The new administration has the chance to reshape public health by addressing smoking-related diseases through tobacco harm reduction (THR) policies. With President Trump’s new 10% tariff on Chinese vaping products and plans to reform the FDA, there is growing debate about the balance between trade policy, public health, and access to safer alternatives.
The new administration presents a pivotal opportunity to address chronic diseases, particularly smoking, one of the leading preventable causes of death in the U.S. However, in February 2025, President Donald Trump announced a new 10% tariff on Chinese imports, including vaping products, a move which is likely to be counterproductive to smoking cessation efforts in the U.S., as higher costs could discourage smokers from switching to vaping.
This tariff comes in addition to the existing 25% tax on Chinese vaping products imposed during his previous administration, and is part of a broader effort to pressure China to curb fentanyl production, which has been linked to the ongoing U.S. opioid crisis. The combined 35% tax raises concerns about the affordability of harm reduction alternatives. To this effect, critics argue that while the measure targets China’s trade practices, it may have unintended consequences for public health.
Why the FDA needs a good shake up
By reforming the FDA, policymakers could make it easier for smokers to transition to less harmful alternatives. President Trump has committed to protecting vape flavours, while Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has vowed to overhaul the FDA—both of which could benefit millions of adult smokers.
Since 2009, the FDA has regulated tobacco products but has failed to foster innovation in harm reduction. Despite widespread misinformation, vaping and other alternative nicotine products emerged as a consumer-driven movement grounded in science. Before the FDA imposed stringent regulations, small American manufacturers freely innovated, offering effective smoking alternatives. However, in 2016, the agency classified e-cigarettes as “tobacco products,” requiring costly applications for market approval. Lawsuits, backed by anti-vaping activists, pressured the FDA to accelerate review deadlines, leading to a rushed and flawed regulatory process.
While the FDA has processed nearly all applications, it has authorized only 34 products—limited to tobacco and menthol flavors—despite millions of adult vapers relying on a broader range of alternatives. Whistleblowers have revealed that FDA leadership has prioritized political considerations over scientific evidence, contradicting its public health mandate.
Globally, countries like the UK and New Zealand actively promote vaping for smoking cessation, while Sweden has almost achieved the much sought after smoke-free status through widespread snus use. In the U.S., youth vaping rates have dropped significantly since 2019, yet adult smokers still face barriers to accessing safer products. To support innovation and improve public health, the new administration must reform FDA regulations, shifting from restrictive policies to harm reduction. Making safer alternatives more accessible could save millions of lives.
The best case scenario
The new U.S. administration has a unique opportunity to advance tobacco harm reduction by implementing evidence-based policies that support safer alternatives to smoking. Reforming the FDA’s regulatory framework is crucial, as the current system restricts access to innovative nicotine products, limiting options for millions of adult smokers seeking to quit. Streamlining the approval process for vaping, heated tobacco, and oral nicotine products would ensure greater availability of lower-risk alternatives.
Additionally, the administration could promote public education campaigns to counter misinformation and highlight the benefits of THR, following successful models in the UK and New Zealand. Encouraging state governments to adopt harm reduction strategies rather than prohibitionist approaches would further support public health. Policies that distinguish vaping from smoking and prevent overregulation could curb black market growth while maintaining consumer safety. By embracing harm reduction, the administration can significantly reduce smoking-related illnesses and deaths, benefiting both public health and the economy.