For years, pharmaceutical executives have insisted that drug prices are out of their hands. Government red tape, research costs, and reimbursement rules are all offered as explanations for why Americans pay more at the pharmacy counter than anyone else in the developed world.  It’s a tidy narrative. It’s also only half-true—pharma could easily drop its prices. But government has ensured that it has little reason to do so. In a functioning market, companies charge what the market will bear. Those prices typically lower over time due to innovation, competition, and other factors. In only a few industries has the opposite happened—housing, higher education, and health care—all industries where incentives are skewed by government policies.  In the pharmaceutical industry, many factors create market disincentives. For example, U.S. taxpayers contribute roughly $17 billion each year to early-stage research and clinical studies, yet companies still price their products as if every cost rests solely on their own books. In most industries, a subsidy of that size would reduce the final price of a product. In pharmaceuticals, it has done the opposite. Then there’s the government-guaranteed demand. Schools and the military require routine vaccinations, while federal insurance programs cover millions of prescriptions. These are not competitive markets. They are compelled markets where suppliers face little risk of losing large blocks of customers. Whenever demand is guaranteed by federal or state policy, the incentive to price competitively weakens. A market that cannot walk away is a market that pays more. Finally, we have patent abuse, where pharmaceutical companies create virtual monopolies by extending patents for critical and life-saving drugs again and again (and again), far beyond reason and beyond what many patients can afford. Most industries do not enjoy this combination of subsidized research and guaranteed large scale buyers. A restaurant chain cannot rely on federal dollars to cover its early expansion. A tech startup cannot demand that public schools purchase its software. An airline cannot treat government agencies as automatic customers who have no alternative suppliers. They all compete in markets where price is constrained by consumer choice and competitive pressure. The irony is that pharma companies are behaving exactly as economic theory predicts. Again, students complain about high college prices—but they keep going up because of government loan, scholarship, and other policies that bring in billions as long as students can be convinced to sign the dotted line. The same is true in housing, where well-intentioned government homeownership goals have created poor incentives for lenders and buyers alike (see the 2007 financial crash for an example of what happens when those incentive-created bubbles eventually pop). The problem is not that companies follow incentives. The problem is that the incentives in the pharma market are distorted by public policy choices that tilt the field in one direction. The lesson for policymakers and the public is straightforward. If we want a drug market that behaves like a market, we must design one. That means aligning research incentives with affordability and rethinking mandates that guarantee revenue without requiring accountability.  A firm’s first obligation is to its owners. If the structure of a market allows it to raise prices, reduce competition or shield revenue, the firm is expected to pursue those advantages. And there is nothing inherently wrong with companies pursuing profit. But there is something wrong with a system that shields them from the competitive forces that keep other industries honest. When companies say they can’t lower prices, it usually means that they simply don’t want to. But prices are choices made by all market players—such as consumers, manufacturers, and government regulators. The sooner we acknowledge that prices are not set in stone, the sooner Americans can stop footing the bill for a pharmaceutical system that pretends otherwise. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Big Pharma’s High Prices Are Its Own Decision—and the Government’s Fault appeared first on The Daily Signal.

During oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor threatened America with a good time, warning that the administration is “asking us to destroy the structure of government.” Great. It’s about time an unaccountable fourth branch of the state was decimated. Trump v. Slaughter revolves around the president’s ability to fire executive branch officials without cause at “independent” agencies. For one thing, nowhere does the Constitution empower Congress to create “independent” anything. The notion is a concoction of our worst former president, Woodrow Wilson, and it was codified nearly a century ago in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, when the court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasilegislative, executive and judicial agency. Google AI still informs me that the Federal Trade Commission is an “independent agency” that is “technically within the executive branch structure,” which is not a real thing. Moreover, even if it were one, the scope of “independent” agencies has expanded significantly since 1934. In some ways, they now have more power over Americans than any branch. There is no conception of the founding that included a sprawling autonomous administrative state empowered to create its own rules, investigate citizens, adjudicate guilt, impose fines and destroy lives. The Supreme Court already overturned the Chevron deference, which granted agencies nearly unfettered powers to create regulatory regimes without Congress. Humphrey’s Executor deserves the same fate. But we should not ignore the political aspect of the debate over “independent” agencies: the Left’s bad-faith warnings about the collapse of the constitutional order. Legacy media outlets warn that the Supreme Court is “poised to expand presidential powers” or “vastly expand presidential powers.” Modern presidents have taken far too much power, no doubt. Often, that power is unconstitutionally handed to the executive by Congress, as in the case of levying tariffs. Article II of the Constitution, however, unsurprisingly vests control of the executive branch in the executive. So what power is being expanded here? One that explicitly exists? Or rather, as professor Randy Barnett asks: Argument: Allowing the president to remove administrative officials will transfer an enormous amount of power to the president. Question: Transfer from whom? Who currently has all that power? The answer is one of the political parties, which has crammed bureaucracies with activists. The setup is reminiscent of the “nomenklatura” in the Soviet Union. Now, Democrats are panicking about presidential power. But their entire conception of the constitutional order is upside-down or inside out or whatever form helps them best today. When in power, Democrats champion the democratization of the only branch of government that’s explicitly meant to be undemocratic: the courts. Prominent Democrats, including presidential candidates, endorse the idea of packing the Supreme Court to create an ever-expanding pseudo-legislature. The Supreme Court, of course, exists to uphold the law, not answer to the whims and vagaries of the electorate. When in power, Democrats (though they are certainly not alone in this regard) demand that the executive act as if he were a one-man legislative branch. Perhaps no modern president has abused executive power more than former President Barack Obama, who engaged in a litany of unilateral acts, including, but certainly not limited to, ignoring Congress and legalizing millions of illegal immigrants without Congress. His Democratic successor, former President Joe Biden, not only attempted to “forgive” billions of dollars in private loans but also tried to declare the Equal Rights Amendment the “law of the land” via an X post, to the cheers of many Democrats. Now, Democrats, the great guardians of “democracy,” argue that the country is in peril because commissioners in agencies within the executive branch will be under the purview of the president. It’s reminiscent of when Democrats warned us that the Supreme Court was crushing “democracy” when it overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the matter of abortion to voters. Is it in the best interest of the country for the president to allow agencies (small “i”) independence for the sake of governing stability? Yes. Constantly interfering with, for instance, the FTC for short-term partisan gain undermines the country. The temperament of candidates is an important matter for the electorate to contemplate when it chooses a president. The Constitution did not create an FTC immune from oversight. Of course, if you don’t want presidents to wield power over vast bureaucracies, the best thing to do is to shrink them or not create them in the first place. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Left Doesn’t Believe in the Constitutional Order appeared first on The Daily Signal.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was “delighted” when he learned Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, is running for Senate.   “I think it’s one of the greatest things that’s happened to the Republican Party in a long, long time,” Johnson, R-La., said.   “I want her to have the largest, loudest microphone that she can every single day, and we look forward to having that election down there,” the House speaker added.   Crockett, who is viewed as a member of the Democrat’s far-left cohort, officially announced her bid for Senate on Monday. The Texas lawmaker has made a number of claims in the past which Republicans no doubt plan to use against her.   During an interview with Vanity Fair last year, Crockett indicated she thinks Latino voters have a “slave mentality” when it comes to their view of immigration policy. She also recommended tax exemptions for black people, has called Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “slave patrol,” and has referred to Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who is in a wheelchair, as “governor hot wheels.”  Republicans appear poised to paint Crockett, and her rhetoric, as the face of the Democratic Party, and while it is unlikely Crockett can pull out a Senate win in deep red Texas, the margin of her support, or lack thereof, may prove to be a critical indication of the nation’s political temperature.   On this week’s edition of “Problematic Women,” we discuss what Democrats, and Republicans, will be watching for during Crockett’s run for Senate. Also on today’s show, we break down what you need to know about Charlie Kirk’s latest, and last, book, “Stop, in the Name of God: Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Transform Your Life.”   And some celebrities and podcasters continue to attack Erika Kirk—we discuss why. Plus, Time has named its person, or persons, of the year. Is the magazine’s choice accurate?   All this and more on this week’s edition of “Problematic Women” with special guest and Daily Caller reporter Ashley Brasfield.   The post Is Jasmine Crockett a Force for GOP to Fear? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Sami Winc dissect the effort to impeach Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and the Biden administration’s effort to drum white conservative males out of the service. Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., announced Wednesday his intention to file articles of impeachment against Hegseth, for “Murder and Conspiracy to Murder and Recklessness and Unlawful Mishandling of Classified Information.” The first charge is in connection with a Sept. 2 military strike on a boat believed to be carrying drugs to the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and, of course, President Donald Trump have also faced impeachment calls this week from House Democrats.   Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a segment from today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.  Sami Winc: What do you think about these impeachments? They’re obviously not going to go through. So, what’s the point? Victor Davis Hanson: Why are they doing it? They don’t control the House. It’s just a way. Now you mentioned these guys’ names, and now I know them. That’s what it’s for. Our listeners heard their names. That’s it.  They’re not going to get an impeachment majority vote. And there’s no way in the world they’re going to get 60 senators to vote. No way for a conviction. So, I would ask them, “What would be an impeachable offense if you’re Pete Hegseth?” He took out 30 boats. Let’s say there were seven people on them, right? He didn’t kill anybody, but 20 people were killed in this kinetic operation.  Barack Obama killed over 550. I haven’t heard Pete Hegseth joke about it. Let me just ask the two congressmen this question: I’m Pete Hegseth. You know, I didn’t think I was good at killing, but I found out I’m well suited for it. And then he’s going tell to a big audience, all the media in Washington, all the marquee media in America, he’s going to say, I just want to make a joke. Anybody want to date my daughters? It’s called  P-R-E-D-A-T-O-R, Predator drone strike. Be careful.  So, what are [Hegseth]’s crimes? Well, he came in, and they were 45,000 recruits short in the military, and they had drummed out between 8,000 and 8,500 people for not getting the mRNA vaccination. Aside from the question of whether that was a wise move, most of those people had had COVID by that time. So, they had a natural immunity. And we know now that the natural immunity is as good or better than the boosters or whatever. Speaking to someone who had both Moderna and I’ve had four cases of COVID, two serious and two not as bad. And then, they were letting in 10,000 people a day across the border without any audit. So, they were telling the U.S. military, you’ve got to get an experimental, unproven Moderna or Pfizer vaccination, but the people coming from Latin America or all over the world, they don’t have to. They’re more entitled than you are.  So, he solved that problem. There’s no recruitment crisis. Why are you raising your hand?  Winc: Because I want to say something about that. They undoubtedly felt in the military under [President Joe] Biden that they could get rid of people that were politically right-wing if they said people who did not get vaccinations, because the majority of the people that were against either vaccinations or the lockdown tended to be the right wing. So that was probably more the goal than anything else.  Hanson: This is what they did. This is what they did intentionally. [Former Secretary of Defense] Lloyd Austin and Joe Biden. And to an extent, Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken. They said to the military, how do we get rid of these conservative people in the ranks? Well, they are more likely, as you said, not to get vaccinated. Let’s get rid of 8,500. These were some really good veterans, great people.  Then they said, well, let’s really push the trans, gay, DEI agenda. Let’s run commercials of women pregnant in air suits. Let’s have trans shows on military bases. Let us have, we won’t call them quotas, that’s illegal, but we will have racial quotas and gender quotas. And let’s have women in combat units regardless. We’ll lower the standards. What was all the purpose of that? They said it was for inclusivity and diversity. No, it was to target a particular type of soldier. And that soldier fits a profile. Let’s just take today’s potential recruit, 18. His father fought in the Gulf War. His father fought in Vietnam. His father fought in Korea. His father, or grandfather, fought in World War II. His great-grandfather fought in World War I. That was the type of demographic that volunteers to go into the military, especially the Army. And I say this until I turn blue in the face, but if you go in and try to decipher Pentagon websites or Pentagon-related—and they do not want to talk about this—but if you look at it, they have every DEI stat you can imagine. How many colonels are black? How many women are in combat units? The dead? That’s hard. How many people died by race? But if you can find that, and I have found it, it’s about 72 to 74% in Afghanistan and Iraq. So let me just summarize. They came in and said we do not like these recruits. And we’re going to keep in your face DEI, in your face vaccination, and we’re gonna insult them on radical abortion, and we’re gonna get rid of them. And then they said, well, these people constitute white male rural, Southern, you know what I’m talking about, our suburbs, they constitute about 35%, 70%, 67%—I know they inflate, there’s multiracial, all that—but say 67 to 70% are white and half of that. So, you’re talking about 34 to 35% of that pool was dying at double their numbers. And yet that was the one they targeted to get rid of them. And they did. They just quit. 45,000 of them. Then you go to the Pentagon websites, and you think who is not being recruited? And you can see it, that was 90% white males. Then you talk to retired officers and generals, and they email you or they’re angry at you or they trash you if you say this, and they have me.  Then you ask them why the shortfall? They will give you every answer except the truth. They will not say that white males die at twice their numbers in the demographic, and we try to alienate them through these social programs. They’ll say, people are too fat. They have too many tattoos. They’re on drugs. They’re out of shape. We have to compete with private enterprise. It’s all a lie. And he solved that problem, Pete Hegseth. There is no shortage now. All of them are back. And he solved the problem as well of if you want to smuggle drugs into the United States and you’re in Latin America, we have a wall across the southern border now and there’s zero entry, then you have to come by sea. And he was waiting for them. And they kill 75,000 people a year through imported fentanyl and fentanyl-like drugs.  [Hegseth is] compared to what? I think George W. Bush ordered targeted assassinations of about 50 people. He never killed a U.S. citizen. Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump have not killed more than 30 or 40 people, maybe more in Iraq in the first term or Syria. And they have not, to our knowledge, killed a U.S. citizen. And the very people who joked about it under [Barack] Obama are now wanting to impeach him. And then the final thing he’s done very good: He’s broken up the idea that you only buy major weapons systems from Raytheon or General Dynamics or Lockheed or Northrop. These are all great companies. The people that run them are great, but they’re very expensive. $14 billion carriers, $75 million planes, $170 million fighters. So why not a million drones? Why not a million robotic drones on land? Why not a million drones in the ocean? Why not cheap missiles that people carry on their back? So, that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to break up that monopoly and get on the shelf practical quantity as well as quality.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: Impeach Hegseth? You Should Be Thanking Hegseth appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Congress works to reach a deal addressing the expiration of Affordable Care Act subsidies, President Donald Trump revealed abortion funding is a “factor” in the decision. The Daily Signal asked Trump Friday night if he would assure Republicans he won’t propose or accept a health care deal that continues to allow abortion funding under Obamacare. “We’re going to look into it,” he responded. “We’re going to look into a lot of things. That’s one of many factors.” “What we do wanna see is the money go to the people, not the insurance companies,” he added. I asked @POTUS if he will assure Republicans he won't propose or accept a healthcare deal that continues to allow abortion funding under Obamacare. "We're going to look into it. We're going to look into a lot of things. That's one of that's one of many factors," he told… pic.twitter.com/mjCNpCg8dD— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) December 12, 2025 Obamacare is currently exempted from the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. Republican senators have said they will not support a deal without the Hyde Amendment in place. “Our members are very concerned, obviously, and with good reason, to ensuring that the Hyde protections apply to Obamacare policies,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said. House Republicans released their health care package on Friday. The bill includes Hyde protections to cost-sharing reduction funds that prohibit paying for abortions except to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. The commitment of many Republicans to oppose a health care deal that funds abortion puts negotiations with Democrats in a precarious place, as Democrats are expected to oppose any deal that excludes abortion funding. “It’s a nonstarter,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., told NBC News. The pro-life movement is throwing its weight behind ensuring the health care deal includes Hyde protections, with Kelsey Pritchard of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America telling The Daily Signal her organization “will continue to oppose any health care plan that does not include that safeguard.” She said that is where the majority of senators are going to land as well. “We’ve seen many pledges of the importance of pro-life policy in the health care space,” Pritchard said. The post Trump Weighs If Obamacare Deal Should Include Abortion Funding appeared first on The Daily Signal.