Tag: trump

  • Tariffs, Executive Orders and Cuts: The Trump Administration’s First Six Months

    Tariffs, Executive Orders and Cuts: The Trump Administration’s First Six Months

    By Freddie Dawson, Senior editor, Tamarind Intelligence

    The first six months of the second Trump administration can be defined by tariffs, executive orders and no further action on reforming the issues facing the American vaping market.

    President Donald Trump embarked on his second term as president having promised to “save flavored vaping” in the U.S. in the lead up to the election. This has not yet happened despite a flurry of executive orders – at least 157 that have been published in the U.S. Federal Register as of May 23. (More have been announced but that was the date of the last one published at the time of writing.)

    Many vaping advocates had hoped he might use an executive order to reset or reassess the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Pre-Market Tobacco Application (PMTA) process. Thus far this has not happened and, instead, there have been some comments that could be construed as concerning.

    There was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the long-running case with the vaping company Wages and White Lion Investments – doing business as Triton Distribution – and the vaping company Vapetasia. The Supreme Court unanimously decided to vacate and remand the appealed Fifth Circuit Court decision that had been in favor of the companies over whether the FDA had been right to issue market denial orders (MDOs) to the them.

    This was a disappointment for vaping advocates. The companies had argued the FDA had been arbitrary and capricious in the changes it made to PMTA requirements while also being unclear about those changes and what minimum requisites would need to be included to successfully be granted a market authorization and be considered a legal product able to be sold in the American market. Advocates hoped a decision in favor of the vaping companies would confirm the FDA approach had been wrong and pave the way for the new administration to implement a new policy.

    Instead, the Supreme Court mostly rejected the vaping companies’ arguments. It did not arbitrate on all issues presented and returned the case to the lower court for further work, making the decision not a total defeat. However, it was a pretty galling blow for those wanting to see a change. Many of them hoped the Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) – now under new management – would even decline to continue to argue the case following the change in leadership.

    Instead, they appeared to fully embrace the prior approach. A HHS spokesperson welcomed the Supreme Court decision. They said it represented confirmation that the approach taken by the FDA – including under the administration of former Democratic president Joe Biden – was the correct one. “The recent Supreme Court ruling supports the FDA’s efforts to regulate e-cigarette products in line with the standards outlined in the Tobacco Control Act,” a spokesperson said.

    Beyond this, comments by the new HHS secretary – Robert Kennedy Jr and head of the FDA – Marty Makary could also be construed to be viewed as negative takes on vaping from major administration figures.

    Both have been questioned by Florida Republican Senator Ashley Moody on what they will do to combat Chinese vaping products illicitly on the U.S. market. Makary told Moody he agreed that vaping products were proliferating on the American market and that this was due to the Chinese flooding it with cheap supplies.

    He said public health research would never be able to properly study them as the market moved faster than the science could but that the FDA could collaborate with other U.S. government departments to increase enforcement actions. “The Office of Inspections and Investigations has a lot of people with guns, and they do enforcement and raids,” he said.

    Several vaping commentators did not react well to this – particularly on the semi-serious threat of armed enforcement raids. However, it could also be theoretically read that Makary was implying the enforcement action would be directed at imported Chinese vaping products and that emphasis was placed on revamping the FDA’s approach to PMTAs.

    Kennedy Jr’s later comments in answer to questions from Senator Moody could potentially support such a reading. He told her that the FDA had created its own backlog and had deliberately dragged its feet on approvals for American vaping companies, which had been acting responsibly by putting age verification chips in vaping devices, providing information on addiction and were making labels not attractive to children.

    Chinese products had flooded the opening in the market provided by them obeying the law and that these were the products that were responsible for youth attraction issues with flavors, colors and youth-aimed enticements such as cartoon like imagery as well as features such as gaming capabilities on devices. He told Senator Moody that he promised to “wipe them out”.

    Despite being a complete misreading of the nicotine alternatives history – and almost certainly being a ‘barn door shut after the horse has already bolted’ sort of promise, it does at least show some favor for American vaping companies and a potential desire to address issues facing it in the future.

    That marks something of a change from Kennedy Jr’s initial nomination hearings where vaping did not come directly come up. However, his potential use of an Alp nicotine pouch during the sessions did draw a few headlines and suggested the new secretary may have a sympathetic stance on nicotine alternatives.

    But although the administration has not addressed the U.S. vaping regulatory situation through any means – such as the use of executive orders – it has taken other actions through those means that have had an impact on the industry.

    This includes several orders trimming resources for government entities that have some impact on vaping and other nicotine alternatives – including the HHS, the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) itself and aspects of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) such as the Office on Smoking and Health (OSH). This has resulted in redundancy or resignation for myriad groups of former federal employees in these organizations up to and including the former head of the CTP, Brian King and – allegedly – the entirety of the OSH.

    The impact of these actions will likely take some time to properly be felt. In the short term it presumably has increased the disorder and delay already present in organizations such as CTP that would have had primary responsibility for PMTA assessment. Further in the future the decisions could potentially benefit vaping and other nicotine alternatives – depending how important intervening steps turn out.

    For example, significantly more will be revealed on the future direction of PMTA assessment by who becomes the next head of CTP. A new head and new staff could perhaps be more efficient in assessing and processing PMTAs – though it is hard to see where new staff with the requisite expertise will suddenly materialize from. Similarly, much will be implied about the administration’s opinion of, and the potential future of, nicotine alternatives by what is done with the former activities of the OSH. For example, maintaining the collection and publication of smoking-related datasets but dropping things like preferential access to data or provision of OSH opinions on issues could create a more vaping-amenable atmosphere in the U.S..

    Setting that aside, more immediately, the action taken through executive orders that has had the most impact on vaping and other nicotine alternatives has been the imposition of tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. from China. Primarily this has affected vaping hardware – though has also had an impact on other product which rely on specialist or mass-produced items that are hard to find from other sources at economically viable prices.

    Theoretically this activity could be considered taking action against the proliferation of illicit Chinese vaping products on the market – as promised by Kennedy Jr and Makary. There is some evidence this is happening with reports of limits placed on maximum purchase numbers for disposable vaping products from wholesalers and decreases in registered imports of vaping products from China.

    Data from the FDA showed only 71 shipments this May, compared to 996 in January 2025, before the additional new Trump tariffs started to be announced. It also compares to the 1158 shipments recorded last May.

    But without a viable domestic vaping manufacturing sector in the U.S., the move risks worsening public health. There previously was little evidence of other nicotine alternatives leaching numbers away from vaping. There is perhaps a little more of that – primarily through dual use driven by situational advantages. This, for example, could be using pouches in scenarios where more discretion is required. But primarily the trend appears to still be for dual or poly use of products rather than switching entirely.

    If vaping products continue to be limited by supply constraints brought about by tariffs, this trend may increase, or people may instead choose to move back to conventional cigarettes. There is little evidence domestic vaping will be able to spring up to fulfil the need. A couple of companies have announced they were transferring manufacturing capacity to the U.S. Many more are moving capacity out of China to third-party countries partly at least to get around U.S. tariffs.

    But there will be no major transference of vaping capacity to the US simply because of the continuing PMTA situation. No company will take the time, effort, and capital it would require setting up manufacturing in the U.S. with no guarantee the product would ever be approved to be sold on the domestic market.

    Meanwhile it is also unclear whether there has definitely been a reduction in Chinese vaping imports. Several manufacturers were already in the process of moving vaping manufacturing capacity out of the Shenzhen region in China due to rising costs driven by competition. Tariffs will have accelerated that trend – though President Trump’s “Liberation Day” spread of tariffs will have gone some way to reducing the advantage such a move would gain in terms of exports to the USA.

    But it has been noted that imports of vaping products from countries such as Indonesia have already outstripped their totals for the entirety of last year (3,139 thus far this year compared to 3,102 for all of 2024). And there remains significant speculation that the vast majority of Chinese vaping imports – particularly for disposable vaping products – do not enter the U.S. under the proper registration. U.S. officials have alleged that they are often deliberately labelled as products such as shoes to get around restraints. Though this claim has been repeated many more times than evidence backing it has been produced.

    One potential support of vaping products entering the U.S. market through some means aside from in registered shipments is the 90% discrepancy between the reported value of Chinese vaping exports to the U.S. ($3.6bn for 2024) and Chinese vaping imports registered with U.S. authorities ($333m for the same time period).

    So thus far there has not been much help for vaping in the first six months of the second Trump administration. But there is the potential of future promise. Appointments and reassignments for the OSH and – primarily – the CTP could theoretically change the approach to vaping regulation in America. Further policing of illicit vaping products entering the market could lead to domestic uptake – if PMTA conditions were first sorted. So not much for vaping or wider nicotine alternatives in the first six months. But perhaps the groundwork for something more to be built later.

  • House Working with Trump’s $6.8B FDA Budget

    House Working with Trump’s $6.8B FDA Budget

    House appropriators advanced a bill to fund the FDA for fiscal 2026 on a party-line vote out of a subcommittee yesterday (June 5)— but, according to Politico, the bill has a long path ahead before it potentially becomes law. The topline number from the House bill aligns with President Donald Trump’s budget proposal, which sought $6.8 billion for the FDA.

    The budget calls for $3.2 billion in direct appropriations, with the rest coming from user fee revenue. It also represents a $300 million cut in taxpayer funding compared to what the House Appropriations subcommittee sought last year for fiscal 2025.

    According to Politico, the Senate is likely to fund the agency at a higher level than the House. Sen. John Hoeven, the Republican senator in charge of FDA appropriations, said Trump’s proposal is a starting point.

    “We now have the president’s budget proposal,” Hoeven said. “But we’re going through our process now, and it will be different. … I think that you’ll see when we bring it out that we adequately fund FDA.”

  • FDA Scores Win, but Industry Eyes PMTA Denial Challenge

    FDA Scores Win, but Industry Eyes PMTA Denial Challenge

    On April 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Wages and White Lion Investments (d/b/a Triton Distribution) Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) Marketing Denial Order (MDO) challenge. In a 9-0 unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court held that the FDA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied the PMTA for Triton’s flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) under the “fatal flaw” review standard. While the decision reaffirmed the deference owed to FDA under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), at least with respect to the agency’s ability to change its position on PMTA requirements, the Court left open several critical issues, including whether the agency committed a potentially prejudicial error by failing to consider applicants’ marketing plans, according to an article published by Keller and Heckman LLP.

    “As previously reported, Triton’s MDO challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit attracted significant attention within the vaping industry’s broader efforts to secure market access for flavored ENDS products,” Keller and Heckman wrote. “In the lead-up to the Supreme Court’s review, numerous manufacturers had filed petitions in circuit courts across the country challenging FDA’s issuance of boilerplate MDOs for millions of flavored ENDS products. To date, FDA has denied or refused virtually all (>99%) of applications for flavored ENDS products and has only authorized two menthol-flavored products. The MDO appeals yielded conflicting outcomes: the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit held that certain MDOs were arbitrary and capricious under the APA, while the D.C., Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits upheld the denials. The Supreme Court’s decision to review Triton’s case was widely regarded as pivotal for the regulated industry, public health stakeholders, and FDA, as it promised to resolve the circuit split.”

    Justice Samuel Alito’s narrowly focused 46-page opinion ultimately fell short of the broader expectations many in the industry had for the Court’s review. Rather than addressing the full range of legal and regulatory questions raised by the parties, the Supreme Court confined its analysis to the APA’s “change-in-position” doctrine—specifically, whether FDA had assured applicants like Triton, through its guidance documents and other public statements, that it would apply one evidentiary standard, only to apply a different one during PMTA review. As Justice Alito framed it, the question was whether FDA “told [Triton] in guidance documents that it would do one thing and then turned around and did something different.” While the ruling provided clarity on this narrow issue, it left several critical questions unresolved.

    “Although the ruling was unanimous for FDA with respect to whether the agency arbitrarily changed its position on the PMTA requirements for flavored products, the Supreme Court avoided addressing several significant APA and constitutional issues raised in both the parties’ and amici briefs,” Keller and Heckman wrote. “The Court did not address, for example, the constitutional right to due process or the applicability of the major questions doctrine. Nor did it engage in a deeper examination of FDA’s PMTA review process, sidestepping key concerns such as the absence of appropriate tobacco-flavored comparators for companies like Triton, or the lack of clarity regarding the level of benefit required to satisfy the agency’s comparative efficacy standard. Although it vacated the en banc decision, the Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit, specifically to consider whether FDA’s refusal to consider Triton’s marketing plans during the application review process was a harmless error, especially given FDA’s prior characterization of such marketing plans as being ‘critical’ to the PMTA.

    “The remand focusing on FDA’s failure to consider Triton’s marketing plans takes on added weight in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s 2022 decision in Bidi Vapor LLC v. FDA, where the court held that a similar omission by the agency rendered the MDO arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declined to reach (and expressed no view on) Triton’s argument that FDA erred in evaluating its PMTA under standards developed in adjudication rather than standards promulgated in notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Fifth Circuit’s resolution of these issues could have sweeping implications for how FDA must evaluate future PMTAs and respond to procedural challenges under the APA. The remand also presents the vaping industry with a renewed opportunity to advance alternative administrative law claims in a court that has historically viewed FDA’s approach to flavored ENDS products with skepticism.”

    Whether these challenges move forward, however, may ultimately depend on FDA’s litigation strategy under a new Administration that has forced out many of the leaders and staff at the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, and previously signaled support for flavored vaping products. All eyes now turn to the Fifth Circuit, as both sides consider their next moves in this closely watched case.

  • Dem Lawsuit Wants HHS “Restructure” Undone

    Dem Lawsuit Wants HHS “Restructure” Undone

    A group of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit today (May 5) to challenge the Trump administration’s decision to fire 10,000 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services employees. Filed in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia said the job cuts and agency consolidations U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy announced in late March unconstitutionally stripped the department of the resources necessary to do its job.

    The layoffs, in addition to earlier buyout offers and firings of probationary employees, reduced the number of full-time HHS employees from 82,000 to 62,000 and left key offices unable to perform statutory functions, the lawsuit said.

    As part of the restructuring plan, HHS said it was also collapsing 28 divisions into 15 and closing half of its 10 regional offices.

    The states argue that Kennedy lacked the authority to launch the widespread layoffs and restructuring and that the administration violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping Congress’ authority to create and fund agencies’ operations. The states asked a judge to block HHS from implementing Kennedy’s plan announced on March 27, prevent the department from being dismantled, and force the administration to restore health

    HHS declined to comment on the lawsuit. It previously said the restructuring was necessary to streamline its functions and that the layoffs would save taxpayers $1.8 billion annually.

  • Driscoll Named Interim Head of ATF

    Driscoll Named Interim Head of ATF

    Yesterday (April 9), Dan Driscoll was named interim head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms by the Trump administration, replacing new FBI director Kash Patel. Driscoll is expected to simultaneously run the ATF and continue with his current role as Secretary of the Army. This will be the first time the embattled agency has been placed under the Defense Department.

    According to The Guardian, Trump’s aides view the ATF and its mission with skepticism and have discussed gutting the ATF or merging it with the Drug Enforcement Administration, “another small and underfunded agency that has previously been part of the Justice Department.”

    “Patel has been running the FBI and the ATF for months, but it had proved to be overly burdensome, and Driscoll was selected to replace Patel as the interim head, as he was one of the few Senate-confirmed appointees available,” The Guardian wrote. “The decision to have the army secretary run the ATF could be the precursor to such a move or at least to dramatically reduce its size and scope. In recent weeks, ATF agents have been diverted to help with enforcing Trump’s immigration agenda.”

  • Cigar Industry Preparing for Trump’s Tariffs

    Cigar Industry Preparing for Trump’s Tariffs

    Yesterday (April 2), President Trump announced that the United States would be implementing widespread tariffs on nearly all products imported into the U.S., which would seemingly include cigars and smoking accessories.

    The Administration is implementing a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all imported goods from all countries except goods that are compliant with the USMCA free trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Additionally, a group of approximately 60 countries is facing additional reciprocal tariffs that are half the rate they charge to the United States.

    “We are monitoring the situation and engaging with appropriate stakeholders to protect the robust premium cigar market in the United States,” said Joshua Habursky, executive director of the Premium Cigar Association. “The administration is well aware of the importance of small business retail in main streets across the country, and we are hoping to mitigate cost burdens on retailers, manufacturers, and consumers overall. America is first in the premium cigar retail space, and we plan to continue to hold that position.”

    The announced new reciprocal tariffs for countries that are relevant to the U.S. cigar industry include:

    • Dominican Republic and Honduras: 10% (matching the universal rate).
    • Nicaragua: 19% (reflecting its 36% tariff on U.S. goods).
    • Costa Rica: 10% (despite a 17% tariff on U.S. goods).
    • Mexico: USMCA-compliant cigars remain at 0%, but non-compliant goods face a 12% tariff if existing fentanyl/migration measures lapse.
    • China: 34 percent
    • European Union: 20 percent

    Writing for halfwheel, Patrick Lagreid said, “The largest percentage increase will not affect cigars, but the accessories used to light and cut them. Products imported from China, which produces a significant amount of cigar accessories, from lighters to cutters, ashtrays, humidors, and other products, will be subject to a 34% reciprocal tariff. This is in addition to a previously implemented 20% tariff, bringing the total to 54%. Last year, multiple executives at cigar accessory companies told halfwheel they were concerned about the potential tariff if Trump were to win the election.”

    The baseline 10 percent tariffs are scheduled to take effect April 5 at 12:01 am ET, and the reciprocal tariffs are slated to go into effect April 9 at 12:01 am ET.

    “We are fully committed to protecting the premium cigar industry, which plays an essential role in supporting American small businesses and consumer interests,” Rob Burgess, of Connector Inc., a PCA Government Affairs representative said. “The PCA’s government relations team is working diligently, engaging actively with government officials and key stakeholders to address the implications of these tariffs. Our aim is to reduce financial pressures while ensuring the United States continues to lead in the premium cigar market, benefiting retailers, manufacturers, and consumers alike.”

    In a statement sent out to its members, Cigar Rights of America said that it is “carefully reviewing the scope and details of today’s policy shift to understand its potential impact on the premium cigar industry, including supply chains, pricing, and retail operations. As the federal government moves forward with implementation, we will continue to monitor developments closely and engage with relevant agencies. We are committed to keeping stakeholders informed and will provide timely updates as additional information and guidance become available.”

    The tariffs come the week before the American cigar industry’s most important sales week: the annual PCA Convention & Trade Show. Most manufacturers will offer retailers aggressive discounts to try to get larger orders, but it’s unclear whether some companies will modify their promotions to account for these tariffs.

  • House Reps Calling for Crackdown on Illicit Chinese E-Cigs

    House Reps Calling for Crackdown on Illicit Chinese E-Cigs

    Three U.S. representatives are calling on the Trump administration to crack down on the sale of illegal vape products.

    According to CSP Daily News, U.S. Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-South Dakota), Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar (R-Michigan) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Food and Drug Administration Acting Commissioner Sara Brenner urging the Trump Administration to take action on the influx of unauthorized Chinese-made e-cigarettes and vapes sold in America.

    “The large-scale smuggling of these illicit vaping products —accounting for more than half of all vapes sold in the United States—undermines American public health priorities and contributes to a significant increase in youth vaping,” the letter said. “The Chinese Communist Party is fueling this crisis. The CCP has banned the sale of flavored e-cigarettes within its own borders yet continues to export these same products worldwide. If these products are deemed unsafe for their own citizens, we must question their efforts to smuggle and sell these products in the United States.”

    In June 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FDA created a federal multi-agency task force to combat the illegal distribution and sale of e-cigarettes. The congressmen said in the letter that this task force was an “important” step forward, but more must be done.

    “It is time to go even further and utilize all enforcement tools at our disposal,” the letter said. “Seizing these products is also an essential step, which currently occurs far too infrequently.”

  • Judge Pauses FDA Menthol Ban Case to August

    Judge Pauses FDA Menthol Ban Case to August

    In a two-page order, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam granted a request filed last week jointly by both the government defendants and the public health advocates who filed the lawsuit, seeking a stay on the proceedings until mid-August. The lawsuit filed by anti-tobacco groups seeking to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s delay to ban menthol cigarettes was paused by a federal judge in response to moves made by the Trump administration.

    Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. for the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a stay  in the case between the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council and the FDA over whether the agency lawfully delayed a Biden-era final rule that would ban menthol cigarettes from store shelves.

    Both parties in a joint submission proposed the stay on Feb. 18.

    In late January, the FDA withdrew its proposed rules to prohibit menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes and all characterizing flavors in cigars.

    “The recent withdrawal of both proposed federal flavor bans is compelling evidence that the Trump administration is taking a less aggressive rulemaking posture compared to the Biden administration,” Troutman Pepper Locke wrote on its Tobacco Law Blog. “The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs withdrawal filings do not detail the reasoning behind the decision. However, several comments submitted during each proposed rule’s comment period detail ample justifications for withdrawing the proposals.

    “With respect to the menthol cigarette ban, industry argued that illicit markets would proliferate, fed by consumer demand for menthol cigarettes despite the proposed prohibition.”

  • Trump Administration’s Cuts Reach FDA Tobacco Product Employees

    Trump Administration’s Cuts Reach FDA Tobacco Product Employees

    The Trump administration’s attempts to reduce the size of the federal workforce have reportedly extended to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this weekend, as recently hired employees who review the safety of food ingredients, medical devices, and other products were fired.

    On Friday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to fire 5,200 probationary employees across its agencies, which include the FDA, National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Probationary employees across the FDA received notices Saturday evening that their jobs were being eliminated, according to three FDA staffers who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

    The total number of positions eliminated is still not clear, but the firings appeared to focus on employees in the agency’s centers for food, medical devices, and tobacco products — which includes oversight of electronic cigarettes.

    The FDA employs nearly 20,000 people but has been strained since a wave of departures during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a reported 2,000 uninspected drug facilities that haven’t been visited since before the pandemic. It has also been criticized for not moving faster to catch recent problems involving infant formula, baby food, and eyedrops. A former FDA official said cutting recent hires could backfire by eliminating staffers who tend to be younger and have more up-to-date technical skills, whereas the FDA’s current workforce skews toward older workers who have spent one or two decades at the agency.

    “You want to bring in new blood,” said Peter Pitts, a former FDA associate commissioner under President George W. Bush. “You want people with new ideas, greater enthusiasm, and the latest thinking in terms of technology.”

  • Markets Stand Behind Tobacco

    Markets Stand Behind Tobacco

    Seeking Alpha, a crowd-sourced content service that publishes news on financial markets, said the prices of tobacco and smoking products in the U.S. rose 6.8% in January compared to a year ago on an unadjusted basis. Overall, core inflation was up 3.3% year-over-year during the month, which was slightly higher than the pace in December and above the expectations of analysts.

    On a month-to-month comparison, tobacco and smoking products were up 0.4% in January to mark the fifth month in a row of higher pricing for the broad category.

    Analysts have not moved off their position that Philip Morris International, Altria, Imperial Brands, and British American Tobacco could all see benefits under the Trump Administration.

    Seeking Alpha said, “UBS sees the Republican control of Congress as a slight positive for tobacco stocks. Analyst Faham Baig reminded investors that Republican control has historically been seen as a positive for U.S. tobacco, due to the likelihood of reduced regulation. On that note, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the OMB withdrew in January the menthol cigarette ban and the U.S. has pulled back from the World Health Organization.”