Did Trump keep a hundred million dollars from major drug companies?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting shows President Trump and his administration pushed a Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) drug‑pricing campaign in 2025 that produced multiple public deals with major manufacturers and tied tariff threats to concessions; Pfizer was first to sign an MFN-style agreement (announced Sept. 30, 2025), and by Nov. 6 the White House said five manufacturers had struck deals including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk [1] [2] [3]. None of the provided sources say Trump “kept a hundred million dollars from major drug companies”; the record instead describes negotiated price concessions, tariff threats and large investment promises from industry — not a one‑time transfer of $100 million into the president’s hands (available sources do not mention Trump keeping $100 million from drug companies).
1. What the administration actually did: MFN demands, tariffs and deals
The White House framed a May 2025 executive order and follow‑up letters as commands to bring U.S. prices in line with the lowest prices paid abroad, then backed those demands with the threat of sweeping tools — including a Section 232 probe and the announcement of 100% tariffs on branded, patented drugs if companies did not comply. That pressure culminated in a public Oval Office deal with Pfizer on Sept. 30 and subsequent agreements with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk that the administration described as “historic” MFN arrangements [1] [2] [4] [3].
2. What the press and analysts reported about industry concessions
Business and policy outlets documented that pharma firms scrambled to respond once Pfizer made a deal public, and that the Pfizer agreement increased pressure on other companies to reach similar terms; industry lobbyists told reporters the deal was broader than they expected and created awkward dynamics inside PhRMA [5] [6]. Legal and trade observers noted companies sought carve‑outs and investment guarantees — AstraZeneca, for example, reportedly promised a $50 billion U.S. investment to secure a three‑year reprieve from tariff exposure [7].
3. The money flows cited by the administration vs. an accusation of cash kept
White House fact sheets emphasize the number of patients affected (over 100 million cited in the Pfizer announcement) and promise “tangible cost savings” to Americans, while trade reporting highlights prospective tariffs, investment pledges and price discounts or DTC discounts through a proposed TrumpRx site [1] [8] [7]. None of the supplied sources describe a scenario in which the president personally or the administration “kept” $100 million taken from drug companies; the public narrative centers on negotiated price reductions, investment pledges and temporary tariff reprieves — not direct transfers to the president (available sources do not mention Trump retaining $100 million from pharma).
4. How industry mitigated damage and why large headline figures appear
Coverage shows companies sought to limit commercial disruption by offering U.S. manufacturing investments, multi‑year immunity from tariffs or direct‑to‑consumer discounts — all pragmatic responses to an intense political threat that might otherwise have imposed punitive tariffs or forced import changes [7] [4] [9]. Headlines about “hundreds of millions” or “billions” are present in the coverage but refer to corporate investment promises or aggregate price‑impact claims, not sums handed to the government or its leaders [7] [9].
5. Competing interpretations and implicit agendas
The administration presents these deals as wins for patients and taxpayers and emphasizes the number of Americans affected [1]. Industry and some analysts framed the moves as coerced bargaining under threat of tariffs and legal instruments, raising concerns about market disruption and downstream consumer costs [10] [4]. Observers also point out political incentives: the White House benefits politically from high‑visibility “wins,” while pharma firms have incentives to avoid tariffs and preserve international pricing structures [5] [9].
6. Limitations and what we still don’t know from these sources
The documents and coverage here document agreements, threats and investment pledges but do not provide line‑by‑line accounting of how much revenue was foregone by companies, saved by patients, or redirected to the federal government. The sources do not show any factual basis for the claim that Trump personally kept $100 million from major drug firms; they describe negotiation outcomes, tariff avoidances and discounts instead (available sources do not mention a personal $100 million payment to Trump) [1] [7] [3].
Bottom line: the supplied reporting documents a high‑stakes policy campaign in 2025 that produced public deals, discounts and corporate investment promises under tariff pressure, but it does not substantiate an allegation that President Trump pocketed $100 million from major drug companies [1] [7] [3].