Trump's Math Fail Sparks Massive Online Trolling
Trump began promisingly enough with a complaint shared by Democrats and Republicans alike: the high cost of medication, and how much more Americans pay for some medications than patients in other countries.
He promised to reduce those costs ― but to a very unlikely degree.
'We're gonna get the drug prices down. Not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%,' Trump said at a Republican dinner. 'Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable.'
Critics quickly pointed out the reason those numbers are not thought to be achievable: reducing the price by 100% would make the drugs free. Reducing it by '1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%,' as Trump said, would make the cost negative dollars ― with the drug company essentially paying people to take the medication.
Trump: This is somebody nobody else can do. I can get the drug prices down… 1000% 600% 500% 1500%. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable. pic.twitter.com/NPMMdEZIot
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 23, 2025
@acyn/ C-SPAN / Via Twitter: @Acyn
Several users asked Grok, the AI chatbot on X, if Trump's numbers made sense. Grok called Trump's claim ' mathematically impossible,' ' hyperbolic and not literal ' and ' total bullshit.'
But Trump insisted he could use 'a certain talent that I have' to convince pharmaceutical companies that they have no choice but to reduce their prices.
Trump also mentioned an executive order he signed in May to invoke 'most-favored nation' status in drug costs, which he says would ensure that drug companies can't charge Americans any more than what they charge patients in other nations.
However, the details of that plan remain hazy, and at least one pharmaceutical CEO said discussions with the White House are ongoing and expected to take time.
Trump on Tuesday insisted that his order will lead to those price cuts.
'We will have reduced drug prices by 1,000%, by 1,100, 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 700, 600,' he said. 'Not 30 or 40 or 50%, but numbers the likes of which you've never even dreamed of before.'
Trump's critics offered some free math lessons:
As someone who graduated from first grade, this is not how numbers work. https://t.co/dx4lMcQTAb
— Hemant Mehta (@hemantmehta) July 23, 2025
@hemantmehta/ C-SPAN
Thank goodness this guy isn't negotiating the percentages we pay in tariffs. https://t.co/x7EppKShSq
— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) July 23, 2025
@justinwolfers / C-SPAN
Quite a trick if he can do it. Are we going into negative numbers where big Pharma pays me to take their drugs?
— Dj Omega Mvp (@DjOmegaMVP) July 23, 2025
@DJOmegaMVP/ C-SPAN
Hard to imagine this guy was found liable of fraud for making up numbers https://t.co/vgjVF1q2DI
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) July 23, 2025
@meidastouch/ C-SPAN
So the drug companies are going to pay us to take their drugs?
Dumbest President EVER.
— SickoftheCrap (@SickoftheC) July 23, 2025
@SickoftheC
The economics department at Wharton must be incredibly proud of this man's fundamental understanding of basic math. https://t.co/kuwIorU8TL
— Franklin Leonard (@franklinleonard) July 23, 2025
@franklinleonard/ C-SPAN
Cant wait fill my next zpack at cvs and leave with a stack of their money https://t.co/EgT12GMTul
— Ronnie (@Gem_Mint_Cards_) July 23, 2025
@gem_mint_cards_/ C-SPAN
I feel like a requirement of being president should be understanding basic math.
— Jared Ryan Sears (@JaredRyanSears) July 23, 2025
@JaredRyanSears
So medicines would be free and pharmaceutical companies would pay us?
— Bru🔮 💉🗣 (@brwninh4) July 23, 2025
@brwninh4
Getting paid to take drugs sounds awesome where do I sign up
— TCL (@TitleTalkTCL) July 23, 2025
@titletalkTCL / C-SPAN
Universal Prescription Income. Your move, Yang https://t.co/7QbV09x3Xe
— Roger Sollenberger (@SollenbergerRC) July 23, 2025
@SollenbergerRC/ C-SPAN
What kind of math is this? https://t.co/yu5kzUJEeO
— Wu Tang is for the Children (@WUTangKids) July 23, 2025
@WuTangKids/ C-SPAN
And people wonder how this idiot bankrupted casinos. https://t.co/5xtlIrj0Gd
— Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) July 23, 2025
@JoJoFromJerz/ C-SPAN
Negative drug prices are on the way ! 🤣🇺🇸 https://t.co/HLflM8fdZK
— Christopher Schultz (@nalyticsatwork) July 23, 2025
@nalyticsatwork/ C-SPAN
This is the fucking genius. https://t.co/JkEHJbqB01
— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) July 23, 2025
@FPWellman/ C-SPAN
https://t.co/4XedIgYgi8 pic.twitter.com/OBOgCBZNii
— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) July 23, 2025
@DaveItzkoff/ C-SPAN
@realDonaldTrump is out here pitching drug deals like it's Shark Tank for Cartels:
'I'm offering insulin for negative $300 and a lifetime supply of bleach injections… but only if you call in the next 15 minutes.'
This QVC for crackheads.
— Frank C (@FrankC164) July 23, 2025
@FrankC164/ C-SPAN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court rules Trump clamp-down on spending data defies Congress' authority
A federal appeals court panel shot down a Trump administration bid to make secret a public database of federal spending that researchers say is crucial to ensure the administration is not flouting Congress' power of the purse. In an order issued Saturday evening, the three-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted unanimously to give the administration until Friday to put the data back online. Two of the three appeals judges assigned to the matter also signed onto a forceful opinion declaring that the administration's bid to conceal the data was an affront to Congress' authority over government spending, one that threatened the separation of powers and defied centuries of evidence that public disclosure is necessary for the public good. 'No court would allow a losing party to defy its judgment. No President would allow a usurper to command our armed forces,' Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote in support of the decision to deny the Trump administration's request to keep the data under wraps while litigation over the issue goes forward. 'And no Congress should be made to wait while the Executive intrudes on its plenary power over appropriations.' The Trump administration ignited the legal battle when it decided in March to abruptly shut down the database, claiming the widely available public data threatened the president's ability to manage federal spending. Henderson noted that the decision came amid a torrent of lawsuits questioning whether the administration was preparing to illegally 'impound' — or withhold — congressionally mandated spending required by law to disburse. The administration claimed the database also forced the disclosure of information meant to be shielded from public view. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected that view out of hand last month, in a lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Protect Democracy group. The Clinton-appointed judge ordered the administration to immediately restore the website. The Justice Department quickly appealed and won a short-term pause of Sullivan's decision. But Saturday's ruling by the appeals court panel ends that pause. Henderson agreed with Sullivan, saying Congress' power is 'at its zenith' when it comes to both approving federal spending and requiring details of that spending to be publicly disclosed. In other words, only Congress — not the administration — could decide to shut down the database. Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, joined Henderson's 25-page opinion. The third judge on the panel, Biden appointee Bradley Garcia, voted with Henderson and Wilkins but did not join her opinion. The ruling lands just as a simmering fight over Trump's authority to dictate federal spending has been ramping up on Capitol Hill. Trump has long flirted with the notion that the president has the power to impound funds that he views cut against Executive Branch priorities, and courts have eyed warily his administration's decision to mass-terminate federal grants and contracts representing billions of dollars in congressionally required spending. The Justice Department has argued that the funds for those terminated programs could be reissued in plenty of time to satisfy Congress' requirements, but Trump budget officials have floated workarounds that have made some lawmakers uncomfortable. The decision Saturday is not a final ruling on the underlying legal question about whether the administration is obliged to make the data public. But unless the full bench of the appeals court steps in or the administration gets relief from the Supreme Court, the ruling means the data is likely to be public within days. The panel agreed to give the administration until Aug. 15 to restore the database.
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
Appeals court rules Trump clamp-down on spending data defies Congress' authority
'No court would allow a losing party to defy its judgment. No President would allow a usurper to command our armed forces,' Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote in support of the decision to deny the Trump administration's request to keep the data under wraps while litigation over the issue goes forward. 'And no Congress should be made to wait while the Executive intrudes on its plenary power over appropriations.' The Trump administration ignited the legal battle when it decided in March to abruptly shut down the database , claiming the widely available public data threatened the president's ability to manage federal spending. Henderson noted that the decision came amid a torrent of lawsuits questioning whether the administration was preparing to illegally 'impound' — or withhold — congressionally mandated spending required by law to disburse. The administration claimed the database also forced the disclosure of information meant to be shielded from public view. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected that view out of hand last month, in a lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Protect Democracy group. The Clinton-appointed judge ordered the administration to immediately restore the website. The Justice Department quickly appealed and won a short-term pause of Sullivan's decision. But Saturday's ruling by the appeals court panel ends that pause. Henderson agreed with Sullivan, saying Congress' power is 'at its zenith' when it comes to both approving federal spending and requiring details of that spending to be publicly disclosed. In other words, only Congress — not the administration — could decide to shut down the database. Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, joined Henderson's 25-page opinion. The third judge on the panel, Biden appointee Bradley Garcia, voted with Henderson and Wilkins but did not join her opinion. The ruling lands just as a simmering fight over Trump's authority to dictate federal spending has been ramping up on Capitol Hill. Trump has long flirted with the notion that the president has the power to impound funds that he views cut against Executive Branch priorities, and courts have eyed warily his administration's decision to mass-terminate federal grants and contracts representing billions of dollars in congressionally required spending. The Justice Department has argued that the funds for those terminated programs could be reissued in plenty of time to satisfy Congress' requirements, but Trump budget officials have floated workarounds that have made some lawmakers uncomfortable. The decision Saturday is not a final ruling on the underlying legal question about whether the administration is obliged to make the data public. But unless the full bench of the appeals court steps in or the administration gets relief from the Supreme Court, the ruling means the data is likely to be public within days. The panel agreed to give the administration until Aug. 15 to restore the database.
NBC News
6 minutes ago
- NBC News
Texas Democrats rally against redistricting effort
People in Austin rallied against Texas Republicans on Saturday, as the party pushes forward with a plan to add five GOP congressional seats, and potentially cement Republicans' control of Congress in Washington. It comes as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ramps up his legal battle against Democrats who fled the state to stop the effort. NBC News' Ryan Chandler has moreAug. 10, 2025
