The New Vaping War: Tobacco Giants, Geopolitics, and Consumers Trapped in the Trump Era
In the silent struggle for control of the nicotine market in the United States, a battle is unfolding—one increasingly out in the open—between corporate titans. This is not merely a clash between the big tobacco companies and the emerging manufacturers of electronic cigarettes.
What’s at play is a deeper, structural conflict: a dispute intertwining geopolitical, commercial, and regulatory interests, where players like British American Tobacco (BAT) and Altria are ramping up pressure on Donald Trump’s administration to halt the expansion of disposable vapes made in China—most of which are deemed illegal by U.S. authorities.
A report by Emma Rumney, published by Reuters on April 4, unearthed previously unseen documents and political ties that reveal how these multinationals are maneuvering to reshape U.S. regulation in their own image and interest.
But if we look closer—if we pause beyond the corporate noise—what emerges is a painful absence: the consumer. Especially the most vulnerable, trapped in a market with no minimum health safeguards, exposed to opaque corporate agendas, and lacking a strong public defense to protect them. In this war, there are no heroes. There are only consumer bodies.
A Multibillion-Dollar and Deeply Deregulated Market
According to internal estimates by BAT, cited by Reuters, nearly 70% of the vaping market in the United States—equivalent to about $13 billion annually—is saturated with unauthorized disposable products, most of them manufactured in China and lacking approval from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
Although their import and sale are, in theory, illegal, these devices circulate widely through convenience stores, gas stations, and digital platforms, forming a parallel economy that circumvents established regulatory frameworks with alarming ease.
BAT and Altria claim that this proliferation erodes their market share while their products await approval from regulatory bodies. What they fail to mention—the crux of the issue—is that the rise of disposable vapes cannot be explained solely by regulatory leniency. Their expansion also follows a ruthless market logic: they are more accessible, cheaper, and above all, more enticing to consumers historically ignored—or outright exploited—by the traditional tobacco industry. Young people with early nicotine dependence, racialized communities, and low-income individuals are the perfect targets for this new offensive.
In this sense, the regulatory void is not so much the cause as it is the most visible symptom of an exclusionary machine running far longer—a structure that, in new forms, continues to push vulnerable bodies to the margins.
The Machinery of Lobbying: Letters, Tariffs, and Millions to Influence
According to the report, on March 11, 2025, Reynolds American—a subsidiary of British American Tobacco—sent a letter to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) calling for a total ban on imports of disposable vapes made in China and the imposition of new tariffs. In the letter, Reynolds accused Chinese companies of engaging in “illegal and unfair” trade practices.
But the letter is merely the most visible—and precisely timed—element of a broader influence campaign.
Reuters revealed that Reynolds donated $10 million to the super PAC Make America Great Again Inc., which is closely tied to Donald Trump’s campaign. Added to this is a dense web of connections with the powerful lobbying group Ballard Partners, headed by Brian Ballard, former finance chair of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and linked to key Trump-era figures like Susie Wiles and Pam Bondi.
These moves are less about defending regulatory integrity and more about fortifying an aging business model: slow, heavy, and clumsy in the face of the rapid ascent of disposable devices—nimbler, cheaper, and far more appealing—as they slip through market loopholes and seduce a consumer with no time to hesitate.
Despite their health risks and severe environmental toll—primarily due to recycling issues that magnify their ecological footprint—these devices offer something the major tobacco companies have yet to legalize: a future that has already arrived but is slipping through their fingers. They're cheaper. And in the brutal logic of instant consumption, that—tragically—is enough.
A Sectoral Trade War Disguised as Legality?
Beneath the veil of legalist rhetoric lies a far deeper conflict: a sector-specific trade war unfolding within the U.S. nicotine market, though its contours spill beyond mere regulatory debate.
The major tobacco companies—who brand themselves as champions of a “responsible transition” toward products like heated tobacco or regulated vapes (and to some extent, they are)—now face increasingly aggressive competition from disposable devices: far more accessible, widely used by nicotine-dependent youth, and, above all, hard to trace through conventional enforcement channels.
The report makes clear that these companies aren’t truly seeking structural reform of the regulatory system. They want the FDA to speed up its processes and enforce existing rules more harshly. According to two consultants quoted by Emma Rumney, neither BAT nor Altria is calling for a new legal framework. They seek an efficient bureaucracy that, under the guise of regulatory fairness, will legitimize their dominance and push out inconvenient competitors.
China Responds: Silent Adaptation and Strategic Caution
Far from the caricature of the Chinese manufacturer flooding the U.S. market with illegal products, the China-based specialist outlet 2Firsts paints a far more complex and nuanced picture. According to its analysis, numerous producers have begun to adopt defensive strategies in response to tightening regulatory scrutiny in the United States—marking what could be a turning point in the dynamics of bilateral trade.
Among the most significant shifts: Chinese companies have reassessed their perception of risk, abandoning the belief that FDA regulations were effectively toothless; Distinct corporate structures—true legal firewalls—have been established to isolate U.S. operations from parent companies in China; U.S. distributors have begun demanding regulatory documentation (such as PMTA acceptance letters), leading to the mass cancellation of orders; The development of new products aimed at the U.S. market has slowed sharply, driven by fears of sanctions or new tariffs.
In other words, the export channel no longer operates under an “anything goes” logic. The Wild West era is beginning to fracture. The rise—albeit partial—of regulatory compliance suggests that institutional pressure can work. But only if it is applied rigorously, without duplicity, and truly in the public interest. Everything else is a pretext: a decorative narrative to legitimize private agendas.
A Regulation That Chokes Some and Privileges Others
While traditional tobacco companies call for more “order,” their demands don’t aim to transform the regulatory system—they seek to reshape it to suit their interests.
According to sources cited by Reuters, they truly want a faster, more lenient implementation of the authorization process without giving up the privileges they’ve historically enjoyed in the market.
The problem is that the FDA is undergoing chronic weakening: besieged by resource shortages, pressured by political interests, and trapped in a bureaucratic machine that slows down just when it should be most decisive. So far, it has authorized only 34 vaping products, all tobacco—or menthol-flavored. It has failed to stop the flood of unauthorized devices, nor has it managed to effectively protect those who need it most.
According to the same report, the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) could be restructured—or even dismantled—as part of health policy reforms promoted by Donald Trump’s administration. Such a move would not simply signal neglect — it would institutionalize it, stripping away even the illusion of oversight. A market even more exposed. A state even more absent. A citizenry more alone.
From Harm to Change: Can Big Tobacco Lead a Historic Transition?
And yet, amid this erosion of public responsibility, an unlikely agent of change emerges: Big Tobacco itself. Few industries have concentrated as much economic, symbolic, and political power as the major tobacco companies. Reducing them to the role of eternal villains would not only be a mistake but a dangerously simplistic one.
Today, in the face of the progressive collapse of the combustion-based model, these corporations find themselves at an unprecedented crossroads: By gradually transforming their products—from combustible tobacco to lower-risk devices—they open the door to a possibility they might once have rejected outright: to lead an honest, profound, and irreversible transition.
With their financial muscle, deep social entrenchment, and political influence, they are in a position to accelerate the decline of the cigarette as we know it — and with it, the vast majority of the harms associated with tobacco use.
Not as an act of redemption, but as a pragmatic reinvention: the adaptation of a business model that, after decades of denial, is beginning to understand that the future will only be livable if it stops burning.
But innovation alone is not enough. As of today, the major tobacco companies have yet to reduce their profit margins to make these new products more accessible. Meanwhile, lower-risk devices remain significantly more expensive than conventional cigarettes—especially in low- and middle-income countries, where the majority of smokers live. Without a genuine commitment to affordability, the transition will be, at best, partial and, at worst, a new form of exclusion.
What’s needed is an explicit willingness to expand access — especially for those who have historically been ignored — and to acknowledge their role in the history of harm publicly. The question, then, is not whether they can. It’s whether they want to. And whether they’re willing to rewrite their own story to make it believable — not to cleanse their past, but to earn a place in the future.
Save Vaping or Deregulate Forever?
Faced with institutional neglect as policy and a dominant corporate model, organizations like the Vapor Technology Association (VTA)—which represents independent manufacturers—argue that the current system has effectively criminalized flavored products. According to advocates and even some scientific studies, these tools could play a key role in harm reduction for smokers in transition.
Its president, Tony Abboud, claims that current regulations exclude small producers and block access to less harmful alternatives for precisely those who need them most.
After meeting with Donald Trump in 2024, the former president posted a message on Truth Social that distilled the spirit of the moment into a few words: “Save vaping.” It was more campaign slogan than health policy, more symbolic gesture than public health strategy, but effective, as slogans often are—promising a future without saying who will be left behind.
Public Health, Private Interests, and the Future of Nicotine
Emma Rumney’s report offers a clear view of a conflict far exceeding any technical debate. What’s at stake is a specific regulation and the broader battle over who controls the future nicotine market. Corporate interests, political power networks, and regulatory voids collide in this playing field as structural cracks.
While lobbyists maneuver in Washington and Beijing adjust their export strategies, millions consume products without knowing whether they are regulated, approved, adulterated, or simply overlooked. And the authorities—caught between paralysis and pressure—can barely sustain a narrative of order that’s falling apart at the edges.
If there is something worth saving—beyond vaping or corporate margins—it is the right to fair, transparent, and protective regulation. Especially for those who need it most: young consumers already addicted to nicotine, smokers in transition, and communities that have borne the burden of top-down addiction for decades.
This isn’t just a debate about health. It’s about the state’s ability to protect the public good in the face of relentless private encroachment.
And perhaps, ultimately, the most uncomfortable question of all:
Who holds the power today to decide what is consumed, how it is consumed—
And who gets left to burn?
Sources:
Big Tobacco targets Trump in hope - and fear - of change By Emma Rumney
Reuters Reveals BAT’s Letter to Trump Urging Vape Ban: What It Means for China’s Supply Chain By 2Firsts