The pandemic gold rush that minted a new class of biotech billionaires has finally met the market’s cold light of day. Moderna and BioNTech rides on skyrocketing vaccine sales peaked in 2021, and since then both stocks have cratered as demand for COVID shots normalized and investors re-priced speculative mRNA bet portfolios.
Moderna’s management has publicly warned investors that COVID vaccine revenue will crater relative to pandemic highs, and the company’s revised 2025 guidance has sent shares tumbling as Wall Street recalibrates expectations for a post-emergency world. The company’s pivot to other mRNA products is sensible on paper, but shareholders are reacting to the hard numbers — sales that once looked perennial have proven seasonal and headline-driven.
BioNTech’s outlook tells the same story: dwindling COVID vaccine sales, inventory write-downs by partners, and a guidance cut for 2025 that forced layoffs and a reorganization in a bid to conserve cash. What investors and everyday Americans are seeing now is what should have been obvious — emergency-era windfalls do not automatically translate into permanent business empires.
Those falling share prices have real consequences for the founders and executives who profited most during the pandemic. Forbes and other wealth trackers show dramatic swings in net worth for the likes of Moderna’s CEO and BioNTech’s cofounders, proof that paper fortunes tied to stock peaks evaporate fast when the gravy train ends. Americans who footed much of the initial research bill for these breakthroughs ought to take notice that riches built on crisis demand can be as fleeting as the crisis itself.
Conservative readers should not confuse accountability with anti-science sentiment. It’s entirely reasonable to question why companies reaped enormous taxpayer-supported sales during an emergency and then leaned on those same reputations to justify sky-high valuations and executive windfalls. Markets are correcting that imbalance now, and taxpayers deserve scrutiny over contracts, pricing and the cozy relationships between regulators and industry.
Washington’s new health leadership adds another layer of uncertainty for Big Pharma and biotech investors alike. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services in February 2025, bringing with him a history of skepticism toward vaccines and promises of regulatory overhaul; his tenure has already led to contentious personnel moves and policy reviews that industry and investors are watching closely. A reshaped HHS agenda — whether it curbs mandates, reorders funding priorities, or re-examines emergency-era approvals — naturally tightens the market for COVID-focused products.
Good. Let the market decide which companies deserve enduring valuations and which rode a temporary wave. Conservatives should cheer transparency and market discipline: no more automatic bailouts of inflated biotech valuations or secretive sweetheart deals. If an innovation is sustainable, it will stand on its own without emergency-era subsidies and PR campaigns.
At the same time, patriotic Americans must defend real scientific progress from politicized attacks while also demanding fiscal responsibility and accountability. Patients and taxpayers won’t be served by either unchecked corporate greed or ideological witch hunts; they will be served by clear rules, honest accounting, and a government that protects both public health and the public purse.
