Trump Asserts Authority Over Potential Payouts

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said he would have “the final say” on any decision related to compensation, suggesting the matter would ultimately “go across my desk.” He did not confirm specific figures, though The New York Times reported that two administrative claims were filed before his reelection bid seeking financial damages over prior federal inquiries.

Trump claimed he had not discussed the details with officials but reiterated his belief that “they would owe me a lot of money.” He also joked that if any taxpayer money were awarded, he could donate it or use it toward a new ballroom being built at the White House.

Claims Linked to Mar-a-Lago and Russia Investigations

The New York Times reported that Trump’s filings include two separate claims. One, submitted in August 2024, requests compensatory and punitive damages for what his lawyers described as a “malicious prosecution” tied to the 2022 FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago estate. That investigation led to criminal charges alleging he mishandled classified documents and obstructed government recovery efforts.

The second claim reportedly seeks damages related to the now-closed investigation into possible links between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. The long-running inquiry concluded without charges against Trump but remains a political flashpoint that he has repeatedly denounced as baseless.

Justice Department Protocols and Potential Conflicts

The Justice Department follows established procedures to evaluate such administrative claims, often aiming to resolve disputes before they reach the courts. However, Trump’s assertion that he could personally decide on any payout raises questions about executive oversight and ethical boundaries.

One of Trump’s former defense attorneys in the Mar-a-Lago case, Todd Blanche, now serves as deputy attorney general. Another lawyer, Stanley Woodward—who represented Trump’s co-defendant and former aide Walt Nauta—is currently the associate attorney general.

“In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement. The White House deferred all inquiries to the DOJ.

Trump’s Past Comments on Legal Claims

During a recent White House appearance alongside Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump revisited his ongoing disputes with the Justice Department. He described the situation humorously, saying, “I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said: ‘I’m suing myself.’”

He added, “I’ll say, ‘Give me X dollars,’ and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It’s a great lawsuit and now I won—it looks bad. I’m suing myself, so I don’t know.”

The Times reported that the claims were filed through a formal DOJ process that enables settlements to avoid prolonged litigation.

Legal and Political Implications

The Justice Department’s review of Trump’s claims could take months, with any potential settlement requiring internal approval and ethical review. Legal experts note that a sitting president’s involvement in personal claims against federal agencies could present a complex conflict of interest, as it blurs lines between executive authority and personal financial interest.

Trump’s previous legal battles with the federal government, particularly over classified documents, were among the most high-profile investigations of his presidency. Special counsel Jack Smith, who led the Mar-a-Lago probe, dropped related criminal charges in November 2024, citing DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president.

While Trump has framed the cases as politically motivated attempts to derail his return to office, Justice Department officials maintain that their actions followed established legal standards and internal oversight.

Ongoing Review and Public Transparency

As of Wednesday, the status of Trump’s claims and any potential settlement discussions remain unclear. Neither the Justice Department nor the White House has provided a timeline for resolution. Analysts suggest the outcome could influence broader discussions on presidential accountability, executive privilege, and the handling of federal investigations involving elected officials.

Source: AP News – Trump says he’d have final say on money he seeks over past federal investigations into his conduct

The post US President insists any settlement decision must go through him, citing ongoing claims tied to Mar-a-Lago search and Russia inquiry. 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.

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.

In the interview with conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt, Trump also made an assertion that he has been to Gaza. Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt insisted to CNN that the claim is true, but she could not provide a single detail about Trump’s supposed Gaza visit, and CNN and other media outlets have found no evidence that Trump ever went; he certainly did not go as president. You can read more here.

Below is a quick fact check of Trump’s 11 provably false claims in the interview.

Terrorist attacks: Trump repeated his false claim that “we didn’t have one terrorist attack” during his presidency. There were multiple terrorist attacks during his presidency, including some he has spoken about himself.

The defeat of ISIS: Trump repeated his false claim that although others said it would take years to “get rid of” the ISIS terror group, “I got rid of it in a month.” Leaving aside the fact that Trump certainly doesn’t deserve sole credit, the ISIS “caliphate” was declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump’s presidency.

Iran and funding for terror groups: Trump repeated his false claim that Iran did not fund terror groups during his presidency: “They weren’t giving any money, because they had no money.” Iran’s funding for entities designated by the US government as terror groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, did decline in the second half of his presidency, in large part because his sanctions had a major negative impact on the Iranian economy, but the funding never stopped – as Trump’s own administration acknowledged in 2020.

China’s oil purchases from Iran: Trump repeated his false claim that he successfully pressured Chinese leader Xi Jinping into ending oil purchases from Iran; Trump claimed, “He said, ‘I’ll pass.’ He passed. Everybody passed. They did no business.” China’s oil purchases from Iran briefly plummeted in 2019, but they never stopped, and they quickly rebounded while Trump was still president – back up to hundreds of thousands of barrels per day.

Nuclear weapons: Repeating a false claim he made during his presidency, Trump said, “I rebuilt our entire nuclear force.” He simply did not do so, though he did undertake efforts to modernize the US arsenal. “Long story short: then, as now, Trump’s nuclear braggadocio is utter fantasy, wholly divorced from reality,” said Stephen Schwartz, an independent expert on US nuclear weapons policy. “And not only did he not rebuild ‘our entire nuclear force,’ on his watch the total operational nuclear stockpile of warheads and bombs actually decreased by about 100 weapons!”

Global warming and sea levels: Trump delivered another version of his usual false claim about global warming, minimizing the threat by saying it will cause the ocean to rise merely “1/8th of an inch in the next 500 years.” Sea levels are currently rising more than an eighth of an inch per year.

Harris, immigrants and crime: Trump repeated his false claim that Vice President Kamala Harris, his opponent in the presidential election, let in 13,000 murderers and 425,000 criminals over the border. The statistics he was referring to are not specifically about people who entered the country during the Biden-Harris administration; rather, they cover numerous presidential administrations, including his own, over the span of decades – “over the past 40 years or more,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a September statement to CNN. You can read more here.

Pelosi and a stock sale: Trump falsely claimed that the former speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, sold stock in Visa “the day before the lawsuit” that was filed against the company by the Justice Department in September. An official disclosure shows the stock was actually sold by Pelosi’s husband more than two and a half months before the Justice Department filed the lawsuit.

Biden and foreign income: Trump repeated his false claim that President Joe Biden “gets a lot of money from China, or he got a lot of money from China, tremendous amount of money.” After years of investigation by House Republicans, there is still no evidence Biden has received any payments from China.

Chris Wallace in 2020: Trump repeated his false claim that journalist Chris Wallace, now of CNN and formerly of Fox News, tried to stop him, during a presidential debate Wallace moderated in 2020, from asking Biden about a supposed payment from the mayor of Moscow’s wife (which actually went to a company connected to Biden’s son Hunter Biden, not to the president); Trump claimed, “And Chris Wallace wouldn’t let me ask. (Biden) couldn’t answer the question. Chris Wallace stepped in and said, ‘Well, we’re not going to be talking about that.’”

Wallace never said anything like that. As the transcript shows, Wallace interjected during this debate exchange to try to get Trump to allow Biden to answer Trump’s question about the money, not to stop Trump from talking about the subject.

Military equipment surrendered to the Taliban: Trump repeated his false claim that $85 billion in US military equipment was left to the Taliban upon the US withdrawal from Afghanistan under Biden and Harris. Trump’s figure is a massive exaggeration; the Pentagon has estimated that this equipment was worth about $7.1 billion – a chunk of the roughly $18.6 billion worth of equipment provided to Afghan forces between 2005 and 2021.

Source

The post Fact Check: Trump’s Foreign Policy Interview Contains Over 11 False Claims and Misstatements appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.