On the evening of September 18, 2025, former President Donald Trump appeared on Fox News with a bold promise: America would see prescription drug costs slashed by “1,000 percent” within the next year to year and a half. But his claim quickly spiraled into confusion as he followed it up with a baffling explanation—asserting that a $10 pill would soon cost $20 for Americans. The contradictory arithmetic left viewers, experts, and social media users scratching their heads and reignited debate over both his policy approach and his public communication style.
Trump’s remarks, broadcast during a high-profile interview, were nothing if not emphatic. “We’re gonna be reducing drug costs over the next year, year and a half… by a thousand percent,” he declared, before adding, “it’ll go from $10 to $20 for us.” As reported by The Daily Beast, these two statements are fundamentally at odds. A 1,000 percent reduction from $10 would actually mean the price drops to negative $90—a mathematical impossibility that would require drug companies to pay patients to take their medicine. Doubling a $10 pill to $20, on the other hand, is a 100 percent increase, not a reduction of any kind.
This isn’t the first time Trump has made such sweeping, and mathematically impossible, promises regarding drug prices. According to Business Insider, just a month earlier, he claimed his administration would cut drug prices by 1,500 percent. The outlet noted that such a reduction is not just hyperbolic—it’s simply not possible. “Of course, Trump has his own speech rhythms, so most experts assumed he was just being hyperbolic as usual—but he doubled down on the claim of a 1,000+% decrease in drug prices in the U.S.,” the article explained.
The confusion deepened when Trump attempted to clarify his position on Fox News. “You understand, and we will be reducing drug costs over the next year by not 50 or 60% but by 1,000%… Because if you think of a $10 pill, it will be raised up from 10 to 20 because it’s the world versus us, the world is the bigger place… so it will go from 10 to 20… for them, which is bearable. And it will go from 10 to 20 for us,” Trump said, in a comment that left even the show’s host, Martha MacCallum, visibly perplexed. As The Daily Beast observed, “The two ideas cannot both be true.”
Social media quickly lit up with criticism and ridicule. On X (formerly Twitter), users questioned whether Trump understood basic math, with one writing, “Trump promises a 1000% reduction in drug costs—then explains how prices will double. This isn’t policy. It’s dementia math on live mic. Can we all agree the president needs an age limit?” Another user simply called the statements “insane.” The online mockery was swift and relentless, with some even suggesting that such errors reflected deeper cognitive issues.
But the controversy wasn’t limited to Trump’s math. The policy context is complex and, at times, contradictory. Trump has been pushing for lower drug prices since his return to the Oval Office, often by threatening the pharmaceutical industry with government intervention. In May 2025, he signed an executive order on favorable drug pricing, warning, “Big Pharma will either abide by this principle voluntarily or we will use the power of the federal government to ensure that we are paying the same price as other countries to accelerate these price restrictions and reductions.” This approach, known as the “most-favored nation” strategy, aims to match or beat drug prices abroad. According to The Daily Beast, the White House has sent letters to pharmaceutical CEOs seeking their commitment to lower prices, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has touted pressure tactics to achieve sweeping savings.
Yet, as Business Insider and CNN pointed out, Trump’s policies sometimes seem at odds with his rhetoric. For instance, he has reportedly imposed a 15 percent tariff on drugs imported from the European Union, with some generics exempted. Tariffs typically increase prices, not reduce them, leading many to question whether Trump’s claims of dramatic price drops are feasible—or even internally consistent. Experts told CNN that achieving such reductions would require congressional approval and significant legal changes, not just executive orders or tariffs.
Trump has also used anecdotes to underscore the disparity in drug prices between the U.S. and other countries. He recounted how a friend paid $88 for Ozempic (semaglutide) in London, compared to a much higher price in New York. “It’s the world versus us,” he stated, framing the issue as one of global economic competition. But, as The Daily Beast noted, even these stories were quickly overshadowed by his contradictory math—predicting Americans would pay $20 for a $10 pill while insisting this represented a four-digit percentage reduction.
The president’s public statements on drug pricing have not gone unchallenged. Critics in the media and on social platforms have called out the lack of coherence and factual accuracy in his claims. Some, like The Daily Beast, have gone further, highlighting a pattern of public gaffes and errors that raise questions about Trump’s cognitive state. They cited recent incidents where he struggled to recall the name of the Pacific Ocean, confused the Middle East with other regions, and even invented a governor who does not exist. These moments, they argue, suggest that the drug price comments are not isolated slips but part of a broader trend.
Despite the uproar, the White House has stood by Trump’s core message. Spokesman Kush Desai defended the president’s position, stating, “The most clear example of cognitive impairment is this delusional rant disputing President Trump’s objectively correct point that Americans are paying several times more for the same exact drugs than people in other wealthy countries do.” The administration has continued to emphasize the goal of bringing U.S. drug prices in line with those abroad, even as the specifics of how to achieve that remain murky.
Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry has been put on notice. Trump has warned that companies must comply with his pricing demands or face the full force of federal power. Whether this results in real savings for consumers—or simply more confusion—remains to be seen. As Business Insider aptly put it, “Regardless, Trump can say whatever he wants, but people taking medication will know from their own budgets whether prices have gone up or down.”
For now, Americans are left to watch the numbers—and the rhetoric—unfold. The debate over drug pricing is far from settled, but one thing is certain: when it comes to presidential promises, the math matters.
