Trump Slams Big Pharma Over $1,300 'Fat Shot': Says Americans Are Getting Ripped Off

 

President Donald Trump exposed another example of how Americans are being ripped off by Big Pharma, recalling how a wealthy, "neurotic" friend received a discounted weight-loss injection—what he called a “fat shot”—while traveling overseas. According to Trump, the incident pushed a top drug company executive into admitting that Americans are being outrageously overcharged for medications that cost far less abroad.

Advertisement

On Monday, Trump recounted a story from an unnamed friend who received a weight-loss injection while abroad for just $88—a sharp contrast to the $1,300 price tag the same shot would carry in the United States.

“A friend of mine who’s a businessman, very, very, very top guy, most of you would have heard of him, a highly neurotic, brilliant businessman, seriously overweight, and he takes the fat shot,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

“And he called me up … he’s a rough guy, smart guy, very successful, very rich … ‘Mr. President, could I ask you a question? I’m in London, and I just paid for this damn fat drug I take,’” Trump continued. 

Trump jokingly told his friend, “It’s not working,” before pointing out that pharmaceutical companies have been exploiting American consumers.

“He said, ‘I just paid $88, and in New York, I pay $1,300. What the hell is going on?’ He said, ‘So I checked, and it’s the same box made in the same plant by the same company. It’s the identical pill that I buy in New York. And here I’m paying $88 in London, and New York, I’m paying $1,300,” Trump said. 

The president said that during a discussion with a drug company representative, the two debated the high cost of medications in the U.S. compared to abroad. After only about 30 minutes, the representative admitted they couldn't justify the price difference and conceded the point. 

“[Pharmaceutical companies] been justifying this crap for years,” the president added. 

Trump said that drug companies claimed high prices were due to research and development costs, but he argued that other countries should share those costs too, since they benefit from the medications as well.

This comes as Trump announced an Executive Order on Monday that will require federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to pay the same rates as other developed countries.

Why Did China Ignore Previous Trade Obligations? Bessent Reveals What the Chinese Delegation Told Him.

 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Monday that near the end of President Trump’s first term, there was an “excellent” trade agreement in place with China but once President Biden took office, Beijing simply ignored it.

“In January 2020, President Trump produced a template—we had an excellent trade agreement with China—and the Biden administration chose not to enforce it," Bessent said during a news conference. "The Chinese delegation basically told us that once President Biden came into office, they just ignored their obligation, so we already have a large framework."

On Jan. 15, 2020, the U.S. and China signed an enforceable Phase One trade deal that required “structural reforms and other changes to China’s economic and trade regime.”

"Today, we take a momentous step — one that has never been taken before with China — toward a future of fair and reciprocal trade, as we sign phase one of the historic trade deal between the United States and China," Trump said at the time. "Together, we are righting the wrongs of the past and delivering a future of economic justice and security for American workers, farmers, and families."

On Monday, the U.S. and China reached an agreement to significantly roll back tariffs for an initial 90-day period. 

Following a weekend of marathon trade negotiations in Switzerland, the U.S. agreed to slash its overall tariffs on Chinese goods to 30 percent while Beijing lowered its tariffs on American imports to 10 percent. 

“We concluded that we have a shared interest,” Bessent said. “The consensus from both delegations is that neither side wanted a decoupling.”

 

Trump Deserves Nobel Prize As World's Champion Peacemaker

 

Four Presidents of the United States were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, most recently Barack Obama in 2009. He won for “his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation.”

Incredibly, Barack Obama was nominated for the award just a few days after his inauguration and before he attained any significant achievements. He was given the award for promising what he would achieve as President.

Unfortunately, Obama did not fulfill the lofty expectations of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. When he left office in 2017, the world was more dangerous than at the start of his presidency.

During Obama’s tenure, the war in Afghanistan continued, ISIS terrorists became empowered, and Libya transformed into a violent hellhole, as demonstrated by the Benghazi attack.

The promise of the “Arab Spring” culminated in more bloodshed and tyrannical regimes taking power. During Obama’s second term, Russia invaded Crimea, and North Korea became the biggest threat to humanity.

Upon taking office, Obama warned newly elected President Donald Trump about the dangers North Korea presented to the world. Unlike Obama, who refused to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, Trump met with “Little Rocket Man” three times. These summits helped lessen tensions and improve relations between the two countries.

In this first term as President, Trump also brokered the historic Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and four Arab nations:  the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. He also negotiated a historic economic agreement between Serbia and Kosovo, two countries on the verge of war.

In Trump’s first term in office, the United States did not begin wars. He destroyed ISIS and ended their caliphate dreams. Trump placed economic sanctions on Iran, the world’s primary terrorist benefactor. Consequently, terror organizations like Hamas were prevented from launching significant strikes due to limited funding.

In addition, Trump began removing all American military forces from Afghanistan. He would have completed the withdrawal with dignity and honor, but instead, President Joe Biden directed a disastrous operation that resulted in the death of thirteen American military service members. At the end of the chaotic departure of our forces from Afghanistan, the Taliban, radical jihadists, controlled our massive Bagram Airfield and billions of dollars in our military equipment.

Despite Trump’s impressive achievements and several nominations, he did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Sadly, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has a strong leftwing bias. For example, President Ronald Reagan was not given the award despite his historic accomplishments.

Reagan secured massive arms control deals with the Soviet Union, reducing real fears of nuclear war. Eventually, his massive investments in our military forces bankrupted the Soviet Union, which was unable to compete economically and eventually collapsed.

Thus, “without firing a shot,” Reagan ended the “Evil Empire” and freed millions of people in Eastern Europe from the clutches of communism. It was Reagan’s policies that brought down the “Iron Curtain” and the Berlin Wall, fulfilling the famous demand he made in his 1987 speech at the Brandenburg Gate.

Advertisement

Instead of honoring Reagan for advancing world peace, the Norwegian Nobel Committee gave the prize to the final communist dictator of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev.

Gorbachev is not the only communist to be given the award, as North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho, a “revolutionist” and member of the party’s politburo, was also honored. In 1994, in one of the committee’s most controversial decisions, Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureates will be announced on October 10. This year, 338 nominations have been received. Surely, one of the nominees is President Trump, once more. If Trump is overlooked again, it will be another outrage that will only diminish the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Upon taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump inherited a world with multiple wars raging. The war in Ukraine started during the last administration, but President Trump is trying to end it with a serious diplomatic effort involving both the Ukrainian and Russian governments. Before President Trump, there was no serious diplomatic attempt to end the war in Ukraine. He deserves credit for at least starting the negotiations. 

During the last administration, Hamas invaded Israel, starting the war in Gaza. Trump’s serious diplomatic efforts have included both sides and have resulted in the release of hostages and the hope that all held in captivity will be home soon. 

The Trump administration has also held hopeful talks with Iranian government officials. Due to President Trump’s strong military response, the Houthi rebels in Yemen have pledged to end their missile strikes on shipping. In response, President Trump has committed to ending our military campaign in Yemen.

The President’s latest achievement occurred on Saturday morning when he announced, “India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.” Thereafter, he promised to “increase trade, substantially” with both countries.

The announcement followed intense diplomacy involving leaders from both countries, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance. Rubio posted on X.com that both India and Pakistan agreed to “start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.”

The latest episode in this longstanding conflict started on April 22 when twenty-six civilians were killed in the Indian regions of Jammu and Kashmir. India claimed that Hindus were targeted by Pakistan, which denied involvement. Afterwards, “small arms fire” attacks were launched by both sides across the border, and India struck nine “terrorist” sites that Pakistan claimed “hit civilian areas and killed numerous children.” 

If this ceasefire holds, it will be a monumental triumph for a President tirelessly working to end multiple wars simultaneously. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif appreciates Trump’s efforts. He posted on X.com, “We thank President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region.”

Advertisement

Clearly, there is one champion peacemaker in the world, Donald Trump—it's time for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to acknowledge reality.

The Trump-Iran Deal, Explained

 

Just recently, the Houthis, that is the terrorist organization that controls half of Yemen and has been hit hard by the United States for its interruption of maritime commerce in the Red Sea and its serial attacks on Israel, has been—I guess you would say—neutered.

Its port facilities, its airport, a lot of its missile depots, its command and control have all been neutralized. But yet, here they are with a vestigial force. They just sent a missile, not just into Israel, but into Israel’s international Ben Gurion Airport. It almost hit one of the terminals. Didn’t kill anybody. But it made a huge crater right on the periphery of the airport grounds. And for some reason it was not intercepted by Israel’s tripartite missile defense system.

Let me add another incident. Just recently, almost at the same time, four more terrorists were arrested in the United Kingdom for organizing Iranian-inspired terror against citizens of Britain. And of course, we remember that Iran was involved in an effort to assassinate President Donald Trump.

What am I getting at is, we’re right in the middle of negotiations with Iran. Donald Trump feels that they are historically vulnerable. The Assad regime, their lifeline to the Arab world, is gone. Kaput. Vanished. They can’t use the Damascus airport to airlift weapons for Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been reduced dramatically in its effectiveness. Hamas is—I don’t know what you’d call Hamas. It’s living underground among the rubble of Gaza. And then, of course, the Houthis, as I mentioned, have been attacked.

Israel has demonstrated that it can penetrate, at will, the supposedly formidable air defenses of Iran. The United States, in addition, is building up its strategic bombing force—in Diego Garcia and in areas that can reach Iran—with the capability of dropping these 20,000 to 30,000-pound bunker busters. We have two carriers that will soon be assembled near there.

What am I getting at again? The pressure is all on Iran. Militarily. Diplomatically. Economically. Socially. Culturally. What do I mean by that? Culturally, there is about 30% to 40% of the country are non-Farsi Persian speakers. And they’re very restive, angry. Power outages. The regime is unpopular. It’s diverted billions of dollars to these terrorist appendages that now didn’t pay off, that they’re defunct.

And so, Donald Trump thinks that he, with this maximum pressure, putting this crushing oil embargo—which by the way, former President Joe Biden lifted—that he can bring them to negotiations one last time. Personally, I don’t think he can. Nothing that that regime has ever said is accurate. Nobody in the MAGA movement wants an optional war in the Middle East. But they will have nuclear weapons, perhaps in a year.

So, what is the likely scenario? The likely scenario is they will lose face if they negotiate away their nuclear weapons. That is the only lever they have over Western powers now that their terrorist children are all gone. So, I don’t think they’re gonna make a deal. They’re gonna delay, delay, delay; lie, lie, lie; use the Houthis.

And they are playing with fire because once Donald Trump gives them an opportunity for a peaceful way out of their dilemma—that is they can negotiate an end to their nuclear program. They don’t need nuclear power. They have the fourth-largest fossil fuel reserves in the world. They have enough energy for themselves and for export for an endless amount of time. And yet they still are working on this nuclear project, not for peaceful energy generation, but to have a nuclear deterrent.

And so, what we should look for in the next few months is that an exasperated Trump administration will finally throw up its hands and say, “You can’t deal with these people, but they’re not gonna get a nuclear weapon.”

At that point, one of two things will happen—I should say one of three things. Israel will hit back because of the Houthis’ attack on its airport. And that could come sooner or later. Or the United States will intervene. I don’t think it’ll intervene on its own. Or there’ll be a joint Israeli-American operation.

But by the end of the year, I don’t think Iran will have a nuclear deterrent. And then we’re gonna be watching a mystery unfold.

If it should be hit, and if it should lose its nuclear potential, what will be the reaction of the Iranian people? Will they be angry that their national sovereignty has been attacked? Or will they be delighted that this 50-year hated regime is now gone and they don’t have to spend money on these Arab terrorist groups that have brought them no profit?

That’ll be something to see. And I think we’ll see it at the end of the year.

How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump

 

We’ve touched on polls before, but I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite as egregious in pollsters’ bias as recently when they apparently or supposedly or purportedly surveyed the first 100 days of President Donald Trump and the public reaction.

Almost immediately headlines blared, “Worst First 100 Days in History.” “Trump Drops From 52 to 42.”

Everybody was confounded because the economic news was pretty good. Job growth was just spectacular. Over 170,000 jobs. Inflation was down. Energy prices were down. Corporate profits were up. There was a movement on the trade question. Ukraine still—there was no bad news except the controversy and chaos of a counterrevolution.

So, what were the pollsters trying to tell us? Or were they trying to manipulate us? And I think it’s the latter.

Larry Kudlow, for example, the Fox, former Fox Business—I think he still is at Fox. He pointed out that when he examined The New York Times and The Washington Post polls, they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country. They were only polling about a third. Think of that. A third of the people that said they voted for Trump they polled. Not half. So, of course, their results were going to be disputed or suspect.

But here’s another thing. There were analyses after each of the 2016, the 2020, and the 2024 elections about the accuracy of polls, post facto, of the election. And we learned that they were way off in 2016. They said they had learned their lessons. They were way off in 2020. They said they learned their lesson. And they were way off in 2024.

And why are they way off? Because liberal pollsters—and that’s the majority of people who do these surveys—believe that if they create artificial leads for their Democratic candidates, it creates greater fundraising and momentum. Kind of the herd mentality. “Oh, Trump is down by six. I don’t wanna vote for him. Then he won’t win.” That’s the type of thing that they want to create.

I’ll give you one example. The most egregious. The most egregious of all these polls was the NPR/PBS/Marist poll. They have Donald Trump just very unpopular after 100 days. Very unpopular. This is the now-defunded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that umbrella organization from which this poll was funded and conducted.

Do we remember that poll? It was the one poll that came out the night before the 2024 election. They said that then-Vice President Kamala Harris would win by four points. And they said it was beyond the margin of error. And one of the pollsters said, “It’s her race to lose.” She lost by a point and a half. They were five and a half points. Did they apologize? No. Here they are again.

And David Plouffe, one of the directors of the Harris campaign, just recently came out and said, “Well, we had all these inside polls we never disclosed. But not one of them—not one of them—had Harris ever ahead of Trump.”

Inside polls don’t lie because you pay somebody to tell you the truth. Nothing will get you fired and lose income quicker than to lie about a poll so that your candidate will be happy and rely on your false information. People don’t pay for that kind of stuff.

So, in other words, they knew the whole time—the Harris campaign—that 15 of those 20 polls, 19 polls that all had Harris winning the election, they were all false. Of course, they never said anything.

And so, here’s my point. If you look at the polls that were the most accurate—Mark Penn was very accurate. He’s a Democratic pollster. But especially, the Rasmussen poll and the Insider Advantage and the Trafalgar poll. They joined together and they had a 100-day survey. Rasmussen—each day of the 100-day period that he’s issued a poll. And guess what? They have Trump ahead by anywhere from two to three points after 100 days. And they were the most accurate.

And yet, what do these news outlets say that Trump—it’s a disaster. That he’s polling—no. He’s polling very well. Things are going very well.

The pollsters that indicate that people support him are the only pollsters that have any reputation after this decade-long polling disaster in which their prejudices, their biases, and their hatred of Donald Trump affected their results. And they were effectively in league with the Democratic candidate to create momentum rather than to adhere to a spirit of professionalism and honor.