If obesity is an “epidemic”, and the US just forced TikTok to sell based on national security concerns, what’s stopping Uncle Sam commandeering Novo to either sell off its Ozempic ownership as a subsidiary to force a lower general sales price, or forcing to nullify its patents?

I’m speaking legally rather than economically. If the US Gov did this, big pharma would stop investing in research (even though I wouldn’t be surprised if USG pays for the private research in the first place) and cause worldwide slowdown in new medicines all in the name of profits

>and the US just forced TikTok to sell based on national security concerns

First, worth noting that this is very much TBD. There are grave 1st Amendment concerns with the government's efforts there and it is very much an open question for now whether the effort will actually hold up in court. That said:

>what’s stopping Uncle Sam commandeering Novo to either sell off its Ozempic ownership as a subsidiary to force a lower general sales price, or forcing to nullify its patents? I’m speaking legally rather than economically.

So as a practical matter, and as with TikTok, Novo Nordisk is not a domestic company it's a foreign one. But unlike TikTok where China is a geopolitical opponent, Novo is Danish and thus part of a close ally. Second the people pushing the TikTok thing are fine with TikTok going away entirely in the US, that's the stick. The US has zero power jurisdiction over China just as the reverse is true, but can police its own market and thus say "comply or lose access to our market". Same as how the EU is pushing stuff like the DMA. Since the US market is valuable that's a sizable stick, but TikTok very likely even if they lose will tell the USG to pound sand and just leave, but Congress/WH wouldn't mind that.

But here the whole point is that people desperately want this product. So if Novo said "no, and we're ceasing all sales in the US" they'd take a major financial hit sure, but there'd also be massive blow back in domestic and international politics. It would definitely be questioned on various US/EU trade agreements which would have messy legal implications, and invite tit-for-tat. Nationalizing foreign IP would implicate a bunch of treaties and US itself pushed hard and benefits from.

But putting all that aside and pretending it was all domestic (or going specifically after domestic components), there is still the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. The government could legally seize it using eminent ___domain powers, though it'd no doubt face as good a legal fight as the highest paid law firms could put on. But I don't think there's any doubt this would be a clear case of public use and courts have approved vastly more dubious and worse takings.

However, there's no dispute government would then have to pay the entire fair market value for it, whatever anyone else would have to pay to buy the whole shebang right now. Novo as traded on the NYSE has a market cap of over $430 billion, and a sizable chunk of that is from this product which has sold well enough to measurably boost the entire Danish economy. The stock has nearly tripled in just the last year and half or so. Even if the US part of that one component was "only" 25%, $100b is not nothing, not even for the USG. And FMV might well be double or more.

There would be other legal avenues to explore but that's a big one, and in turn it's not actually clear it'd save the US any money which is kind of the point, eminent ___domain isn't supposed to be used that way but for some critical greater good. You can gain control but you have to pay for it.

Eh, calling on a company to do a thing is some mix between public fact finding and threat here.

It allows the public to comment and maybe the senator will like the public support they are getting. Alternatively a pharma lobbyist will show up and toss them a few hundred thousand in campaign contribution promises. And they'll weight the relative value of those things. Depending on how that goes they (or another senator seeing this play out) will actually make an issue of it and it will start the more formal processes.

He is asking them, using the official power of his office, to do the right thing so legislation doesn't need to be drafted. Either they choose to do the right thing today and not be subject to regulations, or they can get punished with regulations at some point in the future.

If you think things happen differently in Canada, you don't understand how the sausage is made.

He would if he had broader congressional support, but opposing forces are strong (lobbies, pro-market ideology, etc)

1000 a month per patients will handily fund an awful lot of high priced lobbyists. Such congressional proclamations are arguably just a clarion call to K Street

that seems unconstitutional and also terrible precedent to set. why do any research if you can just piggyback on others?