Home Blog

Trump Claims Credit for Drug Price Decline. Experts Say It’s More Complicated.

Trump Claims Credit for Drug Price Decline. Experts Say It’s More Complicated.

FactCheck.org — 2026-08-31 15:36:00 — www.factcheck.org

Trump Claims Credit for Prescription Drug Price Drop, But Experts Cite Other Factors

President Donald Trump and his administration are touting what they call historic reductions in prescription drug prices, crediting their deals with pharmaceutical companies and the launch of the TrumpRx direct-to-consumer platform. However, health policy experts say these claims are exaggerated and that other forces are largely responsible for the recent decline.

Trump’s Claims

Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the drop in drug prices. In an August 14 speech on Long Island, he declared, “Under my most-favored-nation policy on drug prices, we are delivering the largest prescription drug price cuts in the history of our country.” He reiterated these claims at a White House event later that month, and his administration has pointed to agreements with major drug companies and the TrumpRx platform as the main drivers of the price decline.

What the Data Shows

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prescription drug prices fell 3.1% over the past year—the largest one-year decrease since 1963. Trump and his officials attribute this to their deals with drugmakers to offer certain drugs at “most favored nation” (MFN) prices, which are intended to match prices in other developed countries.

Expert Analysis: Claims Overstated

Experts interviewed for the fact-check say the Trump administration’s actions are unlikely to be the main reason for the price drop. They point to several other factors:

  • Market Competition: Increased competition, especially among GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, has driven prices down.
  • Entry of Generics: More generic drugs have entered the market, lowering prices for consumers.
  • Biden-Era Medicare Negotiations: A policy from the Biden administration allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for certain drugs has also played a role.

Cynthia Cox of the nonpartisan KFF noted that while both Republican and Democratic policies may have contributed, “there’s also just market forces at play, in particular around GLP-1 drugs, that are really hard to ignore.”

Limited Impact of Trump’s Policies

The MFN agreements touted by Trump are narrower than he suggests. They mostly apply to new drugs and only in specific circumstances, such as direct-to-consumer sales through TrumpRx, certain Medicaid programs, and a subset of Medicare and Medicaid drugs. Most Americans with private insurance are not affected.

Health economist Jeromie Ballreich explained that the only place MFN prices would show up in the Consumer Price Index is through TrumpRx, which serves a small portion of patients and is “not a big factor in the market.”

The administration claims TrumpRx has saved Americans over $700 million, but this represents less than 0.2% of the $467 billion spent on prescription drugs in 2024, and the methodology behind this figure has not been disclosed.

Conclusion

While President Trump continues to claim credit for the recent drop in prescription drug prices, independent experts say his administration’s policies are not the primary cause. Instead, market competition, the introduction of generics, and recent Medicare negotiations under the Biden administration have played more substantial roles. The scope and impact of Trump’s drug pricing deals remain limited and unclear, making his sweeping claims about “the largest prescription drug price cuts in the history of our country” misleading.

Source article

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/08/trump-claims-credit-for-drug-price-decline-experts-say-its-more-complicated/

Donald J. Trump: “I just had a GREAT and very interesting meeting with my Hollywood Ambassador…

Donald J. Trump: “I just had a GREAT and very interesting meeting with my Hollywood Ambassador…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-31 17:10:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Calls Hollywood a “Complete and Total Disaster,” Pushes for Federal Tax Incentives

Donald Trump has sharply criticized the current state of the American film and television industry, declaring, “Hollywood is a Complete and Total Disaster!” and claiming that the industry “is being dissipated in its entirety” and has “moved to Canada, and other Countries, with very little work being done anymore in the United States.” Trump made these remarks following a meeting with actor Jon Voight, whom he described as his “Hollywood Ambassador and Movie Legend.”

Exaggerated Claims About Hollywood’s Decline

Trump’s statements paint a dire picture of Hollywood, asserting that there is “very little work being done anymore in the United States” and that the industry is “hurting California very badly.” He further claimed that “there is no incentive to be there,” suggesting that the entertainment business has almost entirely abandoned its traditional home.

However, these claims are exaggerated. While it is true that some film and television production has moved to other states and countries due to tax incentives, California remains a major hub for the industry. According to the California Film Commission, the state continues to host a significant share of U.S. film and TV production, and the industry remains a vital part of California’s economy. The assertion that Hollywood is a “Complete and Total Disaster” or that it is being “dissipated in its entirety” does not reflect the ongoing activity and economic impact of the sector.

Push for Federal Tax Incentives

Trump went on to advocate for federal tax incentives to “Make our Movie and Television Production Business GREAT AGAIN, perhaps GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!” He claimed, without evidence, that “the amount of money spent on Tax Incentives will be made up tenfold by the money pouring into the Treasury’s coffers.” While tax incentives can attract production, the claim that they would be repaid “tenfold” is speculative and not supported by independent economic analyses.

Trump also called for bipartisan cooperation, urging Congress to “approve, immediately, a Federal Production Incentive to create Entertainment Jobs in America.” He argued that such a measure “can be done quickly, accurately, efficiently and, importantly, will benefit ALL of America.”

Attacks on Blue States

Trump’s remarks included a political angle, stating that “so much money is being lost in California, and other largely Blue States.” This framing suggests that his proposal is not only about economic policy but also about targeting states that tend to vote Democratic.

Conclusion

Trump’s latest comments on Hollywood are marked by sweeping generalizations and unsupported claims about the state of the industry. While production incentives are a topic of legitimate policy debate, his characterization of Hollywood as a “Complete and Total Disaster” and his claims about the economic impact of tax incentives are not backed by the available evidence. As the debate over the future of American film and television production continues, it is important to separate fact from exaggeration in the national conversation.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/41438

US supreme court allows Trump to keep building $400m White House ballroom | US supreme court

US supreme court allows Trump to keep building $400m White House ballroom | US supreme court

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-08-31 17:13:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Hails Supreme Court Ruling Allowing Controversial $400 Million White House Ballroom to Proceed

Donald Trump has celebrated a Supreme Court decision that allows construction to continue on his $400 million White House ballroom, a project he has repeatedly described as “a gift” to the American people. The ruling comes despite ongoing legal challenges and sharp criticism from preservationists and members of the court itself.

Trump’s Boast and Ambitions

Following Monday’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, Trump took to Truth Social to boast that the White House complex would be “one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington DC,” with completion expected by the summer of 2028. Trump has made clear that the ballroom is central to his ambition to remake the nation’s capital in his own image. Since taking office, he has ordered the National Mall’s reflecting pool covered in blue liner, proposed a $250 million renovation to the Kennedy Center that would have featured his name on its side, and pursued plans to renovate a golf course and build a massive arch.

Legal and Preservationist Opposition

The project has faced significant legal hurdles. The National Trust for Historic Preservation argued that demolishing the historic East Wing to make way for the ballroom was an “aesthetic, cultural and historical” affront. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, however, ruled that the Trust lacked standing to sue, stating that “mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court’s three liberal justices, dissented, calling the construction “likely unlawful.” Roberts argued that Congress had not approved the project, making it a “likely infringement of the legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia.” He also disagreed with the majority’s dismissal of the Trust’s standing, likening the impact on preservationists to the harm environmentalists feel from the destruction of natural resources.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump has repeatedly touted the ballroom as a “gift” to the American people, framing the project as a public benefit. However, critics argue that the demolition of the historic East Wing and the scale of the new construction serve more to promote Trump’s personal legacy than to honor national heritage. Previous Trump projects in Washington have faced setbacks or ridicule, such as the failed Kennedy Center renaming and the blue liner at the reflecting pool, which began falling off.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant victory for Trump, allowing him to push forward with a controversial project that has divided legal experts, preservationists, and the public. While Trump continues to celebrate the ruling and promote the ballroom as a monumental achievement, the legal and ethical questions surrounding the project remain unresolved, highlighting ongoing tensions over presidential power, historic preservation, and the reshaping of national landmarks.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/31/supreme-court-white-house-ballroom-trump

110 Trucking Schools Closed for English-Language Lapses

110 Trucking Schools Closed for English-Language Lapses

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-31 16:08:00 — www.nytimes.com

In April 2025, President Trump issued an executive order mandating that commercial truck drivers who failed to demonstrate English-language proficiency would be placed “out of service” and immediately forced to stop operations, according to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. This directive is part of a broader Trump administration crackdown on what it describes as abuses within the commercial trucking industry, particularly targeting immigrant drivers and training schools accused of certifying unqualified operators.

Trump’s Executive Order and Its Impact

The executive order signed by President Trump marked a significant escalation in federal enforcement of a rule that has existed since the 1930s but has not been consistently applied: commercial truck drivers must have a basic command of English to read road signs and communicate with law enforcement. Under Trump’s directive, drivers who fail to meet this standard are immediately sidelined, regardless of their license status.

Secretary Duffy announced that, as a result of this order and subsequent investigations, the Department of Transportation has revoked the accreditation of 110 commercial trucking schools for certifying drivers who could not demonstrate English proficiency. Duffy also stated that more than 28,000 truck drivers have been “placed out of service” since June 2025 for failing English-language checks during roadside inspections.

Questionable Claims and Enforcement

The Trump administration claims that since the start of the current term, commercial truckers lacking English proficiency have been involved in accidents causing at least 239 deaths, citing police and accident reports. However, these statistics could not be independently verified. The administration also asserts that, in the past year and a half, over 30,000 licenses issued to foreign drivers have been canceled and more than 8,000 unqualified training schools have been removed from the federal registry.

The crackdown has included threats to withhold highway funds from states that do not comply with the administration’s standards for driver licensing and training. The messaging has increasingly focused on English-language ability as a proxy for safety and legality, particularly in the context of immigrant drivers.

Fact-Checking and Criticism

While the administration’s stated goal is to improve road safety, critics argue that the focus on English proficiency and the sweeping statistics cited by officials lack transparency and independent verification. The Department of Transportation’s own figures regarding fatal accidents and the number of licenses revoked have not been corroborated by outside sources.

Moreover, the Trump administration’s approach has drawn criticism for conflating language ability with legal status and safety, and for targeting immigrant communities disproportionately. The executive order and subsequent enforcement actions have led to the closure of hundreds of training schools, many of which are accused of operating with unlicensed instructors or inadequate facilities.

Conclusion

President Trump’s executive order and the ensuing crackdown on commercial trucking schools and drivers represent a dramatic shift in federal transportation policy, emphasizing English-language proficiency as a central requirement. However, the administration’s claims about the dangers posed by non-English-speaking drivers and the scale of the problem remain unverified, raising questions about the accuracy and intent behind the policy. As enforcement continues, the impact on immigrant drivers and the trucking industry at large is likely to remain a contentious issue.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/31/us/politics/truck-driving-schools-closed-english-language.html

Trump promises more strikes after US and Iran trade blows for first time in a month

Trump promises more strikes after US and Iran trade blows for first time in a month

Donald Trump — 2026-08-31 11:02:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Vows U.S. Will Hit Iran “Hard” Following Attack on U.S. Forces

In a Fox News interview Monday morning, Donald Trump declared that the United States will hit Iran “hard” in response to the Iranian attack on U.S. forces overnight. This statement marks a continuation of Trump’s combative rhetoric toward Iran, a hallmark of his approach to foreign policy during his time in office.

Trump’s Escalatory Language

Trump’s assertion that the U.S. will retaliate “hard” comes amid heightened tensions in the region. The statement signals a willingness to escalate the conflict, echoing previous moments when Trump has made bold, sometimes unsubstantiated claims about U.S. military responses or foreign adversaries.

Record of Exaggerations and Threats

Throughout his public life, Trump has frequently used strong language when discussing foreign policy, often promising swift and severe action. In this instance, his pledge to hit Iran “hard” follows a pattern of issuing threats that sometimes diverge from the actual policy outcomes or military actions taken. The statement also fits into a broader record of exaggerations and aggressive posturing, which have at times been contradicted by subsequent developments or fact-checked by independent outlets.

Fact-Checking the Claim

The excerpt does not provide further details or evidence to support Trump’s claim of a forthcoming “hard” response, nor does it clarify what specific actions the U.S. might take. Without additional context or follow-through, such statements can contribute to confusion or misperceptions about U.S. intentions and capabilities.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s declaration on Fox News that the U.S. will hit Iran “hard” underscores his continued reliance on forceful rhetoric in response to international incidents. While the statement is consistent with his established style, it also highlights the importance of scrutinizing such claims for accuracy and follow-through. As tensions remain high, clear and factual communication is essential to inform the public and maintain credibility on the world stage.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/31/donald-trump-iran-strikes-01057142

Trump to meet with oil refiners amid stubborn gas prices

Trump to meet with oil refiners amid stubborn gas prices

Administration News — 2026-08-31 14:22:00 — thehill.com

President Trump to Meet with Fuel Refiners as Gas Prices Remain High

President Trump is expected to meet with fuel refiners and distributors Tuesday amid persistently high gasoline prices, which have become a significant concern ahead of the midterm elections. According to a White House official, the president is set to discuss ways to expand U.S. refining capacity as part of his administration’s efforts to lower gasoline prices.

Trump’s focus on expanding refining capacity highlights his administration’s approach to addressing rising fuel costs, an issue that has drawn increasing attention from both the public and political opponents. The meeting signals the president’s intent to directly engage with industry leaders in search of solutions, as high gasoline prices are projected to be a major topic during the upcoming midterms.

While the excerpt does not include specific false claims or disparagements from President Trump, it does attribute to him the position of seeking to expand refining capacity as a strategy for reducing gasoline prices. This stance will likely be scrutinized as the administration continues to grapple with the economic and political implications of fuel costs.

In summary, President Trump’s expected meeting with fuel industry representatives underscores the administration’s ongoing efforts to address high gasoline prices, a key issue as the midterm elections approach. The outcome of these discussions and the effectiveness of any proposed measures will remain closely watched in the weeks ahead.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/6061687-trump-refineries-capacity-gas-prices-iran/

Scholar discusses Trump’s claims of a new Venezuelan oil agreement : NPR

Scholar discusses Trump’s claims of a new Venezuelan oil agreement : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-31 05:49:00 — www.npr.org

Fact-Check: Trump’s Claims on Venezuelan Oil Deal and Gas Prices Face Expert Skepticism

President Trump has claimed that a new oil agreement with Venezuela will lower gas prices for American consumers. However, energy experts cast serious doubt on this assertion, raising questions about both the immediate and long-term impact of the deal.

Trump’s Promise: Lower Gas Prices

According to the NPR interview, President Trump says the agreement with Venezuela will result in lower gas prices in the United States. This claim is central to the administration’s justification for pursuing the deal.

Expert Analysis: “Very Unlikely” to Affect Prices Soon

Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University’s Baker Institute, directly addressed Trump’s claim. Monaldi stated that, “In the short term, it’s very unlikely that it will lower gas prices.” He explained that even if Venezuela increases production by 300,000 to 400,000 barrels per day, this is insignificant compared to disruptions in the Middle East, which account for about 10 million barrels per day. Monaldi characterized the Venezuelan increase as “a drop in the bucket comparatively.”

For those needing to fill up their gas tanks in the near future, Monaldi said, “Very little, is the likely answer,” regarding any change in gas prices.

Long-Term Impact: Modest at Best

Monaldi acknowledged that if Venezuela dramatically increases production over several years, there could be a slight downward effect on oil prices, which might eventually help with gas prices. However, he stressed that the scale of Venezuelan output is too small to make a significant difference in the global market.

Details of the Deal: Contradictory Accounts

The Trump administration describes the agreement as a hundred-year lease, with the United States partnering with a local businessman to finance and receive 55% of the oil. However, Venezuelan officials describe it as a standard production-sharing contract lasting 25 years, not a hundred, and with the operator not owning the reserves. These conflicting details add further uncertainty to the deal’s actual structure and benefits.

Conclusion: Trump’s Claim Not Supported by Facts

President Trump’s claim that the Venezuelan oil agreement will lower gas prices is not supported by expert analysis. According to Monaldi, any impact on prices would be minimal in the short term and only modest in the long term, if at all. The scale of Venezuelan oil production is simply too small to offset larger market forces. As the details of the deal remain unclear and expert skepticism persists, Trump’s promise of lower gas prices appears exaggerated and misleading.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/31/nx-s1-5949309/scholar-discusses-trumps-claims-of-a-new-venezuelan-oil-agreement

Trump says voters who oppose data centers will ‘kill the Golden Goose’

Trump says voters who oppose data centers will ‘kill the Golden Goose’

Politics — 2026-08-31 12:23:00 — www.washingtonpost.com

Trump Warns Voters Against Opposing Data Centers, Escalates Rhetoric Amid Bipartisan Backlash

President Donald Trump on Monday sharply criticized voters who oppose the construction and expansion of data centers, warning that they will have only themselves to blame if they “kill the golden goose.” Trump’s remarks come as public opposition to data centers grows across party lines, with recent polls indicating that Americans from both major parties are increasingly wary of the server farms central to the artificial intelligence boom.

Trump’s Defense of Data Centers

Trump has taken a forceful stance in support of data centers, escalating his defense as opposition mounts. He directly attacked those who are critical of the industry, suggesting that resistance to data centers threatens economic opportunities and technological advancement. By stating that voters who oppose these facilities will be responsible if they “kill the golden goose,” Trump framed the debate as a choice between economic prosperity and technological stagnation.

Rising Bipartisan Opposition

Despite Trump’s warnings, opposition to data centers is not limited to one political party. The excerpt notes that some Republicans running for office this year have broken with Trump, voicing increasing criticism of data centers in response to a groundswell of public opposition. This bipartisan pushback highlights a growing divide within the Republican Party over the future of data center development and its impact on local communities.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s assertion that opposing data centers equates to “killing the golden goose” exaggerates the situation. While data centers do contribute to economic growth and support the expanding artificial intelligence sector, critics point to concerns about environmental impact, energy consumption, and local disruptions. The claim that opposition would singularly destroy economic opportunity overlooks these nuanced debates and the legitimate concerns raised by affected communities.

Conclusion

President Trump’s aggressive defense of data centers and his warning to voters reflect his broader pattern of attacking critics and framing complex policy issues in stark, binary terms. As public resistance to data centers intensifies and even some Republicans distance themselves from Trump’s position, the debate over the future of data infrastructure is likely to remain a contentious issue in the months ahead. Voters will have to weigh Trump’s dire warnings against the broader implications for their communities and the environment.

Source article

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/08/31/trump-says-voters-who-oppose-data-centers-will-kill-golden-goose/

Donald J. Trump: “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data …

Donald J. Trump: “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data …

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-31 08:59:00 — www.trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims Opposition to Data Centers Will Lead to Economic Decline, Blames China for Anti-Data Center Sentiment

Donald Trump has weighed in on the debate over data centers in American communities, making sweeping claims about their economic impact and disparaging those who oppose them. In his statement, Trump asserted, “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign.” He further warned, “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame,” and suggested that “China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement. Actually, they can’t believe it is happening!”

Sweeping Economic Claims

Trump’s comments draw a direct line between the presence of data centers and community prosperity, claiming that rejecting such facilities will inevitably lead to poverty and stagnation. He frames data centers as a “Golden Goose” for local economies, promising “far lower taxes and jobs all over the place” if communities embrace them.

Disparagement of Opponents

In his remarks, Trump disparages those who oppose data centers, suggesting their only motivation is to “end up being backwards and poor.” This characterization dismisses the concerns of residents and local officials who have raised issues about the environmental impact, energy consumption, and land use associated with large-scale data centers.

Invoking China

Trump also invokes China, claiming that the country is pleased by the anti-data center movement in the U.S. and “can’t believe it is happening.” This assertion frames domestic opposition as not only economically misguided but also as a boon to foreign competitors.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Assertions

While data centers can bring jobs and tax revenue, the economic benefits are often more limited than Trump suggests. Many data centers are highly automated, requiring fewer employees than traditional manufacturing or service industries. Additionally, concerns about energy use, water consumption, and environmental impact are significant factors in local debates—issues Trump’s statement ignores.

Conclusion

Trump’s remarks on data centers rely on broad economic promises and disparaging characterizations of opponents, while invoking China to heighten the stakes. His statements reflect a pattern of exaggeration and oversimplification, sidestepping the complex realities faced by communities considering these projects. As the debate continues, it is important for the public to weigh both the potential benefits and the legitimate concerns surrounding data center development.

Source article

Source: https://www.trumpstruth.org/statuses/41411

A pediatrician is running for Senate. Can doctors change the political debate over health and science? | South Carolina

A pediatrician is running for Senate. Can doctors change the political debate over health and science? | South Carolina

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-08-31 09:08:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump Persuades South Carolina Voters to Back Darline Graham in Senate Race

Donald Trump played a decisive role in shaping the upcoming U.S. Senate race in South Carolina, persuading voters last week to select Darline Graham, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, as the new Republican candidate. This move comes after the unexpected death of Senator Graham and sets the stage for a closely watched contest in November, where Graham’s sister will face Democrat Annie Andrews.

Trump’s Influence in South Carolina Politics

Trump’s intervention in the candidate selection process highlights his continued influence over Republican politics in South Carolina, a state where the GOP is heavily favored to retain the Senate seat. By urging voters to support Darline Graham, Trump has once again demonstrated his ability to sway party decisions and shape the political landscape, especially in high-stakes races.

Public Health and Science Take Center Stage

The Senate race comes at a time when public health and science have become central campaign issues. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician with two decades of experience, has focused her campaign on the importance of vaccines and evidence-based health policy, particularly as South Carolina faces a measles outbreak. Andrews is backed by 314 Action, a group dedicated to electing scientists and doctors to public office.

Wider Implications for Science and Politics

The broader context of the race reflects national trends, with increased attention on the intersection of science, health policy, and politics. As outbreaks of infectious diseases and cuts to Medicaid dominate headlines, the push to elect more medical professionals to office is gaining momentum. However, the partisan divide remains stark, with many physician-politicians skewing conservative and some contributing to misinformation on health issues.

Conclusion

Trump’s successful effort to rally support for Darline Graham underscores his ongoing role as a kingmaker within the Republican Party. As the Senate race unfolds, the focus on science, public health, and the influence of political leaders like Trump will remain at the forefront, shaping the choices facing South Carolina voters this November.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/31/annie-andrews-south-carolina-senate