Trump signs executive order aimed at slashing prescription drug costs
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday aimed at slashing prescription drug prices in the U.S. that could lead to the capping of prices at a level equivalent to the cost in similar nations.
The U.S. has paid more than other similarly wealthy countries for prescription drugs for decades, with a 2024 study conducted by the Rand Corporation, a public policy think tank, finding that Americans in general pay 2.78 times more for prescription drugs than 33 other nations.
Under the executive order, Trump will roll out a 'most favored nation' policy which, he hopes, will allow the U.S. to pay for prescription drugs at the same price as 'the Nation at pays the lowest price anywhere in the World.'
'Basically, what we are doing is equalizing,' Trump said during a press conference on Monday. 'We're all going to pay the same.'
The executive order directs the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to take 'all appropriate action' against 'unreasonable and discriminatory' policies in foreign countries that suppress drug prices abroad, according to a White House official.
It also directs Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to set 'clear targets' for prescription drug and pharmaceutical price reductions within 30 days.
This, Trump hopes, will open a round of negotiations between the agency and the pharmaceutical and prescription drug industries to knock down drug prices.
But if nothing comes of those talks, Kennedy will then impose a 'most favored nation' pricing model capping U.S. prices at the lowest rates paid by other similarly wealthy countries.
The Food and Drug Administration will also consider expanding drug importation from other countries besides Canada where drug prices are often cheaper, White House officials during a phone call to reporters.
The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission will enforce anti-competitive actions that contribute to high drug prices in the U.S., White House officials said. The Department of Commerce could also consider export restrictions that enable low pricing abroad, they added.
Trump tried to implement a similar policy to lower drug prices during his first term, which was blocked by a federal judge in 2020. This time around, the policy encompasses a broader set of federal actions.
Trump said that moves will hopefully knock down drug prices by 59 percent, in a post to the social media platform X.
He then added during a press conference Monday that drug prices could be reduced by between '59 and 80 and I guess even 90 percent.'
White House officials did not say which drugs will be subject to price cuts under the policy, but said Americans could expect GLP-1 agonists, which include weight loss drugs like Wegovy, Ozempic and Mounjaro to be among those subject to the plan.
Last month, the Trump administration rejected a Biden-era plan that would have required Medicaid and Medicare to cover the weight loss drugs, which could have expanded access. The plan would have also potentially saved the federal government about $35 billion over 10 years, according to estimates from The Congressional Budget Office.
White House officials said that they expect drug prices to begin to come down almost immediately since they anticipate drug manufacturers will work quickly with the administration to lower costs.
'The president is dead serious about lowering drug prices,' officials said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
8 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Live Q&A: The Big Blowup—We Answer Your Questions About the Trump/Musk Feud
What questions do you have about the falling-out between President Trump and Elon Musk? Long-simmering tensions between Trump and Musk burst into the open on Thursday. In a rupture that could have serious consequences for both men as well as for broad federal initiatives and policies, the two traded barbs and insults on social media and threatened to use their power against one another.
Epoch Times
9 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
FTC Warns of Rising Student Loan Scams, Says Fraudsters Took Millions From Borrowers
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is The warning, issued June 6, comes as part of a broader push by the FTC to raise awareness about deceptive debt-relief schemes targeting Americans with student loans.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cheerleaders for Violence: The Troubling Defense of Terror in Boulder
It was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration. Instead, it ended in flames. But what came after the attack in Boulder may be even more incendiary, especially online, where some users in their teens and 20s were not condemning the violence. They were endorsing it. On a clear afternoon in late May, a pro-Israel demonstration on Boulder, Colorados iconic Pearl Street Mall turned into a scene of terror. An Egyptian citizen, wielding improvised firebombs, attacked the crowd, injuring 15 people and igniting panic in a city more often associated with peaceful protests and college town calm. Authorities swiftly arrested the suspect, now charged with multiple felonies including attempted murder and arson. Law enforcement has labeled the incident an act of terrorism. But while the violence rattled the city and the Jewish community in particular, a very different response was unfolding online. Videos posted by major outlets such as ABC News, Daily Mail, and MSNBC quickly amassed thousands of views on TikTok and Instagram. In the comment sections, a disturbing trend emerged: Rather than denouncing the attack, many young users applauded it. "He just wanted freedom for Palestine." "Keep up the good work brother! Hero." "Free him, he did no wrong. He did what we all wanted." "I was about to comment about how terrible this is and then I realized it was a pro-Israel rally and I suddenly didnt feel bad anymore." Some expressed outright Jew-hatred, writing things like, "Reduce their population" and "We owe Germany an apology." Others painted the attacker as a martyr or revolutionary. Several claimed the incident was staged entirely, a so-called "false flag" to build sympathy for Israel. This chorus of justification, denial, and celebration is jarring but not entirely surprising given the current climate. Recent polling shows a dramatic shift in how young Americans view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Pew Research Center, 53% of U.S. adults now hold an unfavorable view of Israel. Support for the Palestinian cause has grown, particularly among Democrats and younger voters. In one RealClearPolling analysis,respondentsunder 28 years old were more likely than any other age group to sympathize with Palestinians over Israelis and to view Israels military actions in Gaza as unjustified. As someone from this generation, and from Boulder, Ive watched these sentiments evolve online, where politics blur with memes and moral lines often collapse under the weight of outrage or irony. Seeing this unfold in my own hometown made it feel less like an aberration and more like a wake-up call. Whats chilling isnt just the cruelty of the comments. Its how natural they seem to the people posting them, many of whom are my peers. Layered atop this political shift is a deepening distrust of institutions. A significant share of younger Americans express skepticism toward government narratives, traditional news media, and even the legitimacy of domestic law enforcement. According to the spring 2025 Harvard Youth Poll, fewer than one in three express trust in major institutions. But when that skepticism is applied to something as clear and violent as the Boulder attack, is it truly thoughtful or is it reflexive, corrosive doubt - the kind that opens the door to conspiracism and moral disengagement? That mindset helps explain the abundance of conspiracy-laden responses: "Yeah they set this up. Dont believe it at all," read one comment. Another called it a "planned distraction," while others insisted it was staged with actors. Though many of these reactions remain anonymous and ephemeral, they point to a generational divide not just in foreign policy, but in the moral frameworks through which violence is interpreted. Zoe Mardiks, a recent graduate of the University of Colorado Boulder and a Jewish student leader, was at her apartment when she learned of the attack. "My first reaction was to text some of my other Jewish friends to check in and ensure that everyone was okay and safe," she said. "I felt very scared that this had happened in my community." What disturbed her just as much as the attack itself was the flood of online comments defending it. "The ongoing justification for violence significantly downplays the rights of Jews and Israel to exist," Mardiks said. In her view, social media has warpedher generations sense of moral clarity. "Because of how the war has been broadcast on social media, everyone feels they have a say in the issue and believes they possess all the knowledge," she said. Mardiks said her response to those defending the attacker is simple: "If you truly care about saving or freeing anyone, we can only do that by educating each other in a non-attacking way … the line is drawn when you praise violence." The Boulder attack marks a grim milestone: a foreign conflict spilling onto American soil in the form of violence, and met, in some corners of the Internet, with tacit approval. That many of those corners are populated by Americans under 30 raises hard questions about what this generation, my generation, believes, whom they stand with, and what they consider justifiable resistance. For us, the line between protest and terrorism used to feel clear. Now, for too many, that line seems negotiable. "He did what we all wanted." If thats true, we may need to start asking what "we" really means now. Adair Teuton is a 2025 intern with RealClearPolitics.
