Senator Responds To Trump's Executive Order On Prescription Drugs
Congressional Democrats are finding themselves in a politically awkward position as President Trump’s latest executive order targeting sky-high prescription drug prices draws muted, even hostile, reactions from many who had once praised similar actions under President Joe Biden. Though Trump’s directive promises massive cuts to drug prices—by as much as 59 to 90 percent—the response from prominent Democrats has been less policy-focused and more politically charged.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was among the first to scoff at the executive order, dismissing it as nothing more than “a flashy press release.” She criticized Trump for not pushing legislation through Congress, arguing executive action alone was insufficient. But Warren’s own track record on this issue betrays a clear double standard.
Trump: Drug prices will come down by much more really if you think..: Between 59 and 80. I guess even 90%. We're getting them down 60, 70, 80, 90%. But actually more than that if you think about it in a way mathematically pic.twitter.com/SRDCpkRslM
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 12, 2025
In 2023, Warren hailed Biden’s use of “March-In Rights”—a unilateral administrative maneuver allowing the federal government to relicense patents for drugs developed with taxpayer money to other manufacturers if pricing is deemed too high. Warren declared Biden’s move a “critical step” against Big Pharma. At no point did she demand legislation or accuse Biden of bypassing Congress.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) also criticized Trump’s order, calling it “all hat and no cattle,” and suggesting Trump should bolster Medicare price negotiations instead of relying on executive action. Yet Wyden had no such reservations when Biden issued his 2021 executive order calling for aggressive administrative actions to reduce drug costs—an order that notably sidestepped Congress just as Trump’s does.
While Wyden points to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act as a legislative win, he carefully omits the fact that much of Biden’s action on drug pricing—like March-In Rights—was implemented outside the legislative framework, and with ample Democratic applause.
This is nothing more than a flashy press release from Donald Trump.
Trump should put his weight behind a bill so we can actually lower drug prices.
Instead, he and Republicans in Congress are plotting to rip away health coverage from millions of Americans. https://t.co/lbCCuH86kX
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) May 13, 2025
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), long a crusader against pharmaceutical profiteering, took a similarly combative stance, demanding Trump support a forthcoming bill that would tie U.S. drug prices to the rates paid in other industrialized nations. Sanders’ tone sharply contrasted his usually favorable view of bold executive steps—when they come from Democrats.
Again, the irony looms large. Sanders frequently supports aggressive regulatory action from the executive branch, yet balks when Trump does the same—despite their shared goal of slashing prices for everyday Americans.
Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), however, broke ranks. Rather than dismiss Trump’s order, Khanna embraced the policy substance and moved to codify it through legislation. “Today, I am introducing legislation to codify President Trump’s executive order,” Khanna posted, showing rare bipartisan recognition of a policy idea that resonates with voters across the spectrum.
Today, @POTUS took a critical step to cut costs and rein in abuses by Big Pharma, which has raked in billions by raising prices for drugs that taxpayers paid to develop. Big Pharma will no longer have a free pass to hike prices for drugs that benefitted from public dollars. https://t.co/4uMkPFCkrk
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) December 7, 2023
Khanna’s response serves as a reminder that for some lawmakers, good policy can transcend party lines—even in a hyper-partisan era.
The hypocrisy is difficult to miss. When Biden moved unilaterally, Democrats hailed him as bold and decisive. When Trump signs an executive order with similar intent and arguably broader savings potential, it's suddenly a “press stunt” or “not enough.” The substance of the policy hasn’t changed—but the name on the signature has.