Trump's Math Fail Sparks Massive Online Trolling
Trump began promisingly enough with a complaint shared by Democrats and Republicans alike: the high cost of medication, and how much more Americans pay for some medications than patients in other countries.
He promised to reduce those costs ― but to a very unlikely degree.
'We're gonna get the drug prices down. Not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%,' Trump said at a Republican dinner. 'Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable.'
Critics quickly pointed out the reason those numbers are not thought to be achievable: reducing the price by 100% would make the drugs free. Reducing it by '1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%,' as Trump said, would make the cost negative dollars ― with the drug company essentially paying people to take the medication.
Trump: This is somebody nobody else can do. I can get the drug prices down… 1000% 600% 500% 1500%. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable. pic.twitter.com/NPMMdEZIot
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 23, 2025
@acyn/ C-SPAN / Via Twitter: @Acyn
Several users asked Grok, the AI chatbot on X, if Trump's numbers made sense. Grok called Trump's claim ' mathematically impossible,' ' hyperbolic and not literal ' and ' total bullshit.'
But Trump insisted he could use 'a certain talent that I have' to convince pharmaceutical companies that they have no choice but to reduce their prices.
Trump also mentioned an executive order he signed in May to invoke 'most-favored nation' status in drug costs, which he says would ensure that drug companies can't charge Americans any more than what they charge patients in other nations.
However, the details of that plan remain hazy, and at least one pharmaceutical CEO said discussions with the White House are ongoing and expected to take time.
Trump on Tuesday insisted that his order will lead to those price cuts.
'We will have reduced drug prices by 1,000%, by 1,100, 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 700, 600,' he said. 'Not 30 or 40 or 50%, but numbers the likes of which you've never even dreamed of before.'
Trump's critics offered some free math lessons:
As someone who graduated from first grade, this is not how numbers work. https://t.co/dx4lMcQTAb
— Hemant Mehta (@hemantmehta) July 23, 2025
@hemantmehta/ C-SPAN
Thank goodness this guy isn't negotiating the percentages we pay in tariffs. https://t.co/x7EppKShSq
— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) July 23, 2025
@justinwolfers / C-SPAN
Quite a trick if he can do it. Are we going into negative numbers where big Pharma pays me to take their drugs?
— Dj Omega Mvp (@DjOmegaMVP) July 23, 2025
@DJOmegaMVP/ C-SPAN
Hard to imagine this guy was found liable of fraud for making up numbers https://t.co/vgjVF1q2DI
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) July 23, 2025
@meidastouch/ C-SPAN
So the drug companies are going to pay us to take their drugs?
Dumbest President EVER.
— SickoftheCrap (@SickoftheC) July 23, 2025
@SickoftheC
The economics department at Wharton must be incredibly proud of this man's fundamental understanding of basic math. https://t.co/kuwIorU8TL
— Franklin Leonard (@franklinleonard) July 23, 2025
@franklinleonard/ C-SPAN
Cant wait fill my next zpack at cvs and leave with a stack of their money https://t.co/EgT12GMTul
— Ronnie (@Gem_Mint_Cards_) July 23, 2025
@gem_mint_cards_/ C-SPAN
I feel like a requirement of being president should be understanding basic math.
— Jared Ryan Sears (@JaredRyanSears) July 23, 2025
@JaredRyanSears
So medicines would be free and pharmaceutical companies would pay us?
— Bru🔮 💉🗣 (@brwninh4) July 23, 2025
@brwninh4
Getting paid to take drugs sounds awesome where do I sign up
— TCL (@TitleTalkTCL) July 23, 2025
@titletalkTCL / C-SPAN
Universal Prescription Income. Your move, Yang https://t.co/7QbV09x3Xe
— Roger Sollenberger (@SollenbergerRC) July 23, 2025
@SollenbergerRC/ C-SPAN
What kind of math is this? https://t.co/yu5kzUJEeO
— Wu Tang is for the Children (@WUTangKids) July 23, 2025
@WuTangKids/ C-SPAN
And people wonder how this idiot bankrupted casinos. https://t.co/5xtlIrj0Gd
— Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) July 23, 2025
@JoJoFromJerz/ C-SPAN
Negative drug prices are on the way ! 🤣🇺🇸 https://t.co/HLflM8fdZK
— Christopher Schultz (@nalyticsatwork) July 23, 2025
@nalyticsatwork/ C-SPAN
This is the fucking genius. https://t.co/JkEHJbqB01
— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) July 23, 2025
@FPWellman/ C-SPAN
https://t.co/4XedIgYgi8 pic.twitter.com/OBOgCBZNii
— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) July 23, 2025
@DaveItzkoff/ C-SPAN
@realDonaldTrump is out here pitching drug deals like it's Shark Tank for Cartels:
'I'm offering insulin for negative $300 and a lifetime supply of bleach injections… but only if you call in the next 15 minutes.'
This QVC for crackheads.
— Frank C (@FrankC164) July 23, 2025
@FrankC164/ C-SPAN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump has momentum heading into Aug. 1 ‘reciprocal tariff' deadline after Asian trade deals, experts say
WASHINGTON — President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with three Asian nations this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs,' experts predict. Trump secured Japan's agreement to pay a 15% tariff on exports to the US while making $550 billion in new investments in America in what he called a 'signing bonus' — while Indonesia and the Philippines said they would accept 19% tariffs on their goods while applying 0% tariffs on US products. 'I was a little bit surprised by the extent to which the US, at least at this stage of the game, has succeeded in striking what seems to me to be quite a hard bargain,' said Pravin Krishna, an economist at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 3 Experts say President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs.' AFP via Getty Images Robert Lawrence, an international trade professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, agreed, saying he was also left stunned that Trump roped in a large Japanese investment in addition to the tariff terms — likening it to his successful demand for a 'golden' US stake in this year's Nippon-US Steel merger deal. 'He's a wheeler-dealer, our president, needless to say, and he's kind of cutting these deals — but he has scared these people, and he's leveraged American bargaining power,' Lawrence said. 'The next one on the block is [South] Korea… for the Koreans, the auto issue is just about as important as for the Japanese.' Wilbur Ross, who served as Trump's commerce secretary during his first term and at one point expressed concern about administration emissaries potentially over-playing their hand, hailed Trump's trio of Asian deals. 'It's very important that people realize why he yoked the three together and announced them at the same time, and I think that's largely to send a message to China that their hope that his tough trade policy would somehow drive the Asian countries to China is simply incorrect,' Ross explained. 'I think the second importance of it is it puts tremendous pressure on the EU to make a deal because they have a great danger of being relatively isolated and relatively stuck with a worse deal.' Trump traveled to Scotland Friday and will meet with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over the weekend to discuss averting a threatened 50% tariff. 3 President Trump secured a trade agreement with Japan to pay a 15% tariff on exports, while Indonesia and the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs on their goods, with US products not being tariffed. The president previously announced deals with Vietnam, which agreed to a 20% tariff — or 40% on items sourced in China — while breaking down barriers to US imports, as well as a UK deal that features a 10% tariffs — with British steel and car exports also paying 10% rather than Trump's much higher sectoral tariffs, in exchange for promises to open UK markets to American ethanol, beef and chicken. China, meanwhile, brokered a cease-fire with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — with the US applying a 30% rate on Chinese goods and China applying a 10% rate on American imports. Meanwhile, the impact of Trump's tariffs — which also include 50% on foreign steel and aluminum and 25% on foreign cars — have been slighter than anticipated thus far on inflation, with the annual increase in consumer prices 2.7% in June. 'The same 'experts' that were loudly spewing doomsday predictions are now quietly looking at their portfolios and planning their early retirement or vacation home purchases,' said Arthur Schwartz, a Republican operative with close ties to the administration. Major challenges remain on the horizon for Trump, however, and academics remain divided on the merits of higher tariffs now padding federal coffers. Krishna, the Hopkins economist, said questions remain about whether the Asian nations that just agreed to steep terms are able to ratify them politically due to the fact that Trump seems to have secured such lopsided terms. He also said that India — initially expected to be one of the first nations to ink a trade deal — faces notable trade-talk road bumps due to the potentially devastating effects on poor farmers who comprise about 45% of the labor force. 'It's a very sensitive sector for India. The Modi government itself, a few years ago, tried some reasonably market-oriented reforms in the agricultural sector.. and they were unable to push that through,' he said. 'That is an extremely challenging thing for the Indian government to manage politically,' Krishna said. 'You're talking about survival-level incomes for a large number of farmers. And to mess with that would be, again, politically challenging and even morally questionable from an Indian standpoint. 3 The US is currently charging China a 30% tariff rate on Chinese goods, while they are charging a 10% rate on American imports. AP Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It really is a question of how much of a change the US wants in terms of reduction of protectionism and so on, and how much India's willing to give up,' he added. It's also unclear how talks with China will end — with the temporary deal set to expire in mid-August, though it may be extended. 'There's a real question whether we will make a deal with [China],' Ross said. 'It's hard for me to imagine that they're going to make very big concessions, and meanwhile, we're collecting very high tariffs. So it's not so clear to me that there's a big, compelling motive for President Trump to make a deal.' China also may be politically constrained by an upcoming Communist Party congress next month and a housing crash that has sapped the nation economically, Ross noted. Lawrence, of Harvard, said that the disruption of Trump's trade wars remains worrying for certain US industries — with carmakers General Motors and Stellantis reporting quarterly income slumps this week — and that he's skeptical of an ensuing boom in US manufacturing employment. 'I personally think it's damaging our economy … We have to be competitive to make sales abroad, not to bludgeon people through threats of tariffs. That's not the way you win friends, and it's also not the way you retain customers,' he said. But Lawrence noted that Trump's delays in implementing 'reciprocal' tariffs initially announced on April 2 likely make them more palatable for the American public and less stinging on their budgets. 'By dragging out the process, it's kind of like the famous boiling of the frog who doesn't quite notice it. [If the] net effect of these tariffs would be to raise the consumer price index by one percentage point or even two, that would be a huge increase, right? But if I told you it was take place over a couple of years, it is going to work out to half a point, or less a fraction each month. Are you going to notice it itself?' he said. 'From the standpoint of, 'How do you want to distribute the shocks?' I think… whether it's negotiating strategy or it's dithering or it's intuition, it actually serves to cushion the blow.'
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Federal judge tosses Trump administration's ‘sanctuary city' lawsuit against Illinois
A federal judge on Friday threw out a Trump administration lawsuit seeking to block sanctuary laws in Illinois that limit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. In her ruling, Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins said that the Tenth Amendment, which protects people from federal government overreach, shielded the decision of local law enforcement to avoid collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other immigration agencies. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' Jenkins wrote of the suit, which named Illinois, Chicago and a series of local officials as defendants. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Illinois prevents local officials from providing immigration information 'not otherwise publicly available,' while Chicago bars them from responding to inquiries from ICE without a warrant. State officers are also barred from complying with immigration detainers. The Trump administration argued that the local laws were an 'intentional effort' to subvert federal immigration statutes and claimed that they facilitated the return of criminals to the public. Chicago was one of the first major fronts in the Trump administration's aggressive mass deportation campaign, with federal agents swarming the city in the weeks after the inauguration. The lawsuit was one of the first cases filed by the Trump administration against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Chicago ‘sanctuary' laws
Donald Trump Trump legal cases ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation's third-largest city 'thwart' federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. The Trump administration sued officials in Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County. It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting 'local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials' and preventing immigration agents from identifying 'individuals who may be subject to removal.' Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants' motion for dismissal. 'The individual defendants are dismissed because the United States lacks standing to sue them with respect to the Sanctuary Policies,' Jenkins said in her ruling. Trump officials have repeatedly criticized those policies, often singling out Chicago, where the administration recently conducted an immigration enforcement operation. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said he was pleased with the decision and the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' he said in a statement. Gov. JB Pritzker welcomed the ruling, saying in a social media post, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The administration has filed a series of lawsuits targeting state or city policies seen as interfering with immigration enforcement, including those in Los Angeles, New York City, Denver and Rochester, New York. It sued four New Jersey cities in May. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades and has beefed up its laws several times, including during President Donald Trump's first term in 2017. That same year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party. There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limits on local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces US immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.
