Sitting outside every morning with a fresh cup of coffee or reading a book in the front yard at night: it’s the simple pleasures that matter to Susan Cannon.

Lately, sky-high interest rates on the 73-year-old’s credit cards have cast a dark shadow.

“I can’t get the balance down because I am still having to use credit cards at the end of the month to get groceries and gas,” Cannon, who lives in a mobile home in rural Texas, told Business Insider. “I pay my bills, but because of the interest rates, it keeps going up. I feel like I’m being gouged.”

https://bed78e2e46eacf29bdd81d4f3b712961.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

Cannon has $39,440 in credit-card debt spread across 19 cards with varying interest rates, from 12.15% to 34.99%. The issue began to spiral when the pandemic hit — she lost her part-time job as a mystery shopper, which she had held since retiring from her full-time job as a medical coder in 2015.

Since then, she has relied on minimal COVID relief funds, her Social Security, and her pension. Credit cards have helped her stay afloat, using them for gas, groceries, and home repairs. While she paid at least $25 more than the minimum monthly payment, the interest rates prevented her from making a dent in her balance.

The only way she believes she can pay off her balance is through lower interest rates. Capping rates is supported by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and even President Donald Trump — he recently proposed a 10% cap on credit card interest rates, a proposal pushed by lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Companies and leaders in the financial world have said that capping rates would ultimately have a negative impact on consumers because banks may limit their offerings, driving more people to riskier sources of credit.

Credit card debt in the US is at a record high. Inflation and high living costs are pushing consumers to turn to credit cards to stay afloat in the short term, while high interest rates drag them down in the long term.

Economic conditions play a significant role in high credit-card balances, Adam Rust, the director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, told Business Insider.

“Wages aren’t growing as quickly as the cost of living. People are struggling to get by,” Rust said. “They use their credit card when they’re having a tough time making ends meet, and repeated across tens of millions of households, the result is a surge in credit card debt.”

With this cold, my electric bill last month was $200, and I’m expecting to get hit with about a $300 bill, I believe, for next month,” Cannon said, adding that maintaining her home and land has added to her debt.

Still, many people use credit cards for reasons beyond making ends meet. For example, travel rewards can motivate people to purchase vacations and other travel expenses on their cards. A 2024 Bankrate survey said that respondents reported high credit card usage for medical costs, too much discretionary spending, and home renovations. A 2025 AARP report found that credit card debt is the most common type of debt among Americans aged 50 and older, with cardholders using them for everyday expenses and housing costs.

“I’ve always tried to put some in savings, but it’s gotten to where it’s all going toward interest,” Cannon said. “I just cannot get ahead.”

Those cards benefit from having a consumer who’s captive to using that card in that store to get that deal,” Rust said. “And so perhaps it’s not surprising that interest rates are frequently higher as a result.”

The motivation for companies to charge high interest rates could go beyond profit, an analysis from the New York Federal Reserve said. The rates could offset losses when a customer defaults, the analysis said, along with operating expenses, such as marketing costs, that might be built into the interest rate.

James Cobban Space Nerd since 1956.

Why is liquid hydrogen so challenging to handle when fueling rockets, and what special techniques are used to prevent leaks?

The most effective way to avoid the challenges of using liquid hydrogen is to not use liquid hydrogen. There is no galactic police officer holding a phaser forcing NASA to use liquid hydrogen. There is no law of physics which says rockets must use liquid hydrogen. What.there are is a bunch of collosally ignorant politicians being bribed to insist that NASA piss away billions of tax dollars on technology which killed fourteen American heroes.

One small example of this idiocy: each RS-25 hydrogen rocket engine costs NASA $145M. There are four on the SLS, so that alone is $580M of the cost of an SLS. And they are dumped in the ocean on every launch. The Blue Origin liquid methane engine costs less than $40M and has more thrust. The SpaceX Raptor 3 has about 25% higher thrust and weighs less than half as much as the RS-25, and costs Elon less than $1M each. Fuel for a rocket is merely a source of energy. The cost for a given number of Joules, or Kilowatt-Hours, or BTUs in the form of liquid methane (aka Natural Gas) is.1/60th of the cost of the same amount of energy in liquid hydrogen. So you drive up the rocket service station and the pump gives you a choice. You can buy $20 worth of methane or $1200 worth of hydrogen. Which one do you choose? If you choose $20 why do you keep reelecting the thieves who insist on spending $1200?

An old joke: Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Then don’t do that!

When I was growing up in the 1980s, there was a galaxy of left-wing, even socialist, intellectual stars such as Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault and Gore Vidal whose works were like an inkwell that politicians and commentators could draw from. Judging from the Munich Security Conference this weekend, that inkwell has run dry.

Take this gem of a comment on global order from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, queen of the democratic socialists: “What we are seeking is a return to a rules-based order that eliminates the hypocrisies around when too often in the West we look the other way for inconvenient populations, to act out these paradoxes.”

Allow me to translate this into English: “The West is bad and mistreats the marginalized rest of the world.”

The use of 25-cent words and highfalutin sentence structure cannot hide the banality of what AOC is saying. Not even the assuring allure of assonance would help, given the asinine simplicity of her word salad.

Not to be outdone, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, after apologizing for being less well-versed in foreign policy than AOC, offered this take on the war in Ukraine: “Ukraine’s independence, keeping their land mass, I mean, um, the support of all the allies, I think is the goal, from my vantage point.”

There is just nothing here but empty words that paint a picture of the facile progressive worldview, completely divorced, not only from reality on the ground, but from any sound intellectual framework whatsoever.

The American right has a core of intellectuals, from Christopher Rufo to Victor Davis Hanson to Mark Dubowitz and on and on, who can be referred to or drawn on in policy debates both foreign and domestic.

Not to be outdone, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, after apologizing for being less well-versed in foreign policy than AOC, offered this take on the war in Ukraine: “Ukraine’s independence, keeping their land mass, I mean, um, the support of all the allies, I think is the goal, from my vantage point.”

There is just nothing here but empty words that paint a picture of the facile progressive worldview, completely divorced, not only from reality on the ground, but from any sound intellectual framework whatsoever.

The American right has a core of intellectuals, from Christopher Rufo to Victor Davis Hanson to Mark Dubowitz and on and on, who can be referred to or drawn on in policy debates both foreign and domestic.

MARK PENN: DEMOCRATS WIN THE MOMENT, BUT LEFT-WING TILT THREATENS THEIR FUTURE

In fact, about a decade ago we had the Intellectual Dark Web phenomenon with figures like Jordan Peterson and Bari Weiss, who are broadly seen, if not as conservative, as right-leaning. Who are their counterparts on the far leftin In fact, about a decade ago we had the Intellectual Dark Web phenomenon with figures like Jordan Peterson and Bari Weiss, who are broadly seen, if not as conservative, as right-leaning. Who are their counterparts on the far left?

Who is the contemporary socialist intellectual who AOC could have referenced to support her claim that what is needed is massive global redistribution of wealth? 

I would posit that outside of the very narrow corridors of race and gender, such far-left public intellectuals no longer exist and for two very important reasons.

EVILS OF COLLECTIVISM ARE JUST WARMING UP. ‘RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM’ BETTER BE READY

The most obvious cause for the current dearth of popular far-left, socialist intellectuals is the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. At least for the next two decades, the game was up, the experiment had failed and nobody wanted to be called a socialist.

The second reason is what took the place of outright socialism, which was cultural Marxism, specifically in the form of critical race theory. 

In their brilliant 2013 Harvard Education Review study, “McIntosh as Synecdoche: How Teacher Education’s Focus on White Privilege Undermines Antiracism,” the Midwestern Whiteness Collective, a left-wing group of teachers, argued that centering race and identity in everything was stifling intellectual discourse.

WHEN TRUMP MEETS MAMDANI: FIVE CAPITALIST MESSAGES THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST SHOULD HEAR

This was clearly true because the shibboleths of race and identity, what was allowed and not allowed to be expressed, went completely unchallenged. In fact, challenging them was punished.

So, once race and identity became a part of everything, then nothing could be legitimately questioned. It was equity, not equality, over everything else.

P.J. Gladnick

February 14th, 2026 7:03 PM

Most hard core liberals, especially in the media, take it as a matter of absolute faith that President Donald Trump is the puppet of Russian president Vladimir Putin. However, an article published in a very surprising source has shattered that myth.

The Atlantic magazine, yes that Democrat-loving periodical, published an article on Friday that destroyed that notion. And the two authors of the piece can’t be written off as ill informed. Both Thomas Graham and Alan Cullison are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition, Graham is the author of “Getting Russia Right” and Cullison was a former Moscow correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.

Their article,“Putin Didn’t Know How Good He Had It,” sweeps away the sacred liberal belief that Putin somehow controls Trump. In fact, they make a strong case that it was in large part due to Trump that Putin and Russia are currently in a very bad position on the world scene.

For decades, Russian President Vladimir Putin railed against the world that the United States built after the Cold War. In his account, an international order run by a single power would hinder Russia and produce needless conflict, especially when that power was as self-serving and duplicitous as America.

Now Donald Trump is dismantling the order that Putin had so long abhorred, and a new multipolar world is emerging in its place. Putin had thought he could rise to the top of such a system, in which raw economic and military might outweigh diplomacy and alliances. But he was mistaken: The norms and institutions of the postwar order actually masked Russia’s vulnerabilities. Putin has gotten the world he wished for—and it’s threatening to crush him.

And if you are still clinging to the absurd notion that Putin somehow controls a compliant Trump then you (hello, Atlantic readers) have taken a fatal overdose of the thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier as Graham and Cullison continue to reveal the reality of the situation.

Putin also assumed that a multipolar world would free him from American interference. And indeed, Trump has accommodated Moscow in some ways. His conciliation does not, however, extend to Russia’s energy sector, the foundation of its economy: Last fall, Trump levied wide-ranging sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, the country’s two largest oil producers. The U.S. has also ramped up enforcement against shadow tankers, threatening a primary channel that Russia has used to sidestep sanctions on its oil sales. Trump’s plans to revive Venezuela’s petroleum sector might likewise hurt Russia. Executing those plans may prove more complicated than Trump anticipates, but they could drive Russia’s oil prices below what its federal budget can sustain.

Moscow is at the mercy of an American president who circumvents traditional channels of power and obliterates the constraints that once regulated their use. For example, Trump could attempt to use his recently constituted Board of Peace to bypass the United Nations Security Council—and Russia’s veto—and muscle through his preferred policy in the Middle East, eroding Moscow’s influence in the region. Thanks to decisions by both Trump and Putin, moreover, the two powers no longer have any functional arms-control agreements. Without these, Trump could choose to accelerate his “Golden Dome” missile-defense program, which Russia fears could undermine its own nuclear deterrence.

Trump’s disdain for international alliances and norms has also begun to reshape Europe in a way that may exacerbate Russia’s weakness. As U.S. security assurances wane, European countries are developing their hard-power capabilities. Germany has committed 100 billion euros to modernize its military, and Poland is building up its armed forces with a goal of amassing 300,000 troops. Putin has long wanted to split the U.S. and Europe. But he might soon find that the continent—which collectively dwarfs Russia in population and wealth—poses a significant challenge even if it doesn’t belong to a U.S.-dominated alliance.

This should dispel the idea that Trump is merely Putin’s puppet. However, never underestimate the liberal aptitude for self-deception. The same poor souls fully expected the Mueller Report to prove Trump-Russia collusion, when that report revealed no vast conspiracy, were still unable to let go of their delusions. However, it is refreshing to see cold reality splashed directly on the faces of the Atlantic readers.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”

She nailed it.

Because I am a therapist, people always ask me: “What is self-esteem?”

In part, self-esteem refers to the attitude that you have a right to your OWN life, and to live for your OWN sake.

In line with Rand’s quote, socialism (which is tyranny) is incompatible with self-esteem.

In short: Freedom (economic and otherwise) is the mental oxygen you breathe. Your self-esteem will choke under socialism. And if you possess any self-esteem at all, you could never support socialism.

Michael J Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The U.S. military is preparing for the possibility of sustained, weeks-long operations against Iran if President Donald Trump orders an attack, two U.S. officials told Reuters, in what could become a far more serious conflict than previously seen between the countries.

The disclosure by the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the planning, raises the stakes for the diplomacy underway between the United States and Iran.

U.S. and Iranian diplomats held talks in Oman last week in an effort to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s nuclear program, after Trump amassed military forces in the region, raising fears of new military action.

U.S. officials said on Friday the Pentagon was sending an additional aircraft carrier to the Middle East, adding thousands more troops along with fighter aircraft, guided-missile destroyers and other firepower capable of waging attacks and defending against them.

Trump, speaking to U.S. troops on Friday at a base in North Carolina, said it had “been difficult to make a deal” with Iran.

“Sometimes you have to have fear. That’s the only thing that really will get the situation taken care of,” Trump said.

Asked for comment on the preparations for a potentially sustained U.S. military operation, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “President Trump has all options on the table with regard to Iran.”

“He listens to a variety of perspectives on any given issue, but makes the final decision based on what is best for our country and national security,” Kelly said.

The Pentagon declined to comment.

The United States sent two aircraft carriers to the region last year, when it carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.

However, June’s “Midnight Hammer” operation was essentially a one-off U.S. attack, with stealth bombers flying from the United States to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran staged a very limited retaliatory strike on a U.S. base in Qatar.

RISKS INCREASING

The planning underway this time is more complex, the officials said.

In a sustained campaign, the U.S. military could hit Iranian state and security facilities, not just nuclear infrastructure, one of the officials said. The official declined to provide specific detail.

Experts say the risks to U.S. forces would be far greater in such an operation against Iran, which boasts a formidable arsenal of missiles.

Retaliatory Iranian strikes also increase the risk of a regional conflict.

The same official said the United States fully expected Iran to retaliate, leading to back-and-forth strikes and reprisals over a period of time.

The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to questions about the risks of retaliation or regional conflict.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and crushing of internal dissent. On Thursday, he warned the alternative to a diplomatic solution would “be very traumatic, very traumatic.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have warned that in case of strikes on Iranian territory, they could retaliate against any U.S. military base.

The U.S. maintains bases throughout the Middle East, including in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Trump for talks in Washington on Wednesday, saying that if an agreement with Iran were reached, “it must include the elements that are vital to Israel.”

Iran has said it is prepared to discuss curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions, but has ruled out linking the issue to missiles. 

© 2026 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

America’s largest retirement safety net is facing renewed financial pressure, and the timeline is tightening. A new projection suggests Social Security’s core retirement fund could run out of full funding sooner than previously expected, raising fresh questions about benefit cuts, tax changes, and what this means for millions of Americans planning their financial future.

According to the latest analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is now projected to be depleted in 2032. That is one year earlier than previous estimates and highlights the growing urgency for policymakers to address the program’s long term sustainability.

Why the Timeline Moved Forward

Several economic factors are accelerating the projected depletion date. Higher inflation has increased cost of living adjustments, pushing benefit payments higher. At the same time, lower tax revenue from Social Security benefits, partly tied to policy changes affecting senior deductions, has reduced incoming funding to the system.

The Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is the primary source of payments for retired workers and surviving family members. A separate Disability Insurance trust fund covers disability benefits. Although these funds are legally separate, analysts often look at them together to evaluate the overall health of Social Security.

The combined trust funds are now projected to be exhausted in 2033, also one year sooner than previously expected.

Experts say the shift in timing is not shocking, but it reinforces the need for action.

“It’s not uncommon for CBO and the Social Security trustees to have slightly different projections. This is not cause for surprise or alarm, but it does underline that Congress should take action at some point in the next half decade,” said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works.

What Happens If Social Security Runs Short

Even if the trust funds reach depletion, Social Security does not disappear. Payroll taxes would continue flowing into the system, allowing partial benefits to continue. However, without legislative changes, those benefits would be reduced.

Last year’s trustee projections suggested benefits could fall by roughly 20 percent once the trust funds run out of reserves. That would represent a significant income shock for millions of retirees.

“If Congress failed to act, a 20 percent across the board benefit cut would be a disaster for seniors, people with disabilities and families who have lost a breadwinner,” Altman said.

As of early 2026, the average Social Security retirement benefit stands at about $2,071 per month. For many Americans, that income is not supplemental. It is foundational.

According to AARP, roughly 40 percent of Americans age 65 and older rely on Social Security for at least half their income, while about 14 percent depend on it for 90 percent or more.

The Bigger Fiscal Picture

The Social Security challenge is not isolated. It is part of a broader federal financial strain.

“There are no surprises here or bright spots of encouraging news. Our nation’s deficits, debt, interest payments and trust funds are all in terrible shape,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Rising federal debt, increasing interest costs, and demographic shifts are all putting pressure on entitlement programs. The United States is experiencing a major demographic transition as baby boomers retire and fewer workers are available to support the system through payroll taxes.

This worker to retiree imbalance is one of the biggest structural threats to Social Security’s long term stability.

Key Drivers Behind Social Security’s Financial Strain

Several major forces are shaping the program’s future:

1. Aging population
More Americans are retiring, and people are living longer. That increases lifetime benefit payouts.

2. Fewer workers per retiree
In 1960, there were roughly five workers supporting each retiree. Today there are closer to three, and the ratio continues to fall.

3. Rising benefit payments
Cost of living adjustments tied to inflation have boosted payouts significantly in recent years.

4. Slower payroll tax growth
Wage growth has not kept pace with benefit obligations, reducing incoming funding strength.

5. Policy changes
Tax and deduction adjustments affecting seniors have reduced some revenue flowing into the system.

What Congress Might Do Next

Lawmakers have several potential options, though none are politically easy. Historically, Social Security reforms have combined multiple changes rather than relying on a single solution.

Possible policy actions include:

• Raising the payroll tax cap so higher earners pay more into the system
• Increasing the payroll tax rate slightly
• Gradually raising the retirement age
• Adjusting benefit formulas for higher income retirees
• Means testing benefits
• Expanding immigration to increase the worker base

Some policymakers advocate expanding benefits and increasing taxes on higher earners, while others favor slowing benefit growth or restructuring the program to improve long term sustainability.

What is clear is that delaying action increases the severity of future adjustments.

For investors and workers, the most important takeaway is uncertainty, not collapse.

Social Security is unlikely to disappear, but it is also unlikely to remain unchanged. Future retirees may face lower relative benefits, higher retirement ages, or greater reliance on personal savings.

This makes personal retirement planning more critical than ever.

Key implications include:

• Relying solely on Social Security is increasingly risky
• Retirement savings targets may need to increase
• Income diversification becomes more important
• Longevity planning is essential

Americans who plan early and build supplemental income sources are far more resilient to policy changes.

What Investors and Workers Should Watch

Several developments could shape Social Security’s future over the next five years:

• Congressional reform proposals
• Changes to payroll tax policy
• Inflation trends affecting benefit adjustments
• Labor force participation and wage growth
• Federal deficit and debt trajectory

The closer the system moves toward projected depletion without reform, the more aggressive future policy changes may need to be.

The Bottom Line

Social Security is not about to vanish, but the timeline for reform is tightening. With trust fund reserves potentially running short in just over six years, policymakers face increasing pressure to act.

For Americans, the message is clear. The era of relying primarily on Social Security for retirement security is fading. Personal savings, diversified income streams, and proactive financial planning will play a much larger role in the decades ahead.

The sooner individuals adjust, the more control they will have over their financial future.

America’s largest retirement safety net is facing renewed financial pressure, and the timeline is tightening. A new projection suggests Social Security’s core retirement fund could run out of full funding sooner than previously expected, raising fresh questions about benefit cuts, tax changes, and what this means for millions of Americans planning their financial future.

According to the latest analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is now projected to be depleted in 2032. That is one year earlier than previous estimates and highlights the growing urgency for policymakers to address the program’s long term sustainability.

Why the Timeline Moved Forward

Several economic factors are accelerating the projected depletion date. Higher inflation has increased cost of living adjustments, pushing benefit payments higher. At the same time, lower tax revenue from Social Security benefits, partly tied to policy changes affecting senior deductions, has reduced incoming funding to the system.

The Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is the primary source of payments for retired workers and surviving family members. A separate Disability Insurance trust fund covers disability benefits. Although these funds are legally separate, analysts often look at them together to evaluate the overall health of Social Security.

The combined trust funds are now projected to be exhausted in 2033, also one year sooner than previously expected.

Experts say the shift in timing is not shocking, but it reinforces the need for action.

“It’s not uncommon for CBO and the Social Security trustees to have slightly different projections. This is not cause for surprise or alarm, but it does underline that Congress should take action at some point in the next half decade,” said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works.

What Happens If Social Security Runs Short

Even if the trust funds reach depletion, Social Security does not disappear. Payroll taxes would continue flowing into the system, allowing partial benefits to continue. However, without legislative changes, those benefits would be reduced.

Last year’s trustee projections suggested benefits could fall by roughly 20 percent once the trust funds run out of reserves. That would represent a significant income shock for millions of retirees.

“If Congress failed to act, a 20 percent across the board benefit cut would be a disaster for seniors, people with disabilities and families who have lost a breadwinner,” Altman said.

As of early 2026, the average Social Security retirement benefit stands at about $2,071 per month. For many Americans, that income is not supplemental. It is foundational.

According to AARP, roughly 40 percent of Americans age 65 and older rely on Social Security for at least half their income, while about 14 percent depend on it for 90 percent or more.

The Bigger Fiscal Picture

The Social Security challenge is not isolated. It is part of a broader federal financial strain.

“There are no surprises here or bright spots of encouraging news. Our nation’s deficits, debt, interest payments and trust funds are all in terrible shape,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Rising federal debt, increasing interest costs, and demographic shifts are all putting pressure on entitlement programs. The United States is experiencing a major demographic transition as baby boomers retire and fewer workers are available to support the system through payroll taxes.

This worker to retiree imbalance is one of the biggest structural threats to Social Security’s long term stability.

Key Drivers Behind Social Security’s Financial Strain

Several major forces are shaping the program’s future:

1. Aging population
More Americans are retiring, and people are living longer. That increases lifetime benefit payouts.

2. Fewer workers per retiree
In 1960, there were roughly five workers supporting each retiree. Today there are closer to three, and the ratio continues to fall.

3. Rising benefit payments
Cost of living adjustments tied to inflation have boosted payouts significantly in recent years.

4. Slower payroll tax growth
Wage growth has not kept pace with benefit obligations, reducing incoming funding strength.

5. Policy changes
Tax and deduction adjustments affecting seniors have reduced some revenue flowing into the system.

What Congress Might Do Next

Lawmakers have several potential options, though none are politically easy. Historically, Social Security reforms have combined multiple changes rather than relying on a single solution.

Possible policy actions include:

• Raising the payroll tax cap so higher earners pay more into the system
• Increasing the payroll tax rate slightly
• Gradually raising the retirement age
• Adjusting benefit formulas for higher income retirees
• Means testing benefits
• Expanding immigration to increase the worker base

Some policymakers advocate expanding benefits and increasing taxes on higher earners, while others favor slowing benefit growth or restructuring the program to improve long term sustainability.

What is clear is that delaying action increases the severity of future adjustments.

Global Market News

T he Trump administration has officially rolled out TrumpRx, a new government-backed online platform designed to spotlight lower cash prices for prescription medications and expand access to direct-purchase drug options. The initiative is part of a broader push by President Trump to tackle one of the most politically sensitive and financially burdensome issues facing Americans today: the rising cost of prescription drugs.


The website does not sell medications itself. Instead, it functions as a searchable pricing hub that shows discounted cash prices for certain brand-name drugs and directs patients to approved partners where those medications can be purchased. While supporters say TrumpRx could increase transparency and competition, critics question whether it will meaningfully reduce what most Americans actually pay for prescriptions.

Here is what patients, investors, and the healthcare industry need to know.

What TrumpRx Is and How It Works

TrumpRx is a government-operated website that aggregates discounted cash pricing for select prescription drugs. It does not dispense medication, process insurance, or act as a pharmacy. Instead, it links users to pharmaceutical companies, coupon programs, and partner platforms where drugs can be purchased directly.

The system relies heavily on pricing technology from healthcare company GoodRx, which integrates real-time discount data through its API. A GoodRx spokesperson confirmed the company is a “key integration partner,” helping pharmaceutical companies host their self-pay pricing while feeding those prices into the TrumpRx system.

Patients using TrumpRx may:

View discounted cash prices for certain drugs
Receive coupons usable at participating pharmacies
Be directed to pharmaceutical company direct-purchase portals
Compare list prices versus self-pay pricing

The administration has framed the platform as a transparency tool that empowers consumers to shop for lower prices rather than rely solely on insurance networks and pharmacy benefit managers.

The Direct-Pay Drug Model Is Already Growing

TrumpRx arrives during a broader shift toward direct-to-consumer drug purchasing in the pharmaceutical industry. Several major drugmakers have already begun experimenting with bypassing traditional insurance and pharmacy benefit manager channels.

Companies like Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk have launched direct-purchase programs for their popular GLP-1 obesity and diabetes medications. These drugs, which have surged in demand nationwide, have become a testing ground for alternative pricing models.

Even before TrumpRx launched, the movement toward self-pay and direct pricing was gaining momentum as pharmaceutical companies sought to:

Reduce reliance on complex insurance pricing negotiations
Offer simplified pricing to patients
Expand access to high-demand drugs
Increase transparency in drug costs

TrumpRx essentially centralizes and publicizes these direct-pay options under a government-backed umbrella.

What Drugs Are Listed on TrumpRx

At launch, TrumpRx displays pricing for 43 brand-name medications from at least 16 pharmaceutical companies that have entered agreements with the administration. Officials have indicated more drugs will be added over time.

Examples include:

AstraZeneca’s asthma drug Airsupra
EMD Serono’s fertility treatment Gonal-F
Several GLP-1 obesity medications

The site compares each drug’s list price to its discounted cash price and calculates the percentage difference, which the administration highlights as a measure of potential savings.

How Much GLP-1 Drugs Cost on TrumpRx

One of the most closely watched categories on TrumpRx is GLP-1 obesity drugs, which have exploded in popularity and sparked nationwide debate over affordability and insurance coverage.

Current cash pricing ranges include:

Wegovy injectable: approximately $199 to $349
Wegovy oral version: about $149 to $299
Zepbound injectable: about $299 to $449
Upcoming oral GLP-1 from Eli Lilly expected between $149 and $399

These prices are significantly lower than official list prices, which can exceed $1,300 per month. However, they still represent a major monthly expense for many patients.

Will TrumpRx Accept Insurance

No. At launch, TrumpRx operates strictly as a cash-payment platform. The site states:

“At this time, TrumpRx discounted pricing is only available for cash-paying patients.”

Additionally, purchases made through direct channels typically do not count toward insurance deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. This is a major factor that could reduce the long-term financial benefit for some users.

However, future insurance integration is possible. The Federal Trade Commission recently reached a settlement with pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts, which included provisions stating the company will provide covered access to TrumpRx if legal and regulatory conditions allow.

This suggests the administration may push for insurance compatibility later.

Who Can Use TrumpRx

Anyone with a valid prescription can use the platform, though some discounts may not apply to individuals covered by government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. Like traditional prescription purchases, a doctor’s prescription is required.

The administration has positioned TrumpRx as a universal tool for price transparency rather than a restricted program.

Are TrumpRx Prices Actually the Lowest

TrumpRx displays what it says are the lowest available cash prices, but that does not necessarily mean patients will spend less overall.

Drug pricing experts point to several complications:

• Insurance costs count toward deductibles and out-of-pocket limits
• Self-pay purchases usually do not
• Insurance copays often drop significantly after deductibles are met
• Formularies and rebates can lower actual insured costs

For many patients, paying cash may initially appear cheaper but end up costing more over time.

The Discount Calculation Debate

TrumpRx highlights savings by comparing list prices to discounted cash prices. For example, Wegovy’s list price of roughly $1,349 compared with a cash price as low as $199 results in a displayed discount of up to 85 percent.

However, critics say this comparison can be misleading. Patients rarely pay full list price once insurance deductibles are satisfied, and actual savings vary widely based on individual insurance plans.

The debate reflects a long-standing issue in U.S. healthcare pricing where list prices, negotiated rates, and real patient costs often differ dramatically.

Policy and Industry Impact

TrumpRx is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to challenge traditional drug pricing structures, including pharmacy benefit managers, insurance negotiations, and opaque rebate systems.

If expanded, the platform could:

• Increase pricing transparency
• Pressure insurers and PBMs to lower costs
• Encourage more pharmaceutical direct-pricing models
• Shift consumer behavior toward price comparison shopping

However, major structural cost reductions would likely require deeper reforms beyond pricing visibility.

What This Means for Patients

For some patients, TrumpRx may offer meaningful short-term savings, especially those:

• Without insurance
• With high deductibles
• Seeking GLP-1 or specialty medications
• Paying full retail price today

For others, especially those with strong insurance coverage, traditional pharmacy purchasing may remain cheaper long term.

The key takeaway is that TrumpRx introduces another pricing path rather than replacing existing ones.

What This Means for Investors and Healthcare Markets

TrumpRx signals continued disruption in the U.S. pharmaceutical pricing system. Investors should watch several emerging trends:

• Growth of direct-to-consumer drug sales
• Potential pressure on pharmacy benefit managers
• Increased pricing transparency in healthcare
• Expansion of government-driven cost initiatives
• Rising competition in high-demand drug categories like GLP-1

If the platform expands significantly, it could influence pharmaceutical distribution models, insurer strategies, and healthcare pricing dynamics across the industry.

David Clemen, Global Market News

Everyone has their own methods for dealing with life’s ups and downs. In particular, people who lack a life partner to lean on often develop specific habits to cope.

I’ve noticed these habits vary greatly, person to person, and can range from self-development practices to self-isolation tendencies.

And the truth is, there’s a lot we can learn about resilience, independence, and personal growth by examining the habits of these individuals.

Let’s explore some of the most common and divergent habits of people who lack a life partner to lean on.

1) Embracing solitude

A mainstay among those without a life partner to lean on is embracing solitude.

👀 Don’t Miss: This One Thing Is Making Kids Lonelier Than Ever

These individuals don’t shy away from spending time alone. In fact, they often actively seek it out, utilizing this time to explore personal interests, engage in self-care, and reflect on life.

Moreover, they’ve endeavored to not just cope with solitude, but to genuinely enjoy it. They realize the tranquility that comes with it, and harness this quiet time to rejuvenate their energy.

https://10817489c4af9a56bb975bc41876d7ea.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

This isn’t to say that they are all introverts or social recluses. Instead, they have come to appreciate and use solitude as a tool for personal development. To them, spending time alone is far from a predicament, it’s a cherished ambience.

2) Prioritizing self-development

If there’s one thing I’ve personally found essential as a singleton, it’s the commitment to ongoing self-development.

https://10817489c4af9a56bb975bc41876d7ea.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

For me, being without a life partner has opened up a wave of possibilities for personal growth. There’s ample time to focus on improving myself, trying new things, and stepping outside of my comfort zone.

For instance, I decided to learn a new language a few years back. I started taking classes, practicing with language apps, and even visited the country the language originated from. The whole experience enriched my life in a way I may have not prioritized if I had a partner to consider.

Many folks lacking a life partner often express similar sentiments. They use the opportunity to pursue their passion projects, deepen their knowledge in their chosen fields, or simply explore new hobbies.

This focus on self-development is something that stands out in those without a life partner. They show us the value of personal initiative and the rich potential of self-betterment.

3) Enhanced empathy

Contrary to popular belief, those who lack a life partner can display higher levels of empathy. Living independently, they often build a great understanding of others’ struggles and emotions, honed in part by their own experiences of overcoming difficult situations alone.

Research validates this observation too. An analysis conducted by the University of California suggests that single people are frequently more attentive to the needs of others compared to those in relationships.

So, those without a life partner are often found to be generous in offering emotional support to friends, family, and even strangers. This heightened empathy underscores their ability to connect deeply with people around them, despite lacking a romantic partner of their own.

4) Financial independence

Financial independence is another common trait among those without a life partner. Since they’re solely responsible for their own expenses, they naturally tend to gain more control over their finances.

This could mean following a strict budget, focusing on saving for the future, or even taking the plunge and investing. They often prioritize building their financial security, and as a result, they tend to be more conscientious about their spending and saving habits.

While this might seem challenging, financial independence can be incredibly empowering. Knowing they can financially stand on their own feet contributes to a strong sense of self-reliance and security. It underscored the importance of financial literacy, which is beneficial for everyone, regardless of relationship status.

5) Appreciating deeper connections

Without a life partner, individuals often find deeper connections in the relationships they maintain. Friendships, family relationships, and even the bond with their pets take on a more poignant significance.

According to the latest public opinion poll released by the Associated Press, about 70 percent of Americans oppose the United States taking control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark.

Among Republicans who support U.S. President Donald Trump, about 50 percent are opposed to the United States acquiring Greenland. The Associated Press noted that, so far, very few people in the United States have publicly expressed support for the plan to take control of Greenland.

Only about 24% of American adults approve of Trump’s approach to Greenland. Among Republicans, opinions are notably more divided; roughly half disapprove of the attempt to incorporate the icy territory into the United States.

The survey indicated that his approval ratings among Republicans on this issue are substantially lower than for other critical subjects, such as the economy and immigration, where support exceeds 80%. Notably, around 70% of Republicans approve of Trump’s overall foreign policy stance.

Furthermore, younger Republicans take a particularly critical stance toward Trump’s handling of the Greenland situation. About 60% of Republicans under 45 disapprove of his leadership on this issue, compared with roughly 40% of older Republicans. The approval rating for Trump’s actions related to Greenland is markedly lower than the approval levels among younger Republicans on issues such as foreign policy, the economy, and immigration.