> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Experts Call for Overhaul of FDA ‘Revolving Door’ Rules
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/experts-call-for-overhaul-of-fda-revolving-door-rules/
- Published: 2025-12-09T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T15:28:35.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: FDA Policy/General, #legacy-id-D5160355

Two pharmacist-attorneys (BakerHostetler) are urging Congress to strengthen federal restrictions on how senior FDA officials move into private-sector roles, arguing that current post-employment rules have not kept pace with modern industry practices and have contributed to perceptions of regulatory capture.

In a *STAT News* [opinion piece](https://www.statnews.com/2025/12/09/fda-revolving-door-regulator-industry-section-207/?ref=fdaweb.com), **Lee Rosebush** and **Marc Wagner** say recent departures from FDA illustrate gaps in Section 207 of the federal Criminal Code and related ethics rules administered by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). They contend that existing “cooling-off” periods and lifetime bans on certain representational activities are too limited to prevent former officials from influencing matters they once oversaw.

The authors point to a series of high-profile exits last summer, when several senior FDA career officials left the agency after being removed by Health and Human Services secretary **Robert F. Kennedy Jr**. Many quickly took positions at major drugmakers, joining companies including Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novartis, and United Therapeutics.

They also cited public records showing a former director-level employee from FDA’s Office of Compounding Quality and Compliance began lobbying for Novo Nordisk within months of leaving the agency. In that role, the individual participated in state-level advocacy related to pharmacy compounding regulations, including in Iowa, Arizona, Georgia, and Kansas, the authors write.

Rosebush and Wagner argue that such examples demonstrate how industry can leverage “inside knowledge” and the credibility of former federal titles to influence both federal and state policy debates. They note that current rules do not clearly address behind-the-scenes consulting, informal introductions, or state-level lobbying, which remain permissible under Section 207.

The commentary calls for Congress to lengthen cooling-off periods to three years for senior center directors and five years for the most senior career officials. The authors also recommend stronger enforcement mechanisms, including more frequent civil, criminal, or administrative actions for violations, and requiring companies to obtain OGE pre-clearance before hiring former FDA senior staff.

Additional proposals include prohibiting former officials from implying ongoing agency connections in state-level advocacy and establishing a public registry tracking FDA departures, new employers, job responsibilities, and applicable restrictions.

Rosebush and Wagner say the changes would increase transparency and help ensure that post-government hiring is based on expertise rather than perceived influence. While noting that former officials should be free to pursue private-sector work, they argue that clearer boundaries are needed to protect the integrity of the agency’s regulatory decisions.