“If we negotiated the price of drugs, Joe, we'd save $300 billion a year. We're the largest drug buyer in the world. We don't negotiate.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently verified all sources as real and supporting. The 2016 promise (government should use its buying power to negotiate lower drug prices) has been partly realized but not to the promised extent. FIRST TERM: Trump did NOT enact or support direct Medicare negotiation -- his administration threatened to veto H.R. 3, the direct-negotiation bill (confirmed in the primary White House Statement of Administration Policy, Dec 2019), and his alternative Most Favored Nation international-reference-pricing rule (EO 13948 / Nov 2020 interim final rule) was blocked by federal courts and never took effect. SECOND TERM (2025): drug-price negotiation is genuinely occurring under his administration -- it administers the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program (KFF), embraces it publicly and secured price cuts on 15 medications (STAT News), and cut MFN deals with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk lowering GLP-1 drugs (Ozempic/Wegovy/Zepbound) to about $245/month via TrumpRx (CNBC/AJMC/NPR/White House fact sheet). Real, partial price reductions have landed, but savings fall vastly short of the claimed $300 billion/year, and the negotiation apparatus was largely inherited from a law (IRA) he initially opposed. PARTIAL is fair and nonpartisan-consistent: MISALIGNED is too harsh because he simultaneously pursued his own price-lowering leverage (MFN, TrumpRx), and CHAMPIONED/FULL overstate results given the first-term veto threat and the shortfall versus the promise. Confidence held moderate because the record genuinely straddles PARTIAL and CHAMPIONED.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.