Trump signs executive order to bring down prescription drug prices
United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that he says will bring down the price of prescription drugs in the US by as much as 90 percent.
In an announcement on Monday, Trump said drug companies who have been 'profiteering' will have to bring prices down but laid the blame for high prices primarily on foreign countries.
'We're going to equalise,' Trump said during a news conference. 'We're all going to pay the same. We're going to pay what Europe pays.'
People in the US have long been an outlier when it comes to the prices they pay for numerous types of life-saving medication, often paying several times more than their peers in other rich countries for nearly identical drugs.
That phenomenon is often attributed to the substantial economic and political influence that the pharmaceutical industry wields in the US.
The high cost of medical drugs has been a source of popular discontent in the US for years, and Trump accused the pharmaceutical industry of 'getting away with murder' in 2017.
But in his remarks on Monday, the US leader also seemed to say that US pharmaceutical companies were not ultimately to blame for the difference in prices. Trump instead framed those high prices in the familiar terms of a trade imbalance with partners such as the European Union and said the US has been 'subsidising' lower drug prices in other nations.
That perspective seems to align with the framing of the pharmaceutical industry itself. The industry's most powerful lobbying arm stated the cause of high prices for US consumers is 'foreign countries not paying their fair share'.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a left-wing politician who has railed against the high prices paid by US patients for years, said Trump's order wrongly blames foreign countries rather than US companies for those prices.
'I agree with President Trump: it is an outrage that the American people pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs,' Sanders said in a statement.
'But let's be clear: the problem is not that the price of prescription drugs is too low in Europe and Canada. The problem is that the extraordinarily greedy pharmaceutical industry made over $100bn in profits last year by ripping off the American people.'
A fact sheet shared by the White House said the administration will 'communicate price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to establish that America, the largest purchaser and funder of prescription drugs in the world, gets the best deal'.
The stock prices of US drugmakers ticked upwards after the announcement. Experts have cast doubt on Trump's optimistic assertion that drug prices would drop quickly and substantially.
'It really does seem the plan is to ask manufacturers to voluntarily lower their prices to some point which is not known,' Rachel Sachs, a health law expert at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, told The Associated Press news agency.
'If they do not lower their prices to the desired point, HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] shall take other actions with a very long timeline, some of which could potentially, years in the future, lower drug prices.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Why did the US block a resolution demanding an end to Israel's war on Gaza?
The United States has blocked another United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. It's the fifth time Washington has used its veto power since Israel's war began in October 2023. The US says it will continue to support its close ally while Israel says it will continue the war in Gaza until Hamas is defeated. So do the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members undermine the body itself? Even when resolutions are passed, does the UN have the capability to enact them? Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom Guests: Stephen Zunes – professor of politics at the University of San Francisco Luigi Daniele – associate professor of international law at Molise University in Italy Firas El Echi – journalist and host of the Here's Why podcast
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations. In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit. The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise. 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF). 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.' The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'. The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers. Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people. Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014. The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms. The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice. That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad. In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC. But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country. The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers. 'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote. 'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.'' On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. 'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement. Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'. But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court clears greater path for ‘reverse discrimination' claims
The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling that will make it easier for people to claim workplace 'reverse' discrimination based on identities such as being white or heterosexual, in a victory for conservatives who have long pushed back against laws that protect minorities. The nation's highest court ruled unanimously on Thursday in favour of an Ohio woman named Marlean Ames, who said she was passed over for a promotion at work because she is straight. The decision reverses a previous ruling by a lower court stating that plaintiffs from some majority groups must show 'background circumstances' to demonstrate that their employer is 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority', rather than minority groups that have historically faced discrimination in the US. 'We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' wrote liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.' The Thursday ruling could affect lawsuits in 20 different states and the District of Columbia, striking a blow to a previous practice wherein members of groups who have not historically been on the receiving end of discriminatory practices had to clear a higher bar when pushing claims of workplace civil rights violations. Conservatives in the US have argued for years that steps to address the legacy of discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities, such as considering race in academic admission or job recruitment, themselves constitute a form of discrimination against white people. Ames previously stated that she was 'pushed aside' at her job at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in favour of LGBTQ employees. She sued for damages in 2020, alleging that her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, originally passed during the civil rights struggle for Black people in the US, had been violated. The state's Republican Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court papers, stating that department leaders had said Ames lacked the vision and leadership for the job for which she was rejected.
