Trump’s Pfizer Bonanza: A Giveaway That Defies Common Sense, By Charles Taylor (Florida)
The long list of political head-scratchers has few to rival Donald Trump's latest love-in with Pfizer. On September 30 2025, the man who once thundered against Big Pharma's "monopoly" and promised to "bring drug prices way down" signed a deal that hands the pharmaceutical giant tariff relief, pricing perks, and a $70 billion "investment" pledge.
Trump sold it as a "landmark" win for patients via TrumpRx, a discount portal for Pfizer products, but scratch the surface and it looks more like a pipeline to corporate profit than a cure for healthcare costs. There's little sign of accountability for a company with a long record of regulatory and legal troubles.
Pfizer's Chequered History
Pfizer is no small-time player. The company has faced some of the largest healthcare-related fines in U.S. history, including a 2009 US $2.3 billion settlement over the marketing of the painkiller Bextra. Other cases have involved off-label promotion, pricing issues, and overseas compliance breaches, amounting to roughly US $11 billion in penalties since the early 2000s. Not bad for "safe and effective"!
While those matters were resolved years ago, they continue to shape public perceptions of how Pfizer operates. Many Americans remember Trump's earlier promises to "drain the swamp" and take on pharmaceutical excess. Yet this latest deal exempts Pfizer from the Section 232 tariffs, 5 to 15 percent duties on imported pharmaceutical goods that were slated to take effect on 1 October. In return, Pfizer pledged to expand U.S. manufacturing and R&D, details still vague.
Analysts estimate that exemption could save the company billions annually, while locking in "most-favoured-nation" pricing for certain government programs. Critics argue that's less a reform than a reprieve.
Public Backlash
Reaction online has been fierce. Physicians such as Dr Mary Talley Bowden, known for treating COVID-19 patients outside mainstream protocols, called it "a slap in the face" to those still seeking compensation for vaccine injuries. Commentators like Robby Starbuck described it as "paying off tariffs" rather than protecting consumers. Even some Trump supporters worry the deal entrenches the same monopolies he once vowed to dismantle.
Fresh Safety Controversy
The agreement comes as debate over Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty, continues.
A recent South Korean observational study involving roughly 8.4 million people suggested a statistical association between mRNA vaccination and higher short-term cancer incidence. The authors cautioned that the findings show correlation, not causation, and outside experts, including those at MedPage Today, criticised the methodology as limited and inconclusive; the usual way such vax critical material is treated.
Nonetheless, the study has reignited concern among some doctors who say regulators should revisit the product's long-term safety profile. Pfizer maintains that extensive real-world data demonstrate the vaccine's safety and effectiveness, and major health agencies continue to endorse it. Vax critics vehemently disagree.
The timing fuels suspicion among sceptics that Trump's new partnership risks rewarding a company still under scrutiny for past controversies.
From Pharma Critic to Pharma Partner
Trump once told voters he would end the "drug industry monopoly" and cut prices by up to 80 percent. Instead, the Pfizer arrangement appears to postpone his broader tariff crackdown and favour one of the sector's most powerful players. Supporters call it pragmatic industrial policy; detractors call it capitulation.
The pattern echoes Trump's first-term Operation Warp Speed, which accelerated vaccine development while granting companies legal immunity under U.S. emergency statutes. To critics, this looks like the same playbook: bold rhetoric followed by a corporate carve-out.
The Bigger Picture
Whether you see the deal as savvy statecraft or corporate appeasement, it underscores a deeper problem: the revolving door between government and Big Pharma. Rewarding a company facing renewed public distrust risks alienating the populist base that propelled Trump back to power.
Real reform would mean transparent pricing, independent oversight, and accountability for past failures, not just patriotic press releases. America, and the world watching, deserve better than business as usual. As usual Trump falls far short of what he is advertised to be.
Disclaimer: This article reflects the author's opinions based on publicly available information, legal filings, and media reports. It does not allege unlawful conduct beyond matters already adjudicated or publicly acknowledged.
Comments