In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, then-President Donald Trump threw the weight of the presidency behind a controversial treatment: hydroxychloroquine. Hailed by Trump as a potential “game-changer,” the anti-malarial drug quickly became a political flashpoint and a symbol of pandemic-era misinformation.

Hydroxychloroquine, long used to prevent and treat malaria, as well as autoimmune diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, works by interfering with the ability of certain cells to process and replicate viral particles (CDC, 2020). However, the drug was not originally developed, tested, or approved for use against respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Despite this, Trump repeatedly praised hydroxychloroquine at White House briefings in March and April 2020. On March 19, 2020, he stated, “I think it could be a game-changer, and maybe not” (The White House, 2020). The ambiguous endorsement reflected both hope and recklessness: while Trump acknowledged uncertainty, his frequent mentions created an impression of strong presidential support.

Almost immediately, demand for hydroxychloroquine surged. Pharmacies faced shortages, patients with autoimmune diseases struggled to fill prescriptions, and some people began self-medicating dangerously with non-pharmaceutical versions of the chemical found in aquarium cleaners (FDA, 2020).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under pressure from the White House and a desperate public, issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for hydroxychloroquine in late March 2020 (FDA, 2020). The EUA allowed the drug to be distributed from the Strategic National Stockpile and used in hospitalized COVID-19 patients when clinical trials were not feasible.

However, by May 2020, multiple clinical trials and observational studies began debunking hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness against COVID-19. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found no significant difference in outcomes between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and those who received standard care (Geleris et al., 2020). Other studies even suggested that hydroxychloroquine could cause harmful side effects, such as heart arrhythmias and increased risk of death among hospitalized patients.

Despite the growing body of evidence against it, Trump continued to promote hydroxychloroquine. In mid-May 2020, he even claimed he was taking the drug himself as a preventive measure, saying, “I’m taking it—hydroxychloroquine—right now” (The White House, 2020).

The FDA, responding to the mounting scientific data, revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine on June 15, 2020 (FDA, 2020). In its statement, the agency cited a lack of benefit and the risk of serious side effects, concluding that hydroxychloroquine was “unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses.”

By then, the damage had been done. Hydroxychloroquine had become entrenched in the culture wars surrounding COVID-19. Polls showed that Republicans were significantly more likely than Democrats to believe hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment (Pew Research Center, 2020). Some conservative media outlets continued promoting the drug even after the FDA’s revocation.

Trump’s promotion of hydroxychloroquine became one of the early examples of how political influence distorted public health messaging during the pandemic. Medical experts and ethicists criticized the administration for undermining scientific processes and encouraging the public to embrace unproven remedies.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert at the time, repeatedly urged caution. “The scientific data… does not favor [hydroxychloroquine] as a treatment for COVID-19,” he said in a July 2020 hearing before Congress (House Oversight Committee, 2020).

Some defenders of Trump argued that his advocacy for hydroxychloroquine was understandable, given the initial chaos and fear of the pandemic’s early months. However, critics pointed out that presidents have a unique responsibility to convey clear, evidence-based information, especially in a public health crisis.

In the aftermath, medical professionals emphasized the importance of clinical trials and peer-reviewed studies over anecdotal evidence and political pronouncements. The hydroxychloroquine episode became a cautionary tale about the dangers of politicizing science.

It also highlighted broader weaknesses in America’s pandemic response—particularly the tendency for scientific expertise to be drowned out by political noise. In later months, similar controversies would erupt over mask-wearing, vaccine mandates, and alternative treatments like ivermectin.

Today, hydroxychloroquine remains a prescribed drug for diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, where its effectiveness is well established. But its reputation among the broader public is deeply colored by the COVID-19 controversy.

For many, it remains a symbol of misplaced hope, political interference, and the peril of letting ideology override evidence during a global health emergency.

References:

  • CDC. (2020). Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19: What You Should Know. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  • FDA. (2020). FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
  • Geleris, J., Sun, Y., Platt, J., Zucker, J., Baldwin, M., Hripcsak, G., … & Muthukumar, A. (2020). Observational study of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(25), 2411-2418.
  • House Oversight Committee. (2020). Testimony of Dr. Anthony Fauci: Hearing on COVID-19 Response.
  • Pew Research Center. (2020). Partisan Differences Over COVID-19 Treatment Beliefs.
  • The White House. (2020). Press Briefings, March-May 2020.