Trump's Middle East tour has more substance than the White House let onNew Foto - Trump's Middle East tour has more substance than the White House let on

There's more to Donald Trump's Middle East trip than billion-dollar contracts, parades of camels and astorm back homeover Qatar's offer to give the presidenta new Air Force One. A tour narrowly billed by the White House as a chance for Trump to show he's a master dealmaker is jumblingthe region's geopolitical jigsawpuzzle. Wherever he goes, Trump brings disruption that can forge possibilities. And he takes risks – for instance, his decision on this trip tolift sanctions on Syriato give a war-ravaged nation a second chance. But the move revives a perennial question about Trump's entire foreign and trade policy. Can he apply himself sufficiently to reach genuine breakthroughs from openings he creates? The White House's obsession with lionizing Trump means his most significant initiatives are often swamped by hype. So a deal for Qatar to buy Boeing jets worthtens of billions of dollarsgot more attention back home Wednesday than his encounter in Riyadh with Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa. The historic first meeting between US and Syrian leaders in 25 years could be the signature initiative of Trump's tour. Before he overthrew the murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad, al-Sharaa wasa rebel leaderwhopledged allegianceto al Qaeda and had a $10 million US bounty on his head. Yet Trump sat with him and lifted US sanctions on his civil war-wracked country, hoping to give it a chance to unify and rescue civilians facing severe hunger. Trump's geopolitical shake-up doesn't end in Syria. He's used the trip to build newpressure on Iranto agree to restrictions on its nuclear program – warning of military action if it refuses but clearly trying to head off the dire prospect of a new Middle East war. His journey has also highlighted growing daylight with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who was seen as an ideological soulmate of the 47th president but who is increasingly an object of Trump's frustration. Behind the scenes, Trump's team has been talking with Qatari and Saudi officials about how to alleviate a humanitarian crisis in Gaza caused by Israel's blockade and an onslaught that has killedtens of thousands of civilians. Netanyahu's response has been to declare he has "no choice" but to keep fighting, and he targeted the Hamas leader who'd be needed for any peace talks, in astrike on a hospital. There's no sense that the US alliance with Israel is at risk. But gaps between Trump and Netanyahu have also opened over aUS pact to halt rocket attacks by Houthi rebelsin Yemen that did not include Israel; Trump's bypassing of the Israelis in a deal this week tofree the last living American hostage in Gaza; and on the Syria sanctions decision. Trump was not solely focused on the Middle East in recent days. He'd alsohoped to fly to Turkeyfor a startling photo-op with Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that would have validated his thus far unsuccessful attempt to end their war. Neither rival leader is likely to show up to Thursday's talks, prompting Trump to abandon his plans for an unexpected side trip and casting further doubt on his peace initiative. Trump's decision to lift sanctions on Syria represents one of the biggest foreign policy gambles so far in his second term. Details of the intricate diplomacy that must have led up to this decision have not yet been revealed. But the move reflects an understanding that Syria, devastated by years of civil war, is at a turning point, occupies a vital place on the map of the region and has the potential to tip into greater chaos if it deteriorates further. The president told reporters that he believed that al-Sharaa has "got a real shot at holding it together." Officials said later that Trump wants Syria to eventually recognize Israel. This would represent an extraordinary transformation in a region wracked by hate. Firas Maksad, director of outreach at the Middle East Institute, told CNN's Becky Anderson that the Syria move was a significant win for Trump on a trip dominated by economic concerns. "I think Trump has been very careful and very, I would say, keen on unlocking geopolitical successes, too," Maksad said. "Whatever happens in Syria doesn't stay in Syria." The president's move mirrors a willingness of some European and Middle Eastern leaders to shelve distaste for al-Sharaa's past activity in the hope he can stop a return to civil war. Unusually, a Trump policy decision is winning praise even among some longtime critics. "I think it's a good move," Leon Panetta, a former CIA director and US defense secretary, told "CNN News Central" on Wednesday. "I think that (Trump) is right because this individual was able to lead that rebellion, was able to depose Assad and, as far as I can see, is working to try to stabilize a difficult challenge with regards to Syria." Trump's decision to lift sanctions came at the urging of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which both want to avoid unrest in Syria spreading. There is also a desire in Riyadh, Washington and Doha to prevent a return of outside powers to Syria, which has endured decades of foreign interference from states including Iran, Russia, Turkey and Israel. But Trump is taking a risk. While al-Sharaa is seen outside the country as Syria's best hope for stability, concern is growing that his government is not protecting religious and ethnic minorities. In Washington, meanwhile, senior members of Congress will want assurances that he's driving out ISIS elements before they agree to lift sanctions enshrined in law that the president cannot waive on his own. "To seize the moment, it will be important for the President's decision to be swiftly implemented and for the Syrian government to move quickly to address U.S. national security concerns," Sens. Jim Risch and Jeanne Shaheen, the Republican chairman and the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. "This will help Syria remain on the path to freedom from the malign influence of Iran and Russia, from China's attempt to gain an economic foothold in the Middle East, and from the resurgence of ISIS." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, struck a note of caution. "I am very inclined to support sanctions relief for Syria under the right conditions," Graham said in a statement released from Turkey. "However, we must remember that the current leadership in Syria achieved its position through force of arms, not through the will of its people." Graham noted that Israel was especially concerned by the decision to lift sanctions on Syria and argued that the US must work together with allies to coordinate the new opening. "This newly formed government in Syria may be a good investment and could be the pathway to unifying Syria, making it a stable part of the region. However, there is a lot that must be learned before making that determination," Graham said. "A stable Syria would be a game changer for the region, but given its past, their progress must be evaluated closely." If Trump is to shepherd Syria toward stability, he'll need to use the power of the United States to convene like-minded nations. This kind of work with allies is hardly a hallmark of this White House. And it's another challenge for a stretched foreign policy team hampered by chaotic staffing decisions and the inexperience of some key players – for instance, Trump's envoy for all occasions Steve Witkoff. Trump already seemed to be laying the groundwork for the laying of blame, should his decision backfire, noting several times that part of his reason for lifting sanctions was because of the advocacy of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. "Oh, what I do for the crown prince," Trump said. Some of Trump's recent wins hardly suggest he's ready to do the hard work of diplomacy. He claimed he reached big trade deals with the UK and China. But they'd be better described as announcements of an intent to reach agreements. If Tuesday's sanctions move is similar, his Syria diplomacy will never reach its goals. There's another reason for anxiety. Al-Sharaa seems to have activated Trump's weakness for strongmen. He described the former terrorist as a "great young attractive guy" and a "fighter." Jarringly, given the Syrian leader's al Qaeda associations, the president commented that he had "a very strong past." History is full of examples in which Washington put its trust in Middle East tough-guy leaders to keep countries torn by religious and tribal divides in one piece. In Iraq, such a bet ended up costing thousands of US lives. But Trump is more optimistic. "It's their time to shine," he said. "Good luck, Syria. Show something very special." For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

Trump’s Middle East tour has more substance than the White House let on

Trump's Middle East tour has more substance than the White House let on There's more to Donald Trump's Middle East trip than bil...
Trump says he would go to Russia-Ukraine talks 'if it is appropriate'New Foto - Trump says he would go to Russia-Ukraine talks 'if it is appropriate'

DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would go to Russia-Ukraine talks in Turkey on Friday "if it is appropriate". "I was thinking about going, but it is very tough... If something happened I would go on Friday if it was appropriate," Trump told a business breakfast in Doha on a tour of the Gulf. "But we have people right now negotiating, I just hope Russia and Ukraine are able to do something. It has to stop." (Reporting by Nayera Abdallah, Editing by Michael Georgy and Alex Richardson)

Trump says he would go to Russia-Ukraine talks 'if it is appropriate'

Trump says he would go to Russia-Ukraine talks 'if it is appropriate' DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday...
A Russian delegation has arrived in Istanbul for Ukraine talks. It doesn't include PutinNew Foto - A Russian delegation has arrived in Istanbul for Ukraine talks. It doesn't include Putin

ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) — Russia's delegation arrived in Istanbul for peace talks with Ukraine, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Thursday. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin was not part of the delegation, according to a list released by the Kremlin Wednesday night, prompting criticism from Western officials that Moscow isn't serious about the peace effort. Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to Putin, will lead the Russian delegation that will also include three other senior officials, the Kremlin said. Putin also appointed four lower-level officials as "experts" for the talks. Earlier this week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy challenged the Russian leader to meet in person in Turkey. Zelenskyy said he would travel to Ankara, the Turkish capital, meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and wait for Putin. Zelenskyy will sit at the table only with Putin, Ukraine's presidential adviser, Mykhailo Podolyak, said. Details about the Ukrainian delegation and whether they will meet their Russian counterparts are still unclear but is expected to be clarified after Zelenskyy and Erdogan meet, according to a Ukrainian official who requested anonymity to speak openly about the day's plan. Tass said that the talks were to take place in a presidential office on the Bosphorus. Moscow offered talks instead of a ceasefire Putin on Wednesday evening held a meeting with senior government officials and members of the delegation in preparation for the talks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, General Staff chief Valery Gerasimov, and National Security Council secretary Sergei Shoigu attended the meeting, among others. Kyiv and its European allies had urged the Kremlin to agree to afull, unconditional 30-day ceasefireas a first step toward peace. Putin effectively rejected the proposal, offering direct talks between Russia and Ukraine instead. The Kremlin billed Thursday's talks as a "restart" of peace negotiations that were held in Istanbul in the first weeks of the war in 2022 but quickly fell apart. Moscow accused Ukraine and the West of wanting to continue fighting, while Kyiv said Russia's demands amounted to an ultimatum rather than something both sides could agree on. Russia's delegation then was also headed by Vladimir Medinsky. Putin's proposal came after more than three months of diplomacy kickstarted by U.S. PresidentDonald Trump, who promised during his campaign to end the devastating war swiftly. The Trump administration in recent weeks indicated that it might walk away from the peace effort if there was no tangible progress soon. Trump had pressed for Putin and Zelenskyy to meet in Istanbul but said Thursday he wasn't surprised that Putin was a no-show. He brushed off Putin's decision to not take part in the talks. "I didn't think it was possible for Putin to go if I'm not there," Trump said during a roundtable in Doha, Qatar The U.S. and Western European leaders have threatened Russia with further sanctions if there is no progress in halting the fighting. NATO ministers back Ukraine Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha met with U.S. State Secretary Marco Rubio and Senator Lindsey Graham in the Turkish city of Antalya late Wednesday night. Antalya on Thursday is hosting NATO foreign ministers to discuss new defense investment goals as the U.S. shifts its focus to security challenges away from Europe. Sybiha reaffirmed Ukraine's support for Trump's mediation efforts and thanked the U.S. for its continued involvement, urging Moscow to "reciprocate Ukraine's constructive steps" toward peace. "So far, it has not," Sybiha said. On Thursday morning, Sybiha also met with other European foreign ministers, including his French counterpart Jean-Noël Barrot, who in a post on X reiterated the call for a ceasefire and the threat of "massive sanctions" if Russia doesn't comply. "We're in a very difficult spot right now, and we hope that we can find the steps forward that provide for the end of this war in a negotiated way and the prevention of any war in the future," Rubio said Thursday. Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen, also in Antalya for the NATO talks, accused Moscow of not being willing to to engage in a serious peace process. "We have one chair empty, which is the chair of Vladimir Putin. So now I guess the entire world has realized that there's only one party not willing to engage in serious peace negotiations, and that certainly is Russia," Valtonen said. Barrot echoed her sentiment: "In front of Ukrainians there is an empty chair, one that should have been occupied by Vladimir Putin," he said. "Vladimir Putin is dragging his feet and in all evidence does not want to enter into these peace discussions." —- Associated Press writers Lorne Cook in Brussels; Illia Novikov and Samya Kullab in Kyiv, Ukraine; Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia; and Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey contributed to this report.

A Russian delegation has arrived in Istanbul for Ukraine talks. It doesn't include Putin

A Russian delegation has arrived in Istanbul for Ukraine talks. It doesn't include Putin ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) — Russia's delegation...
Are We Sleepwalking Toward a Constitutional Crisis?New Foto - Are We Sleepwalking Toward a Constitutional Crisis?

Last Friday, top White House adviser Stephen Miller suggested that President Donald Trump is actively considering triggering a full-blown constitutional crisis. But you wouldn't know it by listening to some congressional Republicans this week. "Well, the Constitution is clear," Miller said,respondingto a Gateway Pundit blogger whether the president is considering suspending the writ of habeas corpus to "take care of the illegal immigration problem." The Constitution, Miller said, "is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not." The Constitution is indeed clear: It says that the writ of habeas corpus—that is, the right to challenge one's detention in court—shall not be suspendedexcept in "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." Those terms have been universally understood to mean military conflict or war. "It wouldn't apply to a case of immigration at all. There's zero chance that that would fly in the courts," John Yoo, a former clerk to Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and a Bush Justice Department lawyer, toldThe Dispatchin an interview. Yoo, who has anexpansive viewof the power of the president in times of war, noted that the Constitution is less clear about who has the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The clause is located in Article I, which covers the powers of Congress, and therefore most legal scholars and theSupreme Courthave held that only Congress has limited powers to suspend it. Throughout U.S. history, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended onlyfour times, and the only time the president unilaterally suspended the writ was in 1861 during the Civil War. (Congress ratified Abraham Lincoln's suspension in 1863.) "This is nowhere near the time of the Civil War where you had actually, obviously, a civil rebellion," Yoo said of the present state of the country. It's entirely possible Miller's comments are simply meant tointimidate and cajole the courtsinto ruling in favor of the Trump administration's actions on immigration, such asstripping "Temporary Protected Status" from immigrants. Miller explicitly mentioned cases regarding "Temporary Protected Status" and said last Friday that those court decisions "will inform the choices that the president ultimately makes." But Miller's comments are also an extraordinarily grave threat—striking at a fundamental matter of civil liberty during peacetime—and Trump's willingness to follow through on more extreme ideas has been underestimated before (see January 6, 2021, and his "Liberation Day" tariffs). If Trump unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus to address illegal immigration, and the Supreme Court quickly rules against him, what would happen next? Either Trump would comply, or he would defy the court and plunge the country into a constitutional crisis. "Here you would have plausible grounds for impeachment," Yoo said. "You would have a president who arguably arrogated the powers of another branch at a time when the provision doesn't even apply—so much stronger ground for impeachment than Trump's first two rides on that rodeo." But congressional Republicans' response to a top White House official toying with a blatantly unconstitutional act hasbeen muted, at best. In the Capitol this week, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was the only Republican senator who forcefully spoke out against Miller's comments. "It's a terrible idea, and anyone discussing suspending habeas corpus is running afoul of history and not really considering that it's the ancient right of habeas corpus. It's been around since Magna Carta or before," Paul toldThe Dispatch. Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said it was essential for more Republicans to speak out. "My colleagues should all be outraged. This is an exceptional threat to our liberty, unprecedented in modern times," Coons toldThe Dispatch. "Habeas corpus is a foundational basis of our liberty. It goes back to hundreds of years ago when English kings would put in jail their critics and their opponents without charge, without reason and just keep them there. So the framers of our Constitution knew you have to have the right to appear in front of a judge, to say: 'On what basis am I being held? Show the charges, show the evidence, or set me free.'" "Republican senators have to speak up in opposition," he added. "That is the only way to slow down some of the more outrageous actions by this president." While no one spoke out as forcefully against Miller as Rand Paul, some other GOP senators expressed opposition in a more mild manner. "Habeas corpus is something I think we fundamentally look to and rely on for due process protections," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski toldThe Dispatch. "We want to make sure we don't jeopardize anything that we would consider to be fundamental. So I'm not quite sure exactly what [Stephen Miller] intended with that. We'd have to find out more." Asked if the president had the constitutional authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus over illegal immigration, South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds said: "I don't think so. … I think they can look at it, but I think that's about as far as it goes." Even some of Trump's staunchest allies stopped short of defending the notion that the president could suspend the writ of habeas corpus over immigration. "The president can suspend it, right?" Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said. WhenThe Dispatchnoted the provision is limited to cases of invasion or rebellion, Hawley replied: "I think that this problem would be solved if these judges would actually adjudicate the law and not try to set policy for the nation." Asked about Miller's comments, Florida GOP Sen. Rick Scott simply said: "I'm sure they'll follow the law." A lack of enthusiastic support from congressional Republicans is, of course, far from the kind of threat that might actually deter Trump from an unprecedented assault on civil liberties. If Trump doesn't fear the courts or Congress, might anything else constrain him? "It also depends on whether other officers of the government choose to obey the president's order," Yoo toldThe Dispatch. "If you suspend habeas corpus, and you put these aliens … into the hands of the military, does the president really want to raise doubts about the military's willingness to follow the commander in chief? You could see officers refusing to hold people in violation of habeas corpus." "I can't think it would come to this," Yoo said. "It would really be a mistake to cause those dominos to start falling." Read more at The Dispatch The Dispatch is a new digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary, informed by conservative principles. Sign up for free.

Are We Sleepwalking Toward a Constitutional Crisis?

Are We Sleepwalking Toward a Constitutional Crisis? Last Friday, top White House adviser Stephen Miller suggested that President Donald Trum...
Trump's Executive Order on Drug Prices, ExplainedNew Foto - Trump's Executive Order on Drug Prices, Explained

More than 100 days into President Donald Trump's second term, the administration has fallen into a pattern. Trump releases an executive order with an expansive title accompanied by even more expansive claims from the president and senior officials about the effects of the directive. The announcement gets the headlines Trump islooking for. But despite the billing, the order is light on specifics and reliant on uncertain legal footing. Such was the case earlier this week when Trump signed an executive order targeting drug costs. The order scrutinizes both pharmaceutical manufacturers and foreign countries where brand-name drugs are often available to patients at significantlycheaper pricesthan in the United States. The presidentasserteddrug prices will drop by as much as "80, and 90 percent" as a result of the order. But the executive order reflects at best the "concepts of a plan," rather than a serious attempt at drug policy reform. It's unclear whether the order targets drug prices in public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid or extends to the private market, and the specific path to actually achieving such steep reductions is even less clear. The president is correct that there are large discrepancies between what people in the U.S. and other nations pay for the same drugs. Wealthy countries like the United Kingdom with nationalized health care or single-payer systems set drug price controls. Since the government is setting limits, prices can be kept down, but such a system involves trade-offs, namely, slower and morelimited accessto the full range of pharmaceuticals, including some lifesaving drugs for diseases like cancer. In the U.S., there is no central government body deciding what drugs, after the Food and Drug Administration determines they're safe, can be sold and at what price. Prices are instead negotiated among drug manufacturers, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers—companies that health plans either own or contract with to manage their prescription benefits—and pharmacies. Private insurers lack the legal power of the state and account for only individual portions of total drug spending—a particular health plan represents only a piece of the population, compared to a public insurance system where everyone is covered by the government—consequently, they have less negotiating leverage to keep prices down. To the president, the result of the differing systems is that the rest of the developed world is freeloading on pharmaceutical innovations that are paid for by higher prices in the U.S. "The inflated prices in the United States fuel global innovation while foreign health systems get a free ride," the order noted. During Trump's first administration, Trump attempted a more limited version of what he called "most-favored-nation" pricing, also known as international reference pricing, a policy that would tie domestic pharmaceutical prices to the cheaper rates paid by other developed countries. His 2020 attempt applied only to apilot programfor select high-cost drugs covered by Medicare, but it was blocked in court and subsequently abandoned by the Biden administration. Monday's executive order titled "Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients" doesn't involve another pilot program or a substantive roadmap for policy reform. Instead, the order reflects a vague attempt at price controls via pressuring pharmaceutical manufacturers into lowering U.S. prices and compelling foreign governments to make up the difference in lost U.S. revenue by paying drug companies more. The order directs the secretary of health and human services to set price targets, seemingly for both public programs and the private market. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon hasnoted, the executive branch lacks the legal authority to impose price controls in the private market, so the order takes a carrot-and-stick approach to push drug companies to cooperate voluntarily. The carrot involves directing the secretary of commerce and the U.S. trade representative to take action to get other developed countries to pay higher prices than they do currently. In return, drug companies will lower U.S. prices to "equalize," in the president'swords, domestic and international rates. It's unclear how the administration could force other countries to pay higher prices. TrumpsaidMonday he'd use tariffs to pressure foreign governments. Even if the president could successfully apply trade leverage, such changes would necessarilyinvolvehealth policy and statutory overhauls within those countries. The president also directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to, within 30 days, "communicate most-favored-nation price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations." If the companies don't agree to the targets, then they get the stick. HHS will "propose a rulemaking plan to impose most-favored-nation pricing" and take steps to facilitate greater importation of drugs to put downward pressure on domestic prices. The order also threatens antitrust action from the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission as well as potential revocation of drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. "Big Pharma will either abide by this principle voluntarily or we will use the power of the federal government to ensure we are paying the same price as other countries," Trumpsaid. Pharmaceutical manufacturers seem more than happy to watch the president lean on foreign governments to pay them more. "The Administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines," Stephen Ubl—CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry's powerful trade and lobbying group—said in a statement on Monday. "U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation." But the industry will no doubt oppose attempts to cap U.S. prices. "Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers," Ubl added,  saying price controls would decrease pharmaceutical innovation and domestic economic investment. It's unclear whether or to what degree the executive branch can legally impose most-favored-nation pricing, and much will depend on the scope and specifics of any future rulemaking. "[The order] seems to me like it could be Medicaid or Medicare or the private market or some combination of the above," Tevi Troy, a senior fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute and deputy HHS secretary during the George W. Bush administration, toldThe Dispatch. "I'm not sure what it applies to, and if it does apply, it's not clear to me that this is within the realm of the executive branch to declare it by fiat, so it might have to be done by Congress." For example, the Biden administration instituted its Medicare drug price negotiationprogramas part of the Inflation Reduction Act. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was asked inan interviewMonday onFox Businesswhether the price cuts would apply to Medicare Part D. "They absolutely will," he said. "And they'll apply in the private market as well." If the order does in fact apply to both public and private pharmaceutical prices, the process of setting price targets and or completing a rulemaking process would be lengthy and complex. "It's like a lot of [executive orders]," Ben Ippolito, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute studying health care economics, toldThe Dispatch. "It's signaling direction, it's signaling intent, it's signaling interest, but there's not a lot of immediate action." The lack of specifics and the teeth of accompanying legislation are likely why industry observersreactedpositively to the order. As news of Trump's plans seeped out over the last week, drug companies feared the president might insist congressional Republicansincludea drug price cap policy in their reconciliation package. When such a provision failed to materialize, the stocks of pharmaceutical companies experienced aslight bumpon Monday after Trump signed the order. Politically, the president may have gotten all that he's looking for from simply the appearance of taking on Big Pharma. Drug companies are among the least popular companies in the country, and high drug prices are a potent issue, drawing the ire of voters of all stripes. Trump's framing of the problem is straightforward to understand. In his telling, high prices aren't the result of an array of complex forces and practices throughout the pharmaceutical supply and financing systems—including Medicare payment policies, commercial health insurers, manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors, and pharmacy benefit managers. Rather, it's as simple as other countries paying too little, and if they pay more, then we'll pay less. From a policy perspective, drug pricing is a much more complicated question involving deeplychallenging trade-offsbetween access to current drugs and investment in new, life-saving therapies. Some health policy analysts argue high costs could be better addressed by tackling that question directly rather than attempting to leverage price reductions on the back of other governments' pricing regimes. "In some ways, it's neither here nor there that some other country does something different than us," Ippolito said. "We have a Congress. We have public programs. We can decide how we'd like to pay for pharmaceuticals in those settings. If you want to change it, just change it and make that decision based on what you think is the best balance of trade-offs, because what you do matters so much more than what any of these other countries are doing." Read more at The Dispatch The Dispatch is a new digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary, informed by conservative principles. Sign up for free.

Trump’s Executive Order on Drug Prices, Explained

Trump's Executive Order on Drug Prices, Explained More than 100 days into President Donald Trump's second term, the administration h...

 

TEC POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com