Brace Yourselves for the Libertarian Tech Bro Takeover of the FDA

Two of Peter Thiel’s Silicon Valley cronies appear to be among Trump’s top choices for agency head.

<a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/child-with-stomach-pain-gm468502327-34696976?st=_p_food%20poisoning">vitapix</a>/iStock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


President-elect Donald Trump is taking his time choosing a nominee for secretary of the US Department of Agriculture—it’s the last open Cabinet post. But the USDA isn’t the only federal agency that lacks a proposed incoming leader just a week ahead of Inauguration Day. And while candidates for the USDA post have streamed thorough Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago to plead their case, the Trump team has revealed little about whom it’s considering to head the Food and Drug Administration.

O’Neill declared that the FDA should stop requiring drug makers to prove their products actually work—”Let’s prove efficacy after they’ve been legalized,” he said. 

Until Thursday. Stat News reports that two Silicon Valley titans, Jim O’Neill and Balaji Srinivasan, met with Trump on January 12 to “discuss running the agency.” Neither are medical doctors or scientists—the typical backgrounds for most previous FDA commissioners. Rather, they’re tech guru-investors who espouse virulently libertarian views, including disdain for the FDA’s role in regulating the pharmaceutical industry.

O’Neill is a managing director of Mithril Capital, an investment firm founded by Peter Thiel, himself a hyperlibertarian investor and an early supporter of Trump’s candidacy. In a 2014 speech before a biotechnology group, O’Neill declared that the FDA should stop requiring drug makers to prove their products actually work—”Let’s prove efficacy after they’ve been legalized,” he said. 

Srinivasan, co-founder of the bitcoin startup 21.co and a partner at the venture capital firm at Andreessen Horowitz, has opined that information technology makes the FDA role in drug regulation obsolete:

Srinivasan, too, is associated with Thiel, who is an investor in Srinivasan’s bitcoin firm.

Neither Srinivasan nor O’Neill has said much publicly about the FDA’s other policy portfolio: overseeing food safety, including recently enacted rules designed to push the meat industry to rely less on antibiotics necessary for human medicine.

Trump himself has been opaque on the question of food safety regulations—though back in September, his campaign website did post, and quickly remove, a “fact sheet” denouncing the “FDA food police.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate