Published: October 13, 2025, 22:35 EDT

At a recent White House roundtable, former U.S. President Donald Trump and members of his administration portrayed Portland, Oregon, as a violent city dominated by “antifa thugs.” However, verified reports and court documents reveal a much less extreme reality — one marked by isolated protests, occasional disturbances, and a largely normal city life outside limited protest zones.

Protests at Portland’s Federal Facility

Trump’s statement that “antifa thugs” have repeatedly attacked federal property in Portland misrepresents the nature and scale of recent demonstrations.
According to police records and court filings, protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building have taken place intermittently for several months. While tensions did escalate in June — prompting one riot declaration — participation in the weeks leading up to the federal deployment of the National Guard rarely exceeded a few dozen individuals.

Daytime gatherings often included immigration advocates, older residents, and families distributing “know your rights” flyers. Nighttime demonstrations sometimes saw small groups shouting at law enforcement through megaphones.

Experts note that “antifa” is not a single organization but a broad label for decentralized left-wing activist groups opposing fascism and white nationalism. Despite the administration’s rhetoric, evidence of coordinated militant activity remains limited.

Damage and Arrests: Context and Scale

Court documents indicate the ICE facility sustained property damage — including broken windows, vandalized gates, and disabled security cameras — prompting a three-week closure in early summer.
Between June and September, Portland police arrested at least 45 individuals connected to protest-related offenses, while federal prosecutors charged 31 with crimes such as assaulting federal officers.

These figures, though serious, do not reflect a citywide breakdown. Most arrests occurred during concentrated incidents around the ICE site rather than across Portland’s neighborhoods or downtown business areas.

Fires and Violence Claims Overstated

Trump’s assertion that “Portland is on fire” is also contradicted by official reports.
Records from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and local police show that only a handful of small fires have occurred — typically short-lived and quickly extinguished.
In June, one protester lit a flare against a security gate, while another set fire to a prop guillotine on Labor Day. Videos from October showed an American flag briefly burning before a conservative influencer stomped it out.

Though these images circulated widely online, they represent isolated acts rather than widespread arson. A satirical website, isportlandburning.com, even tracks live camera feeds showing the city’s calm streets, mocking exaggerated media claims.

Retail and Infrastructure: Misleading Comparisons

Trump’s claim that “Portland doesn’t even have sewers anymore” is false.
The city’s Bureau of Environmental Services confirms a network of over 2,500 miles of pipes, 100 pump stations, and two major treatment plants — one of the largest urban wastewater systems in the Pacific Northwest.

Local officials also reject the notion that downtown is abandoned.
Portland’s retail district now houses more than 600 active shops, with glass storefronts returning after 2020’s unrest. A report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association found homicides down 51% in the first half of 2025 compared to the previous year, while foot traffic reached its highest level since the pandemic.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek stated she reminded Trump during a phone call that “responding to outdated or misleading imagery does not help communities move forward.”

Homeland Security’s “Cover-Up” Allegations

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem recently claimed Portland officials were “covering up terrorism” during her visit to the city.
However, both Governor Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson disputed her remarks, affirming that while protests continue near the ICE facility, the city remains stable and open.

“There is no insurrection in Portland,” Kotek said, emphasizing that local authorities can handle occasional unrest without military intervention. Wilson added that city law enforcement continues to safeguard free expression while addressing isolated property damage.

Reality on the Ground

Daily life in Portland reflects a far more balanced picture than Trump’s depiction.
Residents continue normal activities — from shopping at farmers markets to attending schools — with little evidence of widespread violence or destruction.

Even near the protest zone, disturbances are largely confined to one block, occasionally prompting rerouted traffic or temporary closures.
Outside that area, neighborhoods, parks, and business corridors operate normally, a fact widely documented by residents using the hashtag #WarRavagedPortland to counter the administration’s narrative.

Fact Check Summary

Independent reporting, municipal data, and eyewitness accounts collectively refute Trump’s portrayal of Portland as a “war zone.”
While protests persist in limited areas, there is no evidence of citywide chaos, infrastructure collapse, or mass violence. The situation illustrates how localized unrest can be amplified into broader political narratives, often detached from verifiable reality.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump paints a grim portrait of Portland. The story on the ground is much less extreme

The post Fact Check: Donald Trump’s Claims on Portland Paint a Misleading Picture appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published Time: 09-18-2025, 14:30 EDT

The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University has sparked a wave of misinformation and misleading narratives across social media platforms. Within hours of the shooting, false claims began circulating, misidentifying the suspect and misrepresenting events surrounding the case.

Authorities later confirmed 22-year-old Tyler Robinson as the suspect, arrested two days after the incident. However, before officials released verified details, online speculation fueled confusion and conspiracy theories. Here’s a breakdown of the most widely shared claims — and the verified facts.

Claim 1: The suspect was a registered Republican

The Facts: This is false. According to official Utah voting records, Tyler Robinson was registered as a voter but was not affiliated with any political party. His voter status is inactive, meaning he did not participate in two consecutive general elections after receiving notice from the county clerk.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox stated that Robinson’s family reported he had become “more political in recent years” and had criticized Kirk publicly. Authorities also confirmed that ammunition recovered at the scene carried engravings with anti-fascist and meme-related messaging.

Claim 2: Robinson was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

The Facts: This claim is untrue. Priscilla Yeverino, a spokesperson for the DSA, confirmed: “We have no members in DSA named Tyler Robinson anywhere in the country.”

The rumor appears to have originated from a photo of a person resembling Robinson wearing a DSA shirt with the slogan “bee the change.” Yeverino declined to verify that individual’s identity, citing concerns for privacy and safety. Despite the lack of evidence, some political figures and commentators speculated about Robinson’s political leanings, further spreading misinformation.

Claim 3: A video shows the shooter escaping after the incident

The Facts: This is misleading. The video circulating online was recorded on July 28 — more than a month before Kirk’s assassination. It actually depicts Dakota Hawver, the suspect in the Grand Sierra Resort shooting in Reno, Nevada.

In that case, Hawver killed three people and injured three others before being shot by police. He later died in the hospital. Despite the footage being widely available in news reports about the Reno tragedy, it was misrepresented online as evidence of Robinson fleeing the Utah scene.

Claim 4: Democrats opposed a moment of prayer for Charlie Kirk in the House

The Facts: This claim misrepresents what occurred. On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson requested a moment of prayer for Kirk and his family. The House observed approximately 30 seconds of silence.

Afterward, Rep. Lauren Boebert called for a spoken prayer, prompting vocal objections and disorder on the House floor. Footage shows lawmakers debating, with some audible “no” responses to Boebert’s request. Speaker Johnson attempted to restore order, clarifying that prayer would follow the session. Social media clips omitting the initial silent prayer fueled claims that Democrats had outright opposed honoring Kirk.

Claim 5: The shooter was identified as Michael Mallinson or George Zinn

The Facts: Both identifications are false. Robinson was officially named as the suspect on Friday.

Canadian citizen Michael Mallinson, age 77, was misidentified online. He told CBC News that he realized the error only after his daughter called in distress, urging him to delete his social media accounts. Mallinson said he had “never heard of Charlie Kirk” before the shooting.

Another man, George Zinn, was briefly taken into custody after being filmed handcuffed by officers. The Utah Department of Public Safety later confirmed Zinn was detained but not charged in connection with Kirk’s death. He was instead charged with obstruction and has no current ties to the shooting.

The Pattern of Misinformation After Tragedy

Experts note that misinformation often spreads rapidly in the immediate aftermath of high-profile incidents. In this case, speculation about Robinson’s background, false videos, and misleading political narratives gained traction before official updates clarified the facts.

Authorities have urged the public to rely on verified statements from law enforcement and trusted news outlets. As investigations continue, officials caution against sharing unverified claims that could further fuel confusion or harm innocent individuals.

Conclusion

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has left a significant impact not only politically but also in highlighting how quickly misinformation can spread during national crises. While Tyler Robinson has been identified as the suspect, the incident underscores the importance of fact-checking and waiting for verified information before drawing conclusions.

Source: AP News – Assassination of Charlie Kirk prompts flood of false and misleading claims online

The post False Claims Spread After Charlie Kirk Assassination at Utah Valley University appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As immigration-related protests erupted in Los Angeles recently, a viral Craigslist ad sparked a flurry of conspiracy theories across social media — claims that the demonstrations were full of “paid protesters.” But here’s the truth: the ad was a prank, and it had nothing to do with the protests.

Let’s break it down.

The Claim:

Social media posts on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok shared screenshots of a Craigslist ad seeking “the toughest badasses in the city,” claiming it was proof that the protests in LA were staged and participants were being paid. The ad even listed wild weekly pay ranging from $6,500 to $12,500.

Some users went further, calling the demonstrations “a funded operation,” accusing Democrats of orchestrating chaos to destabilize the country and supposedly profit from federal aid in the aftermath.

But none of that is true.

The Real Story Behind the Ad:

The ad was actually part of a stunt for a new prank show called Goofcon1, co-hosted by Joey LaFleur and Logan Quiroz. LaFleur, who posted the Craigslist ad in LA’s “general labor” section, told the Associated Press that it was meant to be a bit — a joke for the podcast’s Friday episode. In fact, he posted it the day before the protests even began.

“I literally had no idea it was ever going to be connected to the riots,” LaFleur said. “It was a really weird coincidence.”

During the Goofcon1 livestream, the hosts even spoke with people who had responded to the ad — which was intentionally over-the-top and militaristic. LaFleur also posted a similar ad in Austin, Texas, but it didn’t get much attention.

How the Hoax Took Off Online:

Despite being a joke, screenshots of the ad quickly circulated online as “evidence” that protesters were being paid. One post on X claimed, “CALIFORNIA RIOT IS A FUNDED OPERATION,” garnering thousands of likes and shares. A TikTok video accusing demonstrators of being “paid agitators” also racked up over 14,000 views.

Some users even claimed the protests were “fake” and orchestrated by Democrats — all based on a prank ad.

LaFleur responded to the confusion with disbelief — and humor. On his Instagram story, he posted: “Accidentally goofed the entire nation on the latest @goofcon1.” In another post, he joked: “If I get on Newsmax, that could be funny.”

A Familiar Pattern of Misinformation:

This isn’t the first time false claims about “paid protesters” have gone viral. During the 2020 protests following George Floyd’s killing, similar conspiracy theories flooded the internet. These claims resurface anytime a major protest draws national or global attention — feeding narratives of orchestrated unrest, even when no such plot exists.

Bottom Line:

The viral Craigslist ad was never about the LA protests. It was a prank — nothing more. But it’s another reminder of how easily misinformation spreads, especially when it fits into an existing narrative of political distrust.

So next time you see an outrageous claim floating around online, take a moment to dig a little deeper. Sometimes, the “smoking gun” is just a podcast prank gone viral.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: A Craigslist ad is not proof of paid protesters in LA. It was posted as a prank

The post Viral Craigslist Ad About ‘Tough Dudes’ Had Nothing to Do With LA Protests appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

BATON ROUGE, La. — When Louisiana State Rep. Kimberly Landry Coates stepped up to the podium to present her bill banning chemical spraying in the skies, she knew it might raise eyebrows.

“This might seem strange,” she warned her colleagues.

To some, it did more than that. As she called on fellow lawmakers to “start looking up,” Coates invoked the widely debunked chemtrail conspiracy theory—the belief that the white lines left behind by aircraft are not ordinary vapor trails, but intentional chemical releases with sinister goals ranging from mind control to climate manipulation.

Despite being thoroughly discredited by the scientific community, this theory is now making its way into formal legislation in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, and over a dozen others. The proposed laws aim to prohibit intentional atmospheric chemical releases—despite no verified evidence that such programs even exist.

But for researchers, educators, and media literacy advocates, the shift from online fringe to official lawmaking is more than a curiosity—it’s a red flag.

“Every bill like this gives undue weight to misinformation,” said Donnell Probst, interim executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. “It tells people these conspiracies deserve to be debated like real issues. That’s dangerous.”

How Did We Get Here? The Origins of the Chemtrail Myth

The chemtrail theory first gained traction in the late 1990s, after a 1996 U.S. Air Force report titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 began circulating online. Though speculative and clearly labeled as fiction, conspiracy theorists latched onto it as supposed proof of government weather control efforts.

The theory quickly snowballed, with some claiming the long, lingering trails behind aircraft were evidence of secret chemical spraying programs. These claims blurred the line between chemtrails and contrails—the latter being harmless condensation trails formed when jet engine exhaust meets cold, moist air at high altitudes.

“Contrails are mostly water vapor,” explained Ken Leppert, atmospheric science professor at the University of Louisiana Monroe. “They’ve existed since the beginning of jet travel. There’s no malicious intent behind them.”

Despite decades of scientific consensus and government transparency efforts, belief in chemtrails persists. A 2016 peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters found that 76 of 77 atmospheric scientists surveyed had seen no evidence whatsoever supporting claims of a large-scale, secret atmospheric spraying program.

Real Science Misused—and Misunderstood

In their push to regulate atmospheric spraying, many lawmakers have cited real but unrelated scientific fields—often confusing or misrepresenting them.

Take cloud seeding, for instance. It’s a method used in some regions to increase rainfall by dispersing particles (often silver iodide) into clouds. But it’s far from widespread and has never been practiced in Louisiana.

“Cloud seeding is extremely limited in its effectiveness,” Leppert said. “It’s not a tool for weather control—it’s more like nudging clouds under the right conditions. Louisiana doesn’t even issue permits for it.”

Then there’s geoengineering, which includes hypothetical methods for slowing climate change—such as solar radiation modification (SRM), which proposes reflecting sunlight to cool the planet. Though this idea is being studied in early-stage reports, no such programs are active or approved.

Coates, however, held up government planning documents on SRM as proof of atmospheric interference, ignoring the fact that these reports are speculative and publicly available.

The Political Echo Chamber

The chemtrail theory’s migration from internet forums to legislative chambers didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s been amplified by high-profile political figures and celebrities who lend it mainstream visibility.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is running for president as an independent, has repeatedly trafficked in conspiracy narratives, including those related to vaccines and environmental manipulation. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has also echoed chemtrail concerns publicly.

And in Florida, a bill similar to Louisiana’s drew support from Marla Maples, the ex-wife of Donald Trump, who cited a rise in Alzheimer’s as her reason for getting involved.

When a Democratic state senator asked Maples if she knew anyone in the federal government who might help address the issue, she smiled and said, “I sure do.”

These endorsements, however informal, further blur the line between anecdote and evidence—and lend political weight to scientifically baseless claims.

Symbolic Bills, Real Costs

While some lawmakers frame these bills as precautionary or symbolic, critics say the symbolism sends the wrong message—especially when real public health and environmental challenges remain unaddressed.

Louisiana, for example, struggles with some of the nation’s highest poverty, incarceration, crime, and maternal mortality rates. Democratic Rep. Denise Marcelle didn’t hold back in her critique of the chemtrail bill.

“We owe the people of Louisiana better than this,” Marcelle said. “We should be solving problems we can actually see—not chasing ones that aren’t real.”

Even if such legislation carries no practical enforcement, experts worry it gives false narratives a platform, saps attention from critical policy needs, and misleads the public into thinking fabricated issues are matters of legitimate concern.

“It’s not just about one bill,” said Probst. “It’s about the larger trend of misinformation becoming legislation. And that should worry all of us.”

The Bigger Picture: Misinformation in the Mainstream

The chemtrail debate isn’t just about what’s happening in the sky. It’s a reflection of what’s happening on the ground—in statehouses, on social media, and in public discourse.

As lawmakers increasingly face pressure from constituents influenced by online misinformation, the line between conspiracy and policy continues to blur. And in that blur, experts say, democracy is at risk.

“We need science-informed policymaking now more than ever,” said Leppert. “Not just to deal with real environmental challenges, but to protect the integrity of our legislative process.”

Source: AP News – Unsubstantiated ‘chemtrail’ conspiracy theories lead to legislation proposed in US statehouses

The post Chemtrails in the Legislature: How Conspiracy Theories Are Shaping Real Laws appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As tensions heat up between the Trump administration and Harvard University—one of the most prestigious and oldest universities in the U.S.—President Donald Trump recently made a claim about Harvard’s math curriculum that just doesn’t hold water.

During a swearing-in ceremony at the White House, Trump criticized Harvard, saying the university is now offering “remedial mathematics” courses covering basics like “two plus two is four,” and questioned how students who supposedly struggle with such simple math could have even gotten into Harvard in the first place.

Let’s break down what’s really going on.

The Claim:

“Harvard announced two weeks ago that they’re going to teach remedial mathematics, remedial, meaning they’re going to teach low grade mathematics like two plus two is four. How did these people get into Harvard? If they can’t, if they can’t do basic mathematics, how did they do it?”

The Facts:

Simply put, Harvard does not offer any remedial math class that teaches basic arithmetic like addition or subtraction. What Trump seems to be referring to is a new course format called Mathematics MA5, which launched in fall 2024—not a remedial course, but an enhanced version of Harvard’s introductory freshman calculus class.

James Chisholm, spokesperson for Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, clarified, “Harvard College does not offer any so-called remedial math classes. Math MA5 is a college-level calculus course. It’s just a new format of Math MA, the introductory calculus course that has been taught at Harvard for decades.”

The main difference? MA5 meets five days a week instead of three, providing extra support. However, the homework, exams, and grading for both courses are exactly the same. Both classes serve as prerequisites for more advanced math studies.

Why the Extra Support?

According to Harvard’s Director of Introductory Math, Brendan Kelly, the MA5 course was designed to help students who may have lost some foundational algebra skills due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The extra sessions focus on reinforcing algebra, geometry, and quantitative reasoning skills, rather than teaching elementary arithmetic.

What About Harvard Extension School?

Some confusion may come from Harvard Extension School, a separate program aimed at adult learners and continuing education students. This school offers precalculus and other courses, but it is completely separate from Harvard College—the undergraduate program with highly competitive admissions.

James Chisholm emphasized, “Harvard Extension School is 100% distinct from Harvard College and the two have nothing to do with each other in terms of curriculum or students.”

Supporting Students with Additional Needs

Harvard also runs programs like the Rising Scholars Program and Emerging Scholars Program, which provide extra academic support to select incoming and current students who come from high schools with limited advanced coursework opportunities. These programs aim to address long-standing inequalities in K-12 math and science education and are not about teaching basic arithmetic to students who can’t do math.

The Reality of Harvard Admissions

Let’s put this in perspective: the median math SAT score for Harvard’s most recent entering class was an impressive 790 out of 800. The average ACT math score was 35 out of 36, with a median high school GPA of 4.2.

Brian Taylor of Ivy Coach, a college counseling service, sums it up best: “There is no university in America as difficult to get into as Harvard—no matter your background. President Trump’s math here simply doesn’t add up.”

Bottom Line

While Harvard continues to provide support to ensure all students are ready for rigorous college-level math, it does not teach remedial arithmetic to undergraduates. The claim that Harvard is offering “low grade” math like basic addition is not just inaccurate—it’s misleading.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump’s claims about remedial math at Harvard don’t add up

The post The Truth Behind Harvard’s Math Courses and Trump’s Misleading Statement appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments on whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect, he made a striking claim on Truth Social: that the United States is the only country in the world that grants citizenship simply by being born on its soil.

This claim is false.

Back on January 20, the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally or only temporarily. However, lower courts quickly blocked this order nationwide, and the administration is now appealing these decisions, challenging the authority of judges to issue such broad injunctions. Importantly, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether the executive order itself is constitutional.

Let’s break down the facts.

Trump’s Claim vs. Reality

On Truth Social, Trump said:
“The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows.”

But the truth is quite different.

According to the CIA World Factbook and the Library of Congress, about 30 countries worldwide offer unconditional birthright citizenship, including Canada, Mexico, and many nations in Africa and Asia. The U.S. is far from unique in this regard.

“The statement is pretty obviously wrong,” says Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and expert on constitutional law and migration rights. “Many countries have birthright citizenship, though in some of them the rules differ from those in the U.S.”

What Is Birthright Citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is based on the principle of jus soli — Latin for “right of the soil.” It means that anyone born within a country’s borders automatically gains citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

This contrasts with jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” where citizenship depends on the nationality of one’s parents or ancestors.

In the U.S., birthright citizenship is nearly unconditional. Children born on American soil are citizens, except for two narrow exceptions: children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy soldiers occupying the country during wartime. Historically, Native Americans were excluded until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

A Historical Foundation

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This Citizenship Clause overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that Black people — enslaved or free — could not be citizens. It was a monumental shift in American history, affirming citizenship rights regardless of race or parentage (with the limited exceptions noted).

Trump’s Executive Order Faces Legal Hurdles

Trump’s executive order attempts to restrict birthright citizenship in a way that conflicts with longstanding Supreme Court precedent, notably a decision from 1898 that confirmed the Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all born on U.S. soil except in very specific, rare cases.

Currently, the Supreme Court is considering this case alongside other immigration-related appeals brought by the Trump administration.

What This Means

The U.S. is not unique in offering birthright citizenship — many countries around the world have similar policies. The ongoing legal battle will determine whether Trump’s effort to limit this constitutional right can move forward, but the claim that the U.S. stands alone on this issue is simply wrong.

As the debate unfolds, understanding the history and facts behind birthright citizenship helps cut through the political rhetoric and misinformation.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump claims the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. It’s not

The post Trump’s Claim That Only the U.S. Has Birthright Citizenship Is False appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

By [Your Name] | Updated June 2, 2025

At a White House event on Monday, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at lowering prescription drug prices in the U.S.—but not without making a controversial claim. According to Trump, other countries are the reason Americans pay more for their medications.

“We were subsidizing others’ healthcare,” Trump said. “They pay a small fraction for the same drug. The European Union has been brutal. But we’re not going to tolerate profiteering and price gouging anymore.”

It’s a powerful statement, but experts say the facts simply don’t support it.

THE CLAIM:

Trump argues that the U.S. is essentially “subsidizing” cheaper drug prices in countries like those in the EU by paying many times more for the same medications.

THE FACTS: It’s a U.S. System Problem, Not a Foreign One

Yes, Americans pay more for prescription drugs. In fact, much more.

A 2024 RAND Corporation report found that U.S. drug prices were, on average, 2.78 times higher than those in 33 other high-income countries. Brand-name drugs account for most of the gap. The U.S. represented a massive 62% of global drug sales—but only 24% of actual drug volume.

So why the huge difference? Experts say it’s not because other countries are exploiting the U.S., but because of how America’s fragmented pricing system works.

“There are structural differences in the way that we price drugs in the United States,” said Mariana Socal, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins. “Those differences are what drive the price gap.”

How Drug Pricing Works in the U.S. vs. Abroad

In most countries, a single national agency negotiates drug prices on behalf of everyone. That gives them enormous leverage. In the U.S., by contrast, pricing is negotiated separately by dozens of private insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—a setup that weakens bargaining power and drives up costs.

“Anything that increases negotiating power—like covering more people—puts downward pressure on prices,” explained Courtney Yarbrough, a health policy professor at Emory University.

This isn’t new. It’s the reason drug companies often push higher prices in the U.S. while accepting lower profits elsewhere. A smaller margin overseas is better than no access at all.

What Does Trump’s Executive Order Actually Do?

Trump’s order sets a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to voluntarily lower prices in the U.S. If they don’t, a new “most favored nation” pricing rule would be drafted, tying U.S. drug prices to the lowest prices in similarly developed countries.

It sounds tough, but it’s unclear how much it will affect people with private insurance, since the federal government’s control mainly extends to Medicare and Medicaid.

And no—if U.S. prices drop, other countries won’t automatically start paying more. Experts say those countries may instead cut quiet deals or negotiate steeper discounts behind closed doors.

“We’re not in a static global pharmaceutical market,” Yarbrough added.

Why Drug Prices Stay High: It’s Not Just About Foreign Nations

The real story behind high drug prices in the U.S. has more to do with corporate incentives and market exclusivity. Manufacturers, PBMs, and wholesalers all benefit financially from higher list prices. Many companies also use patents strategically to delay cheaper generics from entering the market.

“There are no saints in this industry,” said Geoffrey Joyce, health policy director at USC’s Schaeffer Center. “Everyone makes more money off of higher list prices, so they keep pushing them up.”

While Trump threatened investigations into Big Pharma at the same press event, he also offered a surprisingly friendly defense of the industry—blaming other nations for their pricing tactics instead.

BOTTOM LINE:

The U.S. isn’t subsidizing other countries’ healthcare. Americans pay more for prescription drugs largely because of how the U.S. market is structured, not because of any unfair pressure from Europe or elsewhere. Trump’s executive order may aim to tackle the issue, but blaming other countries misses the mark.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump blames other countries for high US drug prices. Experts say it’s not their fault

The post Fact Check: Are Other Countries to Blame for U.S. Drug Prices? appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Claim: President Donald Trump recently claimed the United States “subsidizes Canada to the tune of maybe $200 billion a year.”
Reality: That number doesn’t hold up to scrutiny — and calling it a “subsidy” misses the mark entirely.

What’s This About?

During a recent White House meeting with newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, President Trump revived a familiar talking point — that the U.S. is pouring money into Canada, allegedly in the form of military protection and trade imbalances.

“It’s hard to justify subsidizing Canada to the tune of maybe $200 billion a year,” Trump said. “We protect Canada militarily… But why are we subsidizing Canada $200 billion a year or whatever the number might be?”

So let’s unpack that. Does the U.S. actually give Canada anything close to $200 billion annually? Short answer: No. Not even close.

Where Did the Number Come From?

The White House says the $200 billion claim loosely stems from two things:

1. The U.S. trade deficit with Canada
2. U.S. military spending, particularly on NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command)

Let’s break these down.

The Trade Deficit ≠ Subsidy

According to U.S. government data:

• The 2024 trade deficit with Canada (goods and services combined) was about $35.7 billion.
• If you look only at goods, that number ranges higher — $63.3 billion to $70.6 billion.
• The White House estimate? Around $53.5 billion, which matches 2022 figures.

But here’s the issue: A trade deficit is not a subsidy.

“That’s never been the definition of a subsidy,” says Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “A subsidy is a gift without compensation.”

Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti of the Brookings Institution adds that trade deficits reflect different national demands and economic specializations — not handouts.

Military Spending: Not a One-Way Street

The second part of the claim revolves around defense spending.

In 2024:

• Canada spent $29.3 billion on defense (about 1.3% of GDP).
• The U.S., by comparison, spent a whopping $997 billion, or 3.4% of its GDP — well above the NATO-recommended 2% benchmark.

True, Canada falls short of NATO’s target, and yes, Trump has repeatedly called out allies for that. But does that shortfall mean the U.S. is “subsidizing” Canada?

Not exactly, says Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

“No, they don’t owe us that money, but they aren’t paying their fair share, and that’s a fair criticism.”

To put it into perspective:

• If Canada were to meet the 2% NATO guideline, it would need to spend around $44.8 billion — meaning it currently underspends by about $15.5 billion.
• Add that to the trade deficit, and you still only reach about $51 billion — a far cry from $200 billion.

Even using the highest goods-only deficit, the total doesn’t exceed $86 billion.

What About NORAD?

NORAD — the U.S.-Canada joint air defense initiative — often comes up in these discussions.

The U.S. does cover about 60% of NORAD costs, based on a 1985 cost-sharing agreement. But actual spending details aren’t public, making the full picture unclear.

Canada has committed significant NORAD investments:

• $4.9 billion USD over 6 years
• $27.7 billion USD over 20 years (on an accrual basis)

Defense economists Binyam Solomon and Ross Fetterly published a 2023 paper analyzing NORAD’s cost-sharing. Here’s what they found:

• The U.S. shoulders roughly 97.6% of North American defense costs but receives 64% of the benefits.
• Canada contributes about 2%, but still benefits from 36% of the security umbrella.
• Adjusting for geographical vulnerabilities flips that benefit distribution sharply in the U.S.’s favor.

In other words, the U.S. may spend more — but it’s also protecting itself.

“Even if the Canadians pulled out, we’d have to have something like [NORAD] in place,” Cancian notes. “So I would not consider that a subsidy at all. Canadians can make a fair argument that we owe them.”

Bottom Line

No, the U.S. does not subsidize Canada by $200 billion a year.
The number is based on a misunderstanding — or misrepresentation — of trade deficits and military cooperation.

Even using inflated estimates, you don’t get anywhere near $200 billion. More importantly, labeling trade deficits and NATO shortfalls as “subsidies” simply isn’t accurate.

Misinformation about international relationships can erode trust and mislead the public. That’s why fact-checking matters — especially when the numbers don’t add up.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump claims the US subsidizes Canada. Experts say the numbers don’t add up

The post No, the U.S. Doesn’t Subsidize Canada by $200 Billion — Here’s the Real Story appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.