The Brief

President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced a deal with Pfizer to sell its drugs directly to consumers at discounted prices. They'll be available through a website operated by the federal government called TrumpRx.gov. He said similar deals with other drugmakers are in the works.

The new website is part of a broader initiative the administration says is aimed at bringing prices paid by Americans, including Medicaid patients, more in line with those paid in other developed countries. The idea is sometimes called most-favored-nation pricing . Under the deal, Pfizer agreed to charge the same price for new drugs in developed countries and the U.S.

"The American consumers have been subsidizing research and development for the entire planet," Trump said in a press conference, joined by his health team and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. "They put all of that on us, and yet they were the beneficiaries too. So it's been changed."

"I think today we are turning the tide, and we are reversing an unfair situation," Pfizer's Bourla said during the briefing.

The TrumpRx.gov website is expected to launch sometime in 2026 and would take consumers to pharmaceutical companies' direct-to-consumer websites to fulfill orders, according to senior administration officials who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.

Direct-to-consumer prices for Pfizer drugs on TrumpRx.gov will be 50% lower on average, according to a company press release . But there was a lack of important details on how the discounts were calculated. "Specific terms of the agreement remain confidential," the release said.

Discount website would be for patients not using insurance

Other countries mostly pay less for brand-name prescription drugs than the U.S. because they have government health systems that set drug prices. By and large, the U.S. doesn't set prices, so the drug companies can charge what the market will bear.

The website deals would only be accessible for patients not using their health insurance, according to one of the government officials briefing reporters anonymously. And even then, the discounted medicines might not be affordable because they're based on high drug list prices. Consumers with health insurance could very well pay less at the pharmacy counter.

As a result, the average consumer likely will not benefit from the Trump administration's deal, says Ameet Sarpatwari , an assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School who specializes in pharmaceutical policy.

"I think it's more underwhelming than what the president is touting," he says. "I think it's more window dressing than the transformational sort of reforms that are needed to really provide relief to Americans struggling with high prices."

Pfizer CEO Bourla also pledged to launch new drugs at the same price in the U.S. as in other developed countries and to offer drugs to Medicaid at most-favored-nation pricing, drawing praise from the Trump administration officials for being the first CEO to strike a deal.

"He really created a template for corporate responsibility, for putting public health ahead of his individual interests," said Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Medicaid drug prices are already low

Sarpatwari says that since Medicaid often pays low prices for drugs anyway, and Medicaid beneficiaries pay very little for drugs, it's unclear whether this deal would benefit them or save taxpayers much money.

"It is an environment where you can pretend to make significant changes that actually don't meaningfully improve the prices that Americans will pay for their drugs," Sarpatwari says.

Tuesday's announcement follows the Trump Administration's executive order in May to lower drug prices. The president had promised to make other countries pay more for drugs. "So we're going to come down a lot, but the world is going to go up a little bit," he said during Tuesday's media briefing, explaining that it would make global drug prices more fair.

Over the summer, the Trump administration said it wasn't satisfied with what it was hearing from drug companies, so it sent letters to 17 of them with a list of demands, including lowering prices in Medicaid and launching new drugs at prices that match what people in other countries are paying. It also included selling drugs directly to consumers at lower prices.

Drugmakers had 60 days to do this voluntarily, or, the letter stated, "if you refuse to step up, we will deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families from continued abusive drug pricing practices."

The bargaining included the threat of tariffs stemming from an ongoing investigation into whether pharmaceutical imports posed a threat to national security. The deal with Pfizer includes a three-year grace period from those tariffs, and its CEO said the company would invest $70 billion to reshore manufacturing of drugs sold domestically. Of tariffs, Bourla said, the "president is absolutely right. It is the most powerful tool to motivate behaviors."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, and four co-conspirators were indicted Wednesday on 23 counts of bank and wire fraud, allegedly committed from 2022 to 2024, during her time working for the governor.

The indictment alleges that Williamson, a longtime Democratic strategist, worked with Greg Campbell, a prominent Sacramento lobbyist, and Sean McCluskie, the former chief of staff to former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, as well as two other unnamed co-conspirators to steal $225,000 from an unnamed former official’s dormant campaign account for McCluskie’s personal use.

“Collectively, they funneled the money through various business entities and disguised it as pay for what was, in reality, a no-show job,” FBI Sacramento Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel said in a news release.

Prosecutors allege that Williamson and one of the unnamed co-conspirators, described only as a former California public official who owned a political consulting firm, used their political strategy firms to funnel money out of a campaign account, believed to be Becerra’s, into an account controlled by McCluskie. They allegedly disguised the funds as payments for McCluskie’s spouse, who was described in the indictment as a stay-at-home parent.

Williamson is also accused of falsely claiming more than $1.7 million in business expenses on her taxes. She used the funds to purchase luxury handbags, chartered jets and a nearly $170,000 birthday trip to Mexico, the indictment alleges.

Williamson, who previously held a high-level position in Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, was well known for her negotiating ability. When she left his office, Newsom said in a statement that he would miss her "insight, tenacity and big heart.”

The indictment indicated that Becerra had no knowledge of the scheme, and he confirmed as much Wednesday afternoon in a written statement via his spokesperson, Owen Kilmer.

“The news today of formal accusations of impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch,” said Becerra, a prominent candidate to succeed Newsom in next year’s gubernatorial election. He added that he had fully cooperated with the U.S. Justice Department and would continue to do so.

“As California’s former Attorney General, I fully comprehend the importance of allowing this investigation and legal process to run its course through our justice system.”

Williamson was scheduled to appear in federal court Wednesday afternoon.

A spokesperson for Newsom distanced the governor from his former top aide.

“While we are still learning details of the allegations, the governor expects all public servants to uphold the highest standards of integrity,” said Izzy Gardon, Newsom’s spokesperson, in a written statement.

“At a time when the president is openly calling for his Attorney General to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one’s peers,” the statement said.

Patel, the special agent in charge, said in a news release that the charges were “the result of three years of relentless investigative work.”

“The FBI will remain vigilant in its efforts to uncover fraud and corruption, ensuring our government systems are held to the highest standards.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

After more than two years of discussion and debate, the Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to significantly lower annual rent increases in most of the city’s apartments.

L.A.’s current rent control rules guarantee landlords the right to raise rents at least 3% every year. Increases can be as high as 10% in some apartments during periods of high inflation.

But under the reforms passed by 12 of the council’s 15 members, rent increases would be capped at 4% annually, and an additional 2% increase for landlords who cover utilities would be eliminated. The exact rate each year would be equal to 90% of the change in the region’s consumer price index, a government measure of economic inflation.

“We need to make a change to this formula,” said Nithya Raman, chair of the council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee ahead of the vote. “Extraordinary rent increases are driving people out of the city.”

The rules passed by the majority of councilmembers would set a new floor of 1% in years of low inflation. Councilmembers Bob Blumenfield and John Lee voted against the changes, and Councilmember Curren Price recused himself from the vote because he is a landlord.

This is the first overhaul of the city’s rent increase formula since 1985. Tenant groups have long argued that the current rules increase costs faster than incomes for many renters, pushing some toward eviction and potential homelessness.

Landlord groups decried the changes, saying the city is further clamping down on their ability to keep up with skyrocketing insurance premiums and steep maintenance costs.

Before the new rules take effect, they still need to be drafted by the City Attorney’s Office and returned to the council for a final vote.

‘We would end up homeless’

The changes represent a step toward but not a full adoption of the demands for a 3% cap at 60% of inflation from tenant groups. Humberto Altamira, an unemployed cook living with his wife in L.A.’s downtown Fashion District, said his family’s rent went up about $50 per month earlier this year, and they would struggle to afford another increase of 3% or more.

“We would end up homeless and living on the street,” Altamira said, speaking in Spanish.

Humberto Altamira and his wife stand in front of L.A. City Hall ahead of a City Council vote on rent control.

(

David Wagner/LAist

)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the city banned increases for nearly four years . The new cap, while comparable to caps in many other Southern California cities, does not reflect the rising costs property owners face, said California Apartment Association spokesperson Fred Sutton.

“Reject arbitrary magic numbers,” Sutton said. “These changes will not create a single new home, but they’ll make it even harder to build, making the housing crisis worse for everyone.”

Where LA rent control applies

The city’s rent control rules generally cover apartments built before October 1978, as well as new units that replace demolished rent-controlled units or are attached to older buildings.

Nearly two-thirds of L.A.’s residents live in rental housing. And because most of them live in older properties, the city’s rent control rules affect about 42% of all L.A. households.

Some councilmembers, including John Lee, said stricter rules would run counter to other local policies to spur housing development, such as Mayor Karen Bass’ executive directive to speed up the approval of affordable housing projects.

“Just as we are gaining momentum, we are considering a change,” Lee said. “This sends the message, ‘Do not build here. Do not invest in Los Angeles.’”

Other councilmembers said getting rental costs under control is key to addressing homelessness. At last count , about 43,500 people lack housing in the city.

“We have an eviction-to-homelessness pipeline,” Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said. “We get calls constantly from property owners about people experiencing homelessness around their buildings.

“We are struggling to deal with that crisis,” Hernandez continued. “We can’t house the number of people every year that are falling into homelessness. And a majority of that is because they can’t afford it.”

To build or not to build?

Renters and landlords crowded into City Council chambers to give public comment ahead of Wednesday’s vote.

Megan Briceño, who owns eight rent-controlled apartments, told LAist she has building permits to construct an accessory dwelling unit on her four-unit property in Mid-City L.A. Because the unit will be rent-controlled, she said the city’s changes could halt her building plans.

“I don't know how much longer I can continue to do business in a city that constantly feels like I'm fighting for my basic property rights, for a basic fair return,” Briceño said.

The process of reforming L.A.’s rent control ordinance was kickstarted in October 2023, when councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Bob Blumenfield asked for an in-depth review of the city’s rules.

LAist obtained the city-commissioned report produced in that process and was the first to publish it in September 2024.

Among other observations and recommendations, the report argued for eliminating an additional 2% annual increase landlords can impose if they pay for a tenant’s electricity and gas service. The report found that over time those increases can eclipse the entire cost of providing those utilities.

The reforms passed Wednesday include the elimination of this utility bump.