Fox News host presses Lutnick on Trump's drug-price claims during prime-time address

Dec. 18, 2025 – In a prime-time White House address, President Trump reiterated an oft-criticized claim that prescription drug prices are “400%, 500% and even 600% lower,” a figure critics say is mathematically impossible. The remarks were part of coverage on Fox News, where host John Roberts pressed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick about the mathematical framing of the assertion during an appearance on America Reports.

Roberts pointed to basic arithmetic to challenge the claim, noting that a 100% price reduction would render a product free, and that any further reduction would imply the seller paying buyers to take the drug. Lutnick attempted to explain the math on air, offering analogies and trying to clarify that the reference point matters in any percentage comparison. As Lutnick spoke, Roberts pressed back, prompting a moment that quickly drew attention online for the on-air exchange about what constitutes a meaningful price cut.

Lutnick, who has represented the administration in discussions on drug pricing, described the president’s framing as effectively hammering down drug costs, while Roberts repeatedly pushed back on the accuracy of using such percentage reductions. The segment highlighted a broader dispute over how pricing claims are communicated to the public and to policymakers, with critics arguing that numbers like 600% reductions do not align with standard financial calculations.

The exchange occurred against a backdrop of a White House emphasis on drug-price reform and past statements from Trump promising aggressive actions to lower costs. In July, the president pledged to force pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices by up to 1,500% and referenced other figures that experts say are not achievable under current pricing structures. Advocates and analysts have long argued that dramatic percentage reductions in a single year or in aggregate across multiple drugs are not supported by baseline price data, complicating public interpretation of policy proposals.

Observers say the on-air debate illustrates the volume of competing narratives around drug pricing and the challenge of conveying complex policy concepts in political messaging. The incident also underscores a broader dynamic in US politics: candidates and officials frequently use large percentage claims to describe policy shifts, even as independent analysts warn that such numbers can be misleading without explicit context about baseline prices, scope, and methodology.

As the conversation about drug pricing continues to unfold ahead of further policy proposals and legislative considerations, critics will likely scrutinize how future officials present pricing data and whether percentage-based rhetoric yields a clearer public understanding or further confusion. The Fox News segment and Lutnick’s response add to the ongoing dialogue about how best to measure and communicate changes in the price of prescription medications.