Fox News Finally Fact-Checks Trump’s Bizarre Claim About Drug Prices

The White House has finally been called out for fabricating its pharmaceutical savings—and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick did not handle it well.

For months, Donald Trump has seemingly grabbed numbers out of thin air to impress an ignorant public—or his sycophantic followers—on his allegedly great pharmaceutical deals, boasting that he has “cut drug prices by 1,200; 1,300; 1,400; 1,500 percent.”

The lie continued on Wednesday night, when Trump said during his national address he had negotiated to cut drug prices by “400, 500, and even 600 percent.”

But Fox News host John Roberts saw through the numerical gibberish, excoriating Lutnick during an interview Thursday and stressing that the math was simply “not possible.”

“Well, if you cut something by 100 percent the cost goes down to zero,” Roberts said. “If you cut it by 4-5-600 percent, the drug companies are actually paying you to take their product.”

“So tell me, how much of last night’s speech was hyperbole and how much was fact?” the host asked.

But Lutnick’s reply didn’t make much sense, either.

“No, what he’s saying is—bringing—if a drug was $100 and you bring the drug down to $13, right? If you’re looking at it from $13, it’s down seven times,” Lutnick said.

“No, it’s not—” Roberts interjected.

“Well, but it’s 700 percent higher price before. It’s down 700 percent now. So, $13 would have to go up 700 percent to get back to the old one. You could say, it’s down 87 percent, or you could say it would have to go up 700 percent to be the same one. So it just depends on the way you look at it,” Lutnick said, before insisting that the American public “all know what he’s saying.”

“We are hammering the price of drugs down,” Lutnick emphasized.

But the president has not tangibly lowered drug costs. In May, Trump penned an executive order that set a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to negotiate lower prices. If there was no deal, the U.S. would tie its drug prices to the costs set by other countries. But despite that threat, there hasn’t been any noticeable movement in either direction.

In November, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that it had negotiated new prices for 15 expensive drugs covered by Medicare’s prescription drug program, Part D. The negotiations were conducted in the second round of Medicare’s Drug Price Negotiation Program, which was enacted by the previous administration under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Still, the cost of those drugs—which include Ozempic and Wegovy—aren’t expected to decrease until 2027.

Instead, evidence exists that drug prices have actually gone up for some 700 medications during Trump’s second term, according to a September report by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Trump has previously posited that the affordable price tags on pharmaceuticals in other countries was due to American federal subsidies, which he claimed were financially offsetting their prices. But that’s not reality: the U.S. pays more for drugs because it’s an outlier among high-income, first world countries, which predominantly support universal public health coverage.

Potential solutions that researchers argue could meaningfully address high drug prices in the U.S. include restricting pharmaceutical monopolies within the country, reworking insurance benefits to hamper out-of-pocket expenses, and recentralizing price negotiations through the leverage of a single-payer system (such as Australia, Germany, the U.K., or any number of other wealthy nations), according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a private American foundation focused on health care reform.

While signing a bill to reclassify the status of marijuana Thursday, Donald Trump struggled to stay awake in the Oval Office. 

The anti-woke president, seated at the Resolute Desk, was surrounded by medical professionals and military veterans, among others, but his neck still drooped with his eyes closing before he jerked awake. 

Even as doctors extolled the benefits from having more research opportunities and medical applications for cannabis, Trump had difficulty keeping his eyes open, having to shift in his seat in order to stay awake.  

Not even the dulcet tones of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could keep Trump from dozing, as he had to shift and look up while Kennedy was speaking to interrupt his drifts in and out of consciousness. 

Trump has been caught snoozing at his military parade, Cabinet meetings, a tennis match, meeting the Saudi Crown Prince, during Pope Francis’s funeral, and even during the signing of a peace agreement. But don’t tell Dozy Don that his age, cognitive ability, or health may be an issue: The president gets very upset when the media points out the obvious. Maybe retirement and sleeping to his heart’s content is what he needs. 

Attacking Venezuela was not the original game plan. Instead, internal reports suggest that the White House’s violent boat-smashing operation in the Caribbean was merely a backup plan when a potential war on Mexico fell through.

The Trump administration—namely, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller—had planned to spark a new war on drugs in the early stages of Donald Trump’s second term. That effort would have targeted Mexican cartels and alleged drug traffickers.

But as the administration geared up for the fight, sending troops to the southern border, Mexico did the same. By the end of August, Mexico had effectively cracked down on the cartels.

Still hungry for a fight, Miller pivoted, shifting his gaze toward Venezuela, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

“When you hope and wait for something to develop that doesn’t, you start looking at countries south of Mexico,” a current U.S. official told the Post on the condition of anonymity.

So far, at least 95 people have been killed since the attacks began in early September. The White House has defended the violence, chalking it up to allegedly necessary efforts to thwart the pipeline of fentanyl into the country. To further justify the brutality, the president designated fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction” earlier this week, ostensibly legitimizing the militaristic response. Trump has simultaneously leveraged the aggression to try to shove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro out of power, something that he attempted and failed to do in 2019.

Current and former officials that spoke with the Post argued that Miller was the primary driving force behind the operation, leading the charge on a July 25 classified directive that authorized the use of military force against criminal groups.

“The president’s memo is the original sin of the whole operation,” a former official told the Post.

But the White House is not on board with the leaking details that Miller masterminded Trump’s merciless foreign policy.

“President Trump’s counternarcotics policies come from President Trump himself,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said. “All senior administration officials work closely together to carry out the agenda President Trump was elected to implement, including eliminating the scourge of narco-terrorism that takes tens of thousands of American lives every year.”

But lawmakers have remained skeptical as to whether the boats even qualify as a narcoterrorist threat, considering the White House has been dropping bombs without investigating or interdicting the watercraft.

Their skepticism was rewarded Wednesday, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and State Secretary Marco Rubio revealed during a classified meeting that there was no intelligence indicating that fentanyl was coming out of Venezuela. Instead, the administration had learned the boats were carrying cocaine—bound for Europe, rather than America.

“That is a massive waste of national security resources and your taxpayer dollars,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who attended the meeting.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released new photos from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate Thursday, and in some of them, handwritten lines from the book Lolita are visible on the bodies of unidentified girls or women.

One of the photos shows “Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth” written on someone’s collarbone, above her chest. A passage on a foot reads, “She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock.” “She was Lola in slacks” is visible on another person’s body, and a message written on someone’s neck reads, “She was Dolly at school.” And visible, written vertically along a person’s back, is the line, “She was Delores on the dotted line.”

The photos were released through a Dropbox account, and nothing in the upload indicates who the photos are of or when they were taken. Lolita, written in 1955 by Vladimir Nabakov, is about a professor who kidnaps and sexually abuses a 12-year-old girl, which seems on the nose for a convicted sex offender and trafficker like Epstein.

Other photos released Thursday include redacted passports from Ukraine, Czech Republic, and Russia, as well as new photos of New York Times columnist David Brooks. There are also additional photos of Noam Chomsky, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Woody Allen, and Bill Gates, following earlier releases of photos with them.

In response to the photos, The New York Times issued a statement reading, “As a journalist, David Brooks regularly attends events to speak with noted and important business leaders to inform his columns, which is exactly what happened at this 2011 event. Mr. Brooks had no contact with him before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner.”

This release comes just one day before the Trump administration is required to release its full archive of Epstein documents from its federal investigation into the billionaire sex trafficker. House Speaker Mike Johnson has sent legislators home a day early, probably to try to avoid negative attention. Regarding tomorrow’s release, however, there’s no telling how much of the files the White House will try to redact or keep hidden.

View the latest batch of photos released by the House Oversight Democrats here.

The Kennedy Center will soon be called the “Trump-Kennedy Center,” in yet another egotistical move from the president that could be a death knell for the famed American cultural institution.

“I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center, some of the most successful people from all parts of the world, have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center, because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote Thursday on X. “Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation. Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump, and likewise, congratulations to President Kennedy, because this will be a truly great team long into the future! The building will no doubt attain new levels of success and grandeur.”

The current Kennedy Center Board of Trustees contains Trump himself and MAGA sycophants like Fox News host Laura Ingraham, White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, Allison Lutnick (wife of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick), Trump’s U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor, and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Trump has taken aim at the Kennedy Center since his return to office, firing the entire board, complaining that the performances were too woke, claiming that the building was dilapidated, and watching ticket sales plummet in the process.

This story has been updated.

The Trump administration is stripping funding for gender-affirming care.

The new rule, announced by the Department of Health and Human Services Thursday, virtually bans gender-affirming care at any Medicare- or Medicaid-participating hospital, even if the care itself is not paid for with federal funds.

While announcing the policy change, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy—who has made millions of dollars peddling thoroughly debunked health conspiracies—condemned the concept of gender-affirming care as “junk science.”

“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people. This is not medicine, it is malpractice,” Kennedy said. “We’re done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits, not the wellbeing of children.”

In reality, medical studies have shown that providing trans and nonbinary children with gender-affirming care actually makes them safer. Gender-affirming care decreases the amount of depression and anxiety that trans and nonbinary teenagers feel, and it makes them less likely to consider suicide.

But genuine research on the complications of gender dysphoria is apparently of little import to Kennedy’s HHS, which seems fixated on the lie that transgender children have unfettered access to surgical sex changes. The truth is that they do not: Virtually no sex change surgeries have been performed on transgender minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. That decision can be made when they turn 18 and are of legal age to make the decision for themselves.

The hoopla is deceptive and obscures the facts: A 2024 Harvard School of Public Health study found that cisgender adults and minors had “substantially” more “gender affirming surgeries” than their transgender counterparts—though Kennedy didn’t announce any restrictions on that.

Instead, the anti-vaxxer unveiled that his agency would take “six decisive actions” intended to protect children from what he described as “surgical mutilation.”

“Guided by gold standard science and the week one executive order from President [Donald] Trump … this morning I signed a declaration,” Kennedy continued. “Sex-rejecting procedures are neither safe nor effective treatment for children with gender dysphoria.”

The LGBTQ+ community has had a target on its back since Trump returned to power. The administration has taken aim at transgender athletes and fearmongered over bathroom access, all while book bans purging LGBTQ+ friendly texts have surged around the country.

Earlier this year, the ultraconservative brass on the Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines in U.S. v. Skrmetti that states may ban minors from receiving gender-affirming care, such as hormone treatments and puberty blockers, denying parents the control that they have clamored for.

When a military helicopter collided with a passenger plane at Ronald Reagan National Airport in January and killed 67 people, President Trump absurdly blamed DEI, citing a “big push to put diversity into the [Federal Aviation Administration]’s program.”

“The FAA is actively recruiting workers who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems, and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website,” Trump said then. 

Months later, the administration is eating its words, as it takes full responsibility for the crash and may end up paying for damages. 

“The United States admits that it owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs, which it breached, thereby proximately causing the tragic accident on January 29, 2025,” the Justice Department wrote in an admission of liability, brought forth by a lawsuit from a family member of one of the victims. “The collision could have been avoided.”

According to the DOJ, the Army pilots flying a Black Hawk helicopter that evening failed to “maintain vigilance” and “proper and safe visual separation” with the passenger plane. They admit that the accident would not have happened if the helicopter pilots were able to “see and avoid” the plane. 

Trump’s immediate finger-pointing at DEI—specifically at FAA workers with disabilities—was absolutely disgusting, tone deaf, and completely incorrect. But now that his government has admitted that it was its fault, and that it could have been avoided, the president is completely mum.   

It turns out that Donald Trump went pretty far to try and overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.

The New York Times, citing a newly discovered recording, reports that Trump tried to persuade the speaker of Georgia’s House of Representatives to call a special session that would nullify his loss in the state. In a December 7, 2020, phone call, Trump told then-Speaker David Ralston that he could call the session by saying it was “for transparency, and to uncover fraud,” adding, “Who’s gonna stop you for that?”

Ralston, a Republican attorney, chuckled and said, “A federal judge, possibly.” Ralston passed away in 2022.

The Times obtained the recording Wednesday, less than a month after the criminal election interference case against Trump and 18 of his allies in Fulton County, Georgia, was dismissed. The audio record is part of several investigative documents from that case.

Trump’s call with Ralston lasted 12.5 minutes, during which Trump cited a series of false conspiracies of fraud in Georgia’s elections, claiming that he had actually won the state instead of losing by more than 11,000 votes. Trump said on the call that votes were “coming out of suitcases, luggage, and it was a lot of votes. It was probably more than 100,000. You know they ran them through three or four times, you know, the same votes.

“You know we won this thing by 400,000 or 500,000 votes,” Trump told Ralston, making up numbers out of thin air. “Just like we did Alabama and every other state in the South. And, uh, we won, we won, we won your state massively. They took votes away.”

Ralston didn’t keep the call to himself, telling special grand jurors investigating the case about what Trump told him. But the audio, and Trump’s exact words, were not public until now. Trump’s infamous demand to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in January 2021 to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the election is more widely known.

The dismissal of the case, coupled with Trump’s election in 2024, means that the president is not likely to face justice over his attempts to overturn the election in Georgia, despite this damning recording. Trump has proven that if one has power, money, and the right political connections, they’re above the law in America.

Congress has frozen a Coast Guard admiral’s pending promotion until he explains the military branch’s disturbing stance on hate symbols.

Democratic Senators Tammy Duckworth and Jacky Rosen initially froze Admiral Kevin Lunday’s nomination to run the Coast Guard, questioning the maritime law enforcement branch’s new workplace harassment policy and its decision to downgrade swastikas and nooses from hate symbols to “potentially divisive.”

The senators’ objections effectively upend Lunday’s confirmation, which the Senate was scheduled to vote on this week, reported The Washington Post.

The fascism-friendly changes to the Coast Guard’s workplace harassment policy was abruptly reverted last month, mere hours after national news outlets began to report on the jarring update.

In a memo to personnel, Lunday—the Coast Guard’s acting commander—walked back the revisions almost as soon as they had been revealed, announcing that the prior version of the text was “canceled.”

“Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited,” Lunday wrote in the memo, published November 20. “These symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, anti-semitism, or any other improper bias.”

The memo also clarified that the display of Confederate battle flags was still prohibited, unless they are a part of a historical display. Weeks later, it’s still not clear exactly who led the charge to reclassify such symbols.

“The policy rewrite was bad staff work,” a Coast Guard employee told the Post anonymously. “But the Coast Guard’s hands were tied in how we were able to address the mistake.”

Still, the changes have been quietly implemented since the downgraded harassment policy went into effect Monday, according to internal branch correspondence provided to Congress. That’s given lawmakers pause.

Duckworth told the Post that she did not understand why Lunday would simply not “delete the absurd characterization that clearly states a noose and swastika are merely potentially divisive symbols,” especially after having conversations with Lunday in which he affirmed “directly to me” that both images qualify as hate symbols.

“This shouldn’t be difficult,” Duckworth said.

Rosen, meanwhile, wrote on social media that her hold would remain in place “until the Coast Guard provides answers.”

Even some Republicans, including Senators Dan Sullivan and James Lankford, are demanding an explanation.

“There is no reason why there should be conflicting policies in place,” Lankford said.

President Trump on Wednesday announced a $1,776 bonus for members of the military. The next morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth enthusiastically sold the “warrior divided” announcement as a Christmas bonus for all the troops’ hard work.

“Thanks to President Trump’s unwavering commitment to our warriors, and the provisions provided in the One Big Beautiful bill, more than 1.45 million service members will … receive a onetime, tax-free bonus of $1,776,” he said. “This warrior dividend serves as yet another example of how the War Department is working to improve the quality of life for our military personnel and their families.”

In actuality, the Trump administration is taking money that was congressionally allocated toward soldiers’ housing and repackaging it as this corny $1,776 gimmick, while Hegseth gushes over the move like he’s doing these people a favor. It was already their money.

“Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to the Department of War to supplement the Basic Allowance for Housing entitlement within The One Big Beautiful Bill,” a senior administration official told Defense One, noting that Hegseth directed $2.6 billion of the funds to be distributed. “Approximately 1.28 million active component military members and 174,000 Reserve component military members will receive this supplement.”

If the economy is so hot (it isn’t), and if tariffs have us raking in cash (they don’t), why can’t the Trump administration give its dear war fighters an actual Christmas bonus rather than frame scraps as sustenance?