
After Makary: What the FDA's Leadership Shake-Up Means for Pharmacy
Key Takeaways
- Political friction over FDA agenda-setting, including flavored e-cigarette authorizations, appears to have accelerated leadership turnover and may further erode predictable regulatory signaling to stakeholders.
- Kyle Diamantas’ food program and legal policy background positions him to emphasize continuity and risk prioritization, but an extended acting tenure could slow decisive action on contentious drug issues.
The commissioner's sudden departure leaves the agency navigating a crowded agenda of unresolved policy questions—many with direct implications for pharmacists and their patients.
Marty Makary, MD, MPH, has resigned as FDA commissioner following months of turbulence at the agency and disagreements with myriad stakeholders throughout the regulatory and health care spaces. The abrupt exit sets off a period of uncertainty at an agency already stretched thin by budget and staffing cuts. For pharmacists, the questions raised are anything but abstract: They touch on how drugs are approved, how they are dispensed, and who, ultimately, decides which medications patients can access without a prescription.1,2
“The resignation raises concerns for pharmacists, as while the FDA review capacity is being preserved in some areas, the reduced policy and guidance output and question of leadership could lead to delays in products and confusion on policies,” Craig Beavers, PharmD, FACC, FAHA, FCCP, BCCP, BCPS (AQ-Cardiology), CACP, a cardiovascular clinical pharmacist with Baptist Health System and the University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, told Pharmacy Times. “This will [mean] pharmacists [need] to be more informed and engaged.”
The Circumstances of the Exit
Makary's departure follows reports of conflict and tension over the FDA's agenda. A flashpoint emerged when the FDA approved flavored e-cigarettes from Glas Inc, a move that, according to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), came only after President Donald J. Trump pressured Makary to approve the fruit-flavored varieties, which Makary had been refusing to do.3,4
According to an NBC News source close to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership and reporting from outlets such as the WSJ, that pressure ultimately prompted Makary's decision to resign. Notably, the resignation occurred ahead of a scheduled congressional testimony in the US Senate, during which Makary would have been questioned and would have had to defend a position he did not support.5,6
Makary's own account of his legacy, shared via a resignation text that Trump posted to Truth Social, struck a different tone than the chaos reported in the media. In the message, Makary credited his tenure with reducing drug review times from roughly a year to 1 to 2 months, developing new guidance to advance psychedelics research, and introducing a "plausible mechanism" pathway for rare disease drugs. Whether those claims hold up to scrutiny, and whether the reforms he set in motion will outlast him, are now among the central questions facing the agency.1
An Acting Commissioner With a Food Background
Trump announced that Kyle Diamantas, JD, previously the agency’s deputy commissioner for food, will serve as acting commissioner. A replacement would have to be confirmed by the US Senate, and given the strong political forces at work and the upcoming midterm elections, Diamantas could find himself serving in the acting role for quite a while.1,7
Diamantas brings a legal and policy background to the role. As deputy commissioner for food, he led the FDA's Human Foods Program, overseeing nutrition and food safety activities, resource allocation, and risk-prioritization strategy. He has also served as a liaison between the FDA, HHS, and the White House, and has represented the agency in dealings with foreign governments and international organizations.1,7,8
The task ahead for Diamantas is formidable. The conventional charge of an acting commissioner—keep the agency stable, avoid controversy, maintain stakeholder relationships—will be difficult given the sheer volume of open issues Makary left behind. Diamantas is expected to lean heavily on HHS leadership, including senior counsel, as he navigates the legal and political dimensions of the role.
Mifepristone: The Issue That Isn't Going Away
Whoever leads the FDA, on an acting or permanent basis, will inherit an immediate, high-stakes decision on mifepristone. In early May 2026, a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Louisiana and stayed significant expansions of mifepristone's availability—specifically, provisions allowing the drug to be dispensed via telehealth and through pharmacies—that were formally adopted in 2023.9
The US Supreme Court has since issued a temporary order leaving women's access to the pill intact while the justices consider whether to allow the restrictions to take effect. A formal FDA safety review of mifepristone, expected in the fall, could offer the agency an opportunity to assert its regulatory authority. However, experts are skeptical that the review will be favorable to the drug's current access framework.9,10
For pharmacists who dispense mifepristone or work in states where access remains contested, the outcome of that review and the direction a new commissioner takes on it will be closely watched.
What This Means for Pharmacy Practice
The uncertainty at the FDA carries real downstream consequences for pharmacists. Drug approval timelines, OTC rulemaking, dispensing requirements for high-profile medications, and the future of telehealth-enabled prescribing all touch daily pharmacy operations in direct ways.
In the near term, pharmacists should expect the pace of OTC-related regulatory activity to slow as new leadership finds its footing. The question of whether a behind-the-counter model gains traction—one that would expand medication access while keeping pharmacists central to the dispensing process—may depend significantly on who ultimately takes the commissioner's chair and how receptive they are to pharmacy stakeholder input.
On mifepristone, the situation calls for close attention: A Supreme Court decision, a pending FDA safety review, and a new acting commissioner navigating all of it simultaneously make for a volatile combination. Pharmacists who dispense the medication or whose patients rely on telehealth to obtain it should monitor developments closely in the weeks ahead.
What is clear is that the leadership transition at the FDA, far from resolving the agency's instability, has opened a new chapter of it. The policies that will emerge from it, and who will be empowered to shape them, remain open questions.


















































































































