STAT investigations found that the Trump administration has downplayed alcohol’s risks and derailed efforts to understand and prevent related harms, while the alcohol industry has used allies and money to push favorable policy.

The details: The industry has inserted itself into philanthropy, science, and all levels of politics and policymaking. It has found an administration willing to loosen federal guidelines on drinking, slash public health research, and mostly avoid the subject of alcohol, even when talking about addiction.

Lack of focus on alcohol: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy has focused on opioids and Americans experiencing homelessness but has paid little attention to broader excessive alcohol use. Despite its focus on addressing the root causes of chronic disease and the industry influence that contributes, Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) efforts have largely not included alcohol. Meanwhile, alcohol brands are targeting their products and advertising to align with health-conscious MAHA ideals.
Funding cuts: The administration has cut funding for programs that study alcohol-related issues and support addiction treatment and science. It axed a grant for research into youth alcohol marketing on social media; cut half the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) staff, including career staff with decades of expertise in alcohol use disorder treatment; eliminated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Alcohol Program; and cut the survey that measures drinking during pregnancy. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) slowed research grant awards amid the instability. Efforts to study problematic alcohol use and its drivers have also been derailed as part of the administration’s campaign against diversity.
Research buried: Even if the industry has stopped directly funding public research, it can still affect science through the congressional appropriations process. Health agencies are concerned that upsetting industry could lead to budget cuts because lawmakers have ties to the industry. While the CDC Alcohol Program was conducting evidence-based science, higher-ups decided how the team’s findings were shared with the public, and sometimes their papers would not be promoted at all. When industry groups learned that a SAMHSA panel reviewing alcohol’s health risks for the dietary guidelines update was stacked with skeptical researchers, they pushed Congress to run another study. HHS never released the panel’s findings, the staffers who worked on it were cut in mass layoffs, and the House moved to ban the panel from ever studying adult drinking again. NIAAA removed information about the health risks of moderate drinking from its website in January.
Dietary guidelines changed: HHS did not use the SAMHSA panel study, which found risks associated with even moderate drinking, to inform the dietary guidelines. Instead, the updated guidelines remove the longstanding recommendation for no more than 1-2 drinks per day and recommend only that Americans consume less alcohol for better health. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Oz has highlighted the benefits of alcohol for bringing people together.
Slowed regulations and supportive policies: Regulations that began under previous administrations, such as proposals to require clearer labels on alcohol (on cancer risks and/or nutrition and allergen disclosures), have not moved under this administration. Earlier this year, President Trump lifted a tariff on Scotch whiskey, and American distillers are now pushing the administration for a trade deal that would open up a new market in India. The industry has also pushed for restrictions on hemp drinks, which compete with alcohol. Amid federal funding cuts elsewhere, House lawmakers proposed doubling funding for a Department of Agriculture (USDA) program that promotes American-made products abroad, including alcohol. In 2026 alone, USDA allocated nearly $20 million to alcohol groups, many of which receive grants every year through the Market Access Program, and a new America First Trade Promotion Program nearly doubles funding for alcohol promotion.
Lobbying power: The alcohol lobby has worked to quash tax proposals, labeling requirements, corner-store competitors, and critical science while safeguarding bills that allow for more home delivery, lower production costs, and looser regulation. The industry spent $12 million on campaigns in the past 3 years alone. In the first quarter of 2026, Anheuser-Busch had at least 30 lobbyists from 10 firms on Capitol Hill, while the leading advocacy group pushing for alcohol control measures, the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance, has one full-time employee. Some state lawmakers have sponsored legislation to rein in alcohol’s harms, but industry often intervenes to crush such efforts.
Close ties: Several of the major lobbyists for the industry have close ties with the Trump administration and/or Congress. Members of the industry have highlighted their ties to officials from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, the industry’s main regulator. The Trump family has a financial stake in some of the largest alcohol companies in the world and runs a vineyard.
Industry’s role in advocacy: The alcohol industry has maintained relationships with groups that would seem to be positioned against it. For example, the American Cancer Society continues to host a Wine and Spirits Industry Gala. And through Responsibility.org, a nonprofit funded and run by liquor companies, the industry gives funding to highway safety groups and related professional associations (e.g., National District Attorneys Association, National Conference of State Legislatures). It has partnered with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and is the only alcohol industry-affiliated group in Friends of NIAAA. Responsibility.org often takes stances convenient for alcohol producers and sellers. For example, it has pinned the blame for intoxicated driving deaths on “hardcore drunk drivers,” while failing to explain how drunk driving deaths are connected to broader alcohol consumption trends or mentioning policies to reduce overall drinking levels, like raising taxes on alcohol or cutting off alcohol sales earlier in the night.