst Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s plans to revamp federal health agencies. Kennedy, known for his controversial views on vaccines, reportedly influenced Marks' decision through an ultimatum delivered by a senior HHS official. The ongoing reorganization, which could involve firing thousands of workers, raises concerns about the future direction of federal health policy, especially regarding vaccine development and approval processes. The uncertainty surrounding who will succeed Marks and align with Kennedy’s perspective poses a potential risk to the stability and direction of the FDA and its critical programs supporting biologics and rare disease treatments.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Fda Trump Administration Peter Marks Biotech Stocks Vaccine Safety Federal Health Agencies

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of Peter Marks' resignation from the FDA and its implications for the biotech sector and vaccine policy. It effectively highlights the potential impact on drug stocks and market dynamics, capturing the public interest in ongoing health policy debates. However, the article could benefit from greater balance and transparency, particularly by including more diverse perspectives and detailed sourcing. While it is generally clear and engaging, the reliance on a limited range of sources and perspectives somewhat limits its overall impact and credibility. Despite these limitations, the article succeeds in addressing significant public interest topics with potential implications for health policy and economic stability.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports that Peter Marks, a key FDA official, has resigned, citing disagreements with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccine safety. This aligns with known facts about Marks' role and the context of his departure. However, the claim that the resignation directly caused a significant drop in biotech stocks needs verification, as market reactions can be influenced by multiple factors. Additionally, the story mentions Trump's tariff plans affecting drug prices, which requires confirmation as these plans are not universally documented. Overall, the core facts are supported, but some claims need further evidence.

Balance

The article presents a perspective largely critical of the Trump administration's health policy changes, particularly focusing on Kennedy's controversial views on vaccines. While it cites Marks' criticism of Kennedy, it lacks a detailed counter-perspective from Kennedy or the administration, which could provide a more balanced view. The focus on negative market impacts and potential agency upheaval emphasizes the risks without equally highlighting any potential benefits or alternative viewpoints.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting the main events and implications in a logical sequence. It effectively communicates the potential impact of Marks' resignation on the biotech sector. However, the article could benefit from clearer distinctions between confirmed facts and speculative statements, particularly regarding future policy changes and market reactions.

Source quality

The story references the Wall Street Journal as a source for Marks' resignation letter, which is a credible outlet. However, it lacks direct quotes or statements from involved parties, such as Kennedy or FDA representatives, which could strengthen the report's reliability. The absence of diverse sources or direct attributions limits the depth of the analysis and leaves room for questioning the completeness of the information provided.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the ongoing changes within federal health agencies and Marks' role at the FDA. However, it does not fully explain the methodology behind its claims about market impacts or provide detailed sources for some of the broader assertions, such as the scope of Kennedy's plans. Greater transparency about the basis for these claims would enhance the article's credibility.