The lineup of good news the Times tried to smother yesterday began with the launch of the government’s new direct-buy drug website. The Grey Lady reported, “TrumpRx, the President’s Online Drugstore, Opens for Business.” That was the last good thing the paper said about it. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, or words to that effect.
Uncharacteristically promptly at 7pm last night, President Trump announced the launch of the new direct-buy TrumpRx website, which currently offers rock-bottom cash prices for around 40 of the most popular drugs in America, including Wegovy diet drugs and fertility medicine. The President said that (1) the site offers consumers lower prices than found in any other country, and (2) the offering would expand over time.
The website is dead simple. Pick a drug. The site either redirects you to the manufacturer’s new portal (skipping the middlemen) or spits out a pharmacy coupon. Easy peasy, nothing for the government to manage, and best of all— no tax dollars spent.
💉 For a generation, as regular as clockwork, Democrats have promised their voters lower drug prices but have never delivered. Now President Trump is actually doing it— and the Times laughed sardonically, sounding just like a Great Dane choking on a peach pit. It had nothing good to say, not a single favorable quote, but rather rounded up a litany of sneering complaints.
It’s not that good of savings, the Times insisted dully. “Nearly all of the drugs on the site are already widely covered through insurance,” the article complained, having temporary amnesia about co-pays, “and some are available as inexpensive generics from competing manufacturers.” But the very first drug on the list, Cetrotide (a fertility drug), is listed on discount app GoodRx for $301— and on TrumpRx for twenty-three dollars. One wonders how much cheaper the Times thinks it should be, to count as “real savings.”
The article warned Times readers not to trust the website. It quoted Rachel Sachs, a law professor who advised Biden on prescription drug policy. She smirked, “There may be patients who think this is a good deal and then end up financially worse off.” Behold, the maternal instincts of Democrats. You dummies don’t know what a good deal is; let us decide for you. Here’s an $800 EpiPen.
“TrumpRx is a side show,” Sean D. Sullivan, a health economist at the University of Washington, contemptuously said. The Times did not mention Sullivan’s background, but a moment’s searching shows Sean’s deep involvement in progressive, technocratic, super-complex pharmaceutical regulation. Ironically, extending Sean’s metaphor, if TrumpRx is a sideshow, then Obamacare must be the circus.
.@ndstudio Director @jgebbia explains how to use https://t.co/iJahz0seYX ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/frIQxfqact
— HHS Rapid Response (@HHSResponse) February 6, 2026
Respectfully, the morons at the Times missed the point. TrumpRx is the first major step in remaking the American healthcare system. Whether someone has insurance or not isn’t the point. You don’t need insurance, or at least, not comprehensive insurance, if you can easily and cheaply buy the healthcare products that you want and need.
It looks to me like the Trump Team is building out a parallel system before tinkering with people’s Obamacare. The President is also completely shifting the economics of the pharmaceutical industry. Although the New York Times never once looked beyond its technocratic elite experts toward the affected industry, the Financial Times did. This morning’s FT headline:
If it doesn’t actually save money, then … why would drugmakers’ bottom lines be affected? Hmm?
Finally, the first 40 drugs included on the official site leaned heavily into weight loss and fertility. The side effects of both drugs are more fecundity. Trump introduced one civilian, the “first customer,” Katherine, who bought fertility drugs. Is there perhaps an even more ambitious agenda in the offing? At the presser, Trump referred more than once to “Trump babies.” On top of the broader affordability push, could they also be laser-focused on reversing decades of lagging American fertility?
I don’t know the plan. But if the goal is trying to make more babies, well, that’s good old-fashioned fun— and unlike Obamacare, it doesn’t require a 47-page application.
