A summary of the JCPOA agreement: What Did President Trump Walk Away From?

On November 24, 2013, Iran and the United Nations Security Council (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany) signed an interim deal, the Joint Commission Plan of Action (JCPOA), to freeze parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief. The agreement was signed by all parties on January 20, 2014, following an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification of Iranian compliance. Through 2014 and early 2015, negotiations continued on additional nuclear limitations and the limiting of sanctions on Iran. A final agreement was reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015.

However, it was not until October 18, 2015, that the party signers began to implement the agreement. Iran reduced its Uranium enrichment capacity (production capability and enriched uranium stockpiles) while the U.S./EU began limiting sanctions. On January 16, 2016, the IAEA certified that Iran had met its initial obligations. The UN, EU, and U.S. nuclear-related sanctions were lifted. However, the U.S. labeling of Iran for supporting terrorism, human rights violations, and the continued development of ballistic missiles continued.

On May 8, 2018, less than two years later, following the change of administration (Obama to Trump), the U.S.withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions. President Trump claimed the agreement was “bad” and that he would negotiate a new deal. Iran remained in the deal with other signatories but began to gradually reduce compliance. By early 2019 Iran exceeded limits on its enriched uranium stockpile, enrichment levels, and centrifuge use. Then in January 2020 (following the change in administration from Biden to back to Trump), Iran announced it would no longer observe operational limits set by the JCPOA. However, they agreed to continue cooperating with the IAEA.

Negotiations had resumed under the Biden administration. However, talks stalled repeatedly over sanctions relief, IAEA investigations, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps terrorism designation. Iran continued to enrich its uranium stockpile. The IAEA reported that monitoring access was being limited. Relying on Israeli intelligence and a few U.S. intelligence reports of splinter groups trying to speed up uranium enrichment capabilities, Isael and the U.S. attacked Iran’s nuclear sites. Following the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. bombing of designated nuclear sites in October 2025, Iran announced the termination of the JCPOA. This ended the agreement and closed the UN Security Council’s nuclear file on Iran.

What went wrong? An agreement was reached for limiting Iran’s nuclear program to power generation monitored by the IAEA in 2015. Sanctions were lifted and Iran’s economy began to recover. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the agreement by President Trump in 2018, saw a return to increased distrust on the parts of Iran and the U.S. President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA because his administration believed the agreement was too lenient, failed to address Iran’s broader behavior, and provided economic benefits without permanently preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. The JCPOA agreement did not address Iran’s support for Islamic fundamental revolutionary groups. Iran continued to distrust the U.S., which was viewed by Iran as exploiting middle east interest.

The IAEA issued 11 consecutive verification reports (2016–2018) confirming that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Director General Yukiya Amano publicly stated that the deal’s monitoring provisions were the most intrusive ever negotiated and that Iran was meeting its commitments. Incidentally, the IAEA is the single most authoritative technical body on nuclear compliance. Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, repeatedly said the JCPOA was “delivering” and “working,” emphasizing that Iran was in verified compliance. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany issued joint statements affirming that:Iran was complying with the agreement; the JCPOA was achieving its purpose; and the deal was essential for regional and global security. UN Secretary‑General António Guterres stated that the JCPOA was a “major achievement” and that Iran was complying with its nuclear commitments, urging all parties to preserve the agreement. To support Guterres, UN Security Council Reportsrepeatedly affirmed that the JCPOA was functioning as intended. Even the Israeli Security Establishment (not the Government), composed of Israeli intelligence and military officials publicly stated that the JCPOA was working to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, even if they disliked other aspects of the deal.

Independent Nuclear Experts from the Arms Control Association, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Brookings Institution published analyses concluding that the JCPOA was effective, verifiable, and significantly limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These assessments were based on data, not political preference.

President Trump could not negotiate a “better deal!” Israeli and U.S. intelligence reports were likely biased, focusing on what the administrations wanted to hear. While Iran continues to be labeled a “bad actor,” the actions of Israel and the U.S. are rightfully questionable considering the evidence that the 2015 JCPOA was working!

“Weapons of Mass Destruction” Again?

Iran and Its Quest for Nuclear Power

Evidence presented before the June 2025 and February 2026 strikes on Iran showed Iran possessed enriched uranium stocks near weapons-relevant levels and advanced centrifuge capability. It is these facts that U.S. and allied officials used to argue Tehran was nearing a bomb threshold. Yet multiple expert analyses and intelligence assessments concluded there was no clear, corroborated evidence that Iran had decided to build a weapon or was operating a structured, ongoing weapons program immediately prior to the strikes (Fact Check, March 3, 2026; House of Commons Library, June 24, 2025).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documented that by mid‑2025, Iran had accumulated significant quantities of uranium enriched to 60 percent as a worrying short technical step toward weapons‑grade material. The IAEA‑estimated that Iran possessed roughly 440.9 kg of 60% uranium on the eve of the June 2025 strikes. Other tallies also put the pre‑strike total in similar ranges (CBS, February 28, 2026; Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, March 16, 2026). Technical briefs emphasized that enrichment to 60 percent is “near” weapons levels. With further technological development, Iran’s theoretical time for conversion to weapon’s grade product was less than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated under the Obama administration had allowed (Arms Association, March 2025).

On the other hand, U.S. intelligence assessments presented a mixed picture. Some U.S. sources warned of a covert team pursuing cruder, faster weapon designs and estimated reduced timelines for producing weapons grade materials. Formal judgments stopped short of saying Tehran had restarted a structured weapons program or made a political decision to weaponize (Congress.gov, March 6, 2026; Congress.gov May 24, 2025). The 2025 Worldwide Threat Assessment and later public analyses noted Iran had capabilities that could shorten the production timelines if a political decision were made. However, these reports also stressed that Iran had not clearly undertaken all activities necessary to field test a device (Arms Control Association March 2026; Congress.gov May 24, 2025).

Non‑governmental experts and analytic centers publicly challenged claims that Iran was “very close” to a bomb, arguing that available evidence did not demonstrate active weaponization or an authoritative decision to build one. Prominent analysts told reporters there was “no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon.” These reports highlighted IAEA language which indicated a lack of credible signs of an ongoing weapons construction program (FactCheck.org, March 3, 2026; Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, March 11, 2026). Scientific and policy commentators cautioned that quantities of 60% material are serious but not proof that Iran had completed the work necessary to develop weapons grade materials. The necessary developments for building a nuclear bomb include design, machining, and testing of various bomb components. These steps are required to have a deliverable warhead (Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, March 16, 2026).

Still, the IAEA repeatedly flagged serious concerns over safeguards. It documented high levels of enrichment and identified undeclared sites tied to past weaponization activities. And, in mid‑2025, they formally found Iran in non‑compliance with safeguards obligations. Proponents of strikes used this information to argue an urgency to confront Iran. On the other hand, the agency’s director later said it had no evidence of a structured current program to manufacture weapons (Quincy; House of Commons; Congress.gov; Center for Arms Control …).

U.S. and Israeli leaders framed the 2025 and 2026 bombings as pre‑emptive responses to an imminent threat, citing reduced breakout estimates from some intelligence elements, and the large 60% stockpile. Critics responded that public claims often lacked transparent underlying evidence, and that some senior intelligence officials and independent experts disputed the U.S. and Israeli assertions of immediacy. Independent reporters noted potential political incentives to emphasize worst‑case trajectories, and that open-source public reporting could not fully verify classified judgments.

In conclusion, an analysis of the pre‑war-strikes record supports a restrained conclusion. Iran had advanced technical capacity and sizeable near‑weapons‑grade material that could shorten breakout timelines under a political decision to weaponize. However, authoritative public assessments and technical experts found no incontrovertible evidence that Iran had resumed or completed a structured program to build deliverable nuclear weapons immediately before the 2025–2026 strikes. The public record is thin! While there is classified operational intelligence and internal decision memos, claims of imminence by Israel and the U.S. relied on contested judgments rather than open, incontrovertible proof.

A Brief History of Iran: A Country that Should be Blown Back to the Stone Ages?

Iran/Persia is one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations, defined by powerful empires, religious transformation, and repeated cycles of conquest and renewal. The known history begins with the Elamite Civilization (c. 3200 BCE). This is one of the world’s earliest states with its own writing system and monumental architecture. In 2000 to 1000 BC, Iranian tribes arrived from Central Asia, bringing early forms of the Persian language and the religious ideas that would shape Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic ethical religion that became central to Persian identity.

In 550–330 BC, Cyrus the Greatunited the Persian tribes and founded the Achaemenid Empire, the world’s first “superpower,” that stretched from the Balkans to the Indus Valley. Cyrus is remembered for his policies of cultural and religious tolerance. Cyrus’s successor, Darius I, expanded and organized the empire, creating a standardized currency, roads, and administrative systems.

In 330 BC, the empire was conquered by Alexander the Great, who ushered in a period of Greek rule. Following the death of Alexander, other empires were established in the area. In 247 BC, a decentralized, cavalry‑based power developed that repeatedly clashed with Rome. By 224 BC, there was a revival of Persian culture, Zoroastrian religion, and centralized state power. They become a major rival to Rome/Byzantium.

In 627 AD, the empire weakened and collapsed under early Islamic conquests. Persia became part of the rapidly expanding Islamic world, but retained its language and cultural identity. A succession of dynasties shaped the region, blending Persian administration with Islamic governance. In 1501, Shi’ism was established as the state religion, a defining feature of Iranian identity to this day.

In the years 1789–1925, the Qajar Dynasty became entangled with European imperial pressure, with territorial losses to European interests and European forced internal reform. To survive, the ruling Pahlavi family, Reza Shah and later Mohammad Reza Shah, pursued rapid modernization, secularization, and centralization.

American involvement in Iran began not with geopolitics but with missionaries, educators, and physicians. In the 1800s, American missionaries established schools, hospitals, and Iran’s first modern medical college in Urmia. These institutions earned widespread respect among Iranians. The U.S. was viewed as a non‑imperial power, unlike Britain and Russia, who dominated Iran economically and militarily. Americans were even appointed as financial advisors to the Shah. This era is often remembered as the high point of U.S.–Iran goodwill.

Everything changed in August 1953, when the U.S. and Britain orchestrated an overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry. The CIA-led coup restored the Shah’s authority and installed a more Western‑aligned government. For many Iranians, this became a foundational grievance. The U.S. was now seen as an imperial actor interfering in Iran’s sovereignty.

After the coup, the U.S. became the Shah’s primary supporter and Iran became one of America’s closest Cold War allies. The Shah’s regime, backed by U.S. military and intelligence aid, grew increasingly authoritarian. Many Iranians associated the U.S. with the Shah’s repression, widening the legitimacy gap that would fuel revolution.

The Shah was overthrown in 1979, and the Islamic Republic emerged. Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The U.S. severed diplomatic relations in 1980, and they have never been fully restored. The revolution reframed the U.S. as Iran’s primary external adversary, the “Great Satan!” Beginning in 1984, the U.S. labeled Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. This crisis cemented the mutual distrust that defines the relationship to this day.

The decades after the revolution saw cycles of hostility and missed opportunities. There were naval clashes during the Iran–Iraq War (including the U.S. shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988). There was Iran’s cooperation with the Taliban in 2001, followed by the “Axis of Evil” designation in 2002. And as we know today, there are the long‑running disputes over Iran’s nuclear program.

The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), under President Obama, briefly thawed relations, limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018, under President Trump, reignited tensions. By 2025, U.S.–Iran relations had deteriorated further, culminating in open warfare and in 2026, Iranian restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian leaders continue to frame the U.S., the “Great Satan,” as an oppressive global power, seeking dominance and control of Middle Eastern resources. The U.S. policymakers cite Iran’s support for militant groups (Hama and Hezbollah) and regional destabilization. Both sides use the other as a political foil, reinforcing entrenched narratives. Are we now dealing with another flawed Iraq “Weapons of Mass Destruction” mistake?

Trump Claims that Democrats are the Enemy!

There is NO factual basis for saying that Democrats—or for that matter, any mainstream American political group—are “America’s enemy.” Trump’s claim is political rhetoric, not an evidence‑based assessment of national security threats. It reflects a pattern in which Donald Trump labels political opponents as internal enemies.

Democrats are a constitutionally recognized political party representing tens of millions of Americans. They participate in elections, hold office, and operate within the same constitutional framework as Republicans. Disagreement over policy is normal in a democracy. It does not make one side an “enemy.”

Trump has increasingly described political opponents as “the enemy from within,” even calling them more dangerous than foreign adversaries. This is a rhetorical strategy, not a factual assessment. It’s meant to mobilize supporters and delegitimize critics.

This kind of language serves several political functions. It creates an “us vs. them” narrative, and it frames politics as a battle between patriots and traitors rather than a difference of ideas. By calling investigators, journalists, or opponents “enemies,” Trump casts any scrutiny of his actions as sabotage. His allegations heighten polarization, encouraging supporters to see compromise as betrayal. This is not unique to Trump, but he uses the tactic much more aggressively and more frequently than most modern presidents.

Historically, labeling fellow Americans as “enemies” is a warning sign. Democracies weaken when political opponents are treated as existential threats rather than competitors within the same system. When a political leader labels a domestic opponent as an “enemy,” it’s rarely about literal national security. It’s about reframing politics as existential conflict rather than policy disagreement. Trump is mobilizing supporters by creating a sense of threat—stolen elections, criminal immigrants, nuclear threats, WOKE, and DEI. According to Trump, critics are bad actors, particularly the “fake” media. He implies that his actions are normal and those opposed are anti-American. Political scientists call this antagonistic populism—a style that divides the nation into “the people” and “the enemies of the people.”

This tactic isn’t new in American history. For example, McCarthyism labeled political opponents (Socialists/Communists) as internal threats. Nixon framed critics as part of a “silent war” against him. Trump’s version is more direct and more personal. The “enemy” is not an ideology or a faction—it’s the opposing party itself. And to him, Democrats do not represent the core values of Americans. Make America Great Again!

One thing that stands out in Trump’s post‑2025 communication style is how his political rhetoric has become part of his governing posture. In his first term, the boundary between campaign language and governing language was porous; now, it’s almost nonexistent. That’s why statements like “Democrats are the enemy” aren’t just rhetorical flourishes—they’re signals about how he intends to wield power. When he labels Democrats as enemies, it’s often paired with threats of executive action, or accusations of sabotage and claims that the opposition is illegitimate. That pairing is what turns rhetoric into a governing tool. It’s not just messaging—it’s groundwork for policy justification.

When a president frames one party as an “enemy,” institutions that try to act independently get pulled into the conflict. They’re either “with him,” or “with the enemy.” That binary framing is powerful because it pressures institutions to choose sides. Consider the Supreme Court immunity debates or the almost blind loyalty of Congressional Republicans.

The more he escalates the language, the more his supporters expect confrontation. And the more they expect confrontation, the more he escalates. This loop is part of why his rhetoric has grown sharper since returning to office.

When setbacks occur—legal, bureaucratic, or geopolitical—he can immediately attribute them to “the enemy,” which protects his image of dominance, reframes failures as sabotage, and keeps his narrative intact. For example, Trump tried to bully a New York Times reporter. Donald Trump attacked NYT chief Washington correspondent David Sanger when he reported that Trump was backing away from his own goals in Iran, using Trump’s own words to prove it. Trump lashed out, “NYT’s lightweight analyst, David Sanger, says that I haven’t met my own goals. Yes, I have, and weeks ahead of schedule!” The Times could have let it slide. But they saw the pattern. It builds, and builds… until journalists lose all credibility. And they decided to break it.

Charlie Stadtlander, ED of Communications responded. “David Sanger brings more than 40 years of experience as a foreign and Washington correspondent for The Times — and a reputation for non-partisanship — to his work. His piece is a fair and thorough analysis of what the US military and American diplomats have and have not accomplished so far, and helps the country understand the state of the war and the president’s choices going forward. It’s exactly the type of analysis an independent journalist is supposed to be doing.”

Trump had an opportunity to respond. He didn’t. THIS is how you do it. Bullies only win when people give in. The New York Times did not give in! American need to support every news organization that stands up to Trump’s attacks on journalists. Demand the truth.

Funding Homeland Security: What’s the Problem?

Democrats have made it clear that they wish to fund Homeland Security programs but not Customs Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE). Democrats have made multiple attempts—at least four distinct legislative pushes in early 2026—to fund most Homeland Security programs while excluding ICE and CBP, but every attempt was blocked by Republicans. These efforts centered on funding Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Coast Guard, and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components while holding back ICE/CBP funding until reforms were negotiated.

For example, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) introduced a Funding Bill (February 11, 2026) which would have provided a full‑year of DHS funding covering every agency except ICE, CBP, and the Secretary’s office. The billExplicitly withheld all ICE/CBP funding until reforms were enacted. While it passed the House, the Senate voted 51- 46 against the measure. However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune voted “no” for procedural reasons, which allows him to bring the motion back up at a later date.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (March 6, 2026), said “This isn’t complicated: if Republicans won’t agree to rein in ICE and Border Patrol, they should at minimum work with us to pay TSA agents and fund disaster relief. But they won’t. Right now, Republicans are holding TSA agents’ paychecks hostage because they want to provide more money to ICE, without basic reforms to protect Americans’ rights and safety. Democrats will keep fighting to get TSA workers paid and fund FEMA and the Coast Guard, and we’ll keep pushing to enact common-sense steps to prevent more Americans from being hurt, or even killed, by masked federal agents.” Murray sought to fund TSA, FEMA, CISA, Coast Guard, and other DHS agencies, but explicitly excluded ICE and CBP. The request was blocked by Sen. Katie Britt (R‑AL).

Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virgina) later made a public push for partial DHS funding (March 8, 2026) where democrats proposed passing funding for four DHS agencies (TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, CISA) while continuing reform negotiations for ICE and CBP. Republicans rejected these partial‑funding attempts.

Senator Patty Murray again pushed her modified bill funding TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA while excluding ICE and the Secretary’s office (March 2026). Again,Republicans blocked it.

Democrats argued that ICE and CBP already had sufficient funding from the previous summer. After incidents in various cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Minneapolis, Democrats believe that reforms are needed for judicial warrants, body cameras, bans on masks, limits on roving patrols, better training, etc., before additional funding is a given.

Why did Republicans block the efforts to fund all the other agencies in the Homeland Security Bill as offered by Democrats? The Republicans framed Democrat actions as attempts to “defund” immigration enforcement and refused to allow partial DHS funding. This is a political move aimed at making the Democrats the bad actors, keeping funding from TSA workers, and other needed service agencies. The actions of Representative DeLauro, Senators Murray and Kaine make this narrative false. Democrats believe in supporting all DHS initiatives except for CBP and ICE. Senate Majority Leader Thune knows this. That is why he cast his “no” for allowing him to bring the bill back for a future vote. It is time he did so! Republican Senators need to focus on the good of the people and less on political maneuvers!

Donald Trump’s Promises Regarding Foreign Entanglements and War: Long Term Implications

The Promises

Across his 2016, 2020, and 2024 campaigns, Trump repeatedly promised to avoid new foreign wars, especially in the Middle East. He also promised to end “forever wars” begun by previous administrations. He pledged to reduce U.S. involvement in conflicts where allies “don’t appreciate what we are doing” or don’t “reimburse” the U.S. for security commitments. And lastly, he promised to pursue an “America First” foreign policy focused on domestic priorities rather than global policing. This message was central to his political identity.

Trump’s “no more endless wars/America First” promises aren’t new in spirit—but they collide with a long post‑1945 habit of deep global engagement. George Washington warned against “permanent alliances” and Jefferson favored staying out of European wars—what was later called isolationism or non‑interventionism. Trump’s position sits squarely in that older tradition of suspicion toward foreign commitments and wars that don’t clearly defend the homeland. In terms of rhetoric, Trump is tapping a very old American belief. Don’t get dragged into other people’s fights.

Historically, from 1945 on, a dominant pattern emerges. The US builds NATO, stations troops abroad, fights in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and intervenes repeatedly in Latin America and the Middle East—often as “leader of the free world” or to contain communism/terrorism. The policy becomes active interventionism plus alliances, not Washington‑style distance. Measured against that 75‑year pattern, Trump’s promises were counter‑cultural. He questioned alliances, criticized past wars, and framed global leadership as a bad deal for Americans.

During his first term, Trump emphasized that he had not started any new wars, and he used this as a major selling point in the 2024 campaign. His running mate, JD Vance, framed Trump as the rare modern president who resisted pressure to initiate new conflicts. He also promised to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan, and to avoid deploying U.S. forces unless the U.S. was directly threatened. His promise was to shift responsibility to regional actors saying, “Time for others to finally fight.”

Trump frequently criticized the Iraq War, calling it a “big, fat mistake.” He also criticized the U.S. role as “policeman of the Middle East,” and criticized the presidents who “threw America into unwise wars and failed to win them.” He framed Middle Eastern conflicts as costly, unproductive, and driven by the establishment.

Still, while promising to avoid new wars, Trump consistently said that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. He also believed that the U.S. must confront Iran’s regional influence and proxy forces. This was the one area where his anti‑intervention rhetoric included a clear exception.

The Actions

Despite his promises to avoid new foreign wars and to keep America First, President Trump used a drone strike to kill General Soleimani of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Quds Force. He bombed nuclear processing sites in Iran. He has carried out a military strike in Venezuela to capture Nicolás Maduro. The attack followed 42 attacks targeting boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Then there was the public consideration of a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. And over a week ago he started a major war in Iran, launched without congressional authorization. These actions contrast sharply with his earlier pledges to avoid foreign entanglements. On March 10^th he also reiterated the importance of Greenland and Panama to America’s economic security and stated that military action to acquire these countries was NOT off the table.

Trump now argues that Iran posed a direct and imminent threat to the U.S. He believed that the U.S. needed to degrade Iran’s missiles, navy, nuclear capacity, and proxy networks. He stated that the operation could last far longer than initially projected. He recently said he does not subscribe to the “no boots on the ground” promises of past presidents. This marks a major rhetorical shift from ending wars to justifying new ones as necessary for national security. Most presidents, even when cautious about war, treat alliances as strategic assets. Trump treats them as suspect unless they show immediate, measurable benefit.

The Financial Costs

The Iran war is already costing U.S. taxpayers billions—roughly $3.7 billion in the first 100 hours and more than $5 billion in the first week— and as of this writing a reported $11 billion total with the end still not in sight. Daily operating costs were estimated at $891.4 million during the opening phase. That includes $18 million per day just to keep two carrier strike groups on station—before firing a single weapon. Munition replacement for Tomahawks, JASSM-ER, bunker busters, etc. costs $3.1 billion. Additional costs are associated with replacement of lost units or their repair. The sad thing is that those dollars could fund major domestic priorities if redirected under an “America First” framework.

What Those Dollars Could Support in an America First Strategy

Here’s what $5 billion (the first week of war) could fund domestically.

It could fund 2–3 major semiconductor fabrication incentives (CHIPS‑style grants). It could be used to rebuild critical supply chains for pharmaceuticals, rare‑earth processing, and defense components. Or there would be dollars to modernize U.S. steel and heavy‑industry plants to reduce reliance on China.
It could have been used to repair or replace 2,000+ rural bridges nationwide, or to upgrade freight rail and river ports critical to Midwest agriculture. There would have been dollars to modernize water systems in small towns like those across western Illinois.
This money would have fully funded VA staffing shortages for mental health and primary care. It could allow for expanded housing vouchers for homeless veterans (tens of thousands served).
The money could support universal school lunch for millions of children for an entire year. It could fund 40,000–50,000 new childcare slots in working‑class communities. It might be possible to rebuild aging public schools in rural districts.

The America First argument is simple. Every billion dollars spent on a foreign war is a billion not spent on domestic security, industry, and community stability. And that’s before considering the possibility of months of continued operations, which could push total costs into the tens of billions.

Hidden Costs to Non‑Belligerent Countries in the Iran War

Even nations far from the battlefield are paying a price. These costs emerge through energy markets, supply chains, financial volatility, and geopolitical realignments. Even countries with no stake in the conflict face higher fuel, electricity, and manufacturing costs. Twenty to 25% of global seaborne oil and one‑fifth of liquid national gas (LNG) move through the Strait of Hormuz. Disruptions in this route immediately raise global prices. Crude jumped from $70 to over $110 within days of the strikes. Gasoline costs have increased worldwide, resulting in higher transportation and food prices, increased fertilizer costs (due to disrupted ammonia/nitrogen exports), and slower economic growth in energy‑importing nations (Europe, India, Japan)

The Middle East supplies more than oil. Qatar produces40% of the world’s helium, essential for semiconductor manufacturing. Nitrogen and ammonia exports (vital for fertilizers) face delays. Even countries not involved militarily, experience stock market declines (e.g., the Dow fell 400+ points after the strikes), tighter global financial conditions, and capital flight from emerging markets into “safe havens.” Airspace closures across the Gulf grounded thousands of flights. These closures result in higher air cargo costs for global supply chains, and tourism declines for countries dependent on Middle Eastern travelers. At least fourteen freight ships have been attacked in the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the War. Shipping times have increased, freight rates have risen, and insurance premiums have spiked. Countries not involved in the war still face pressure to take sides. This has strained relations with major powers (e.g., EU, China), increased defense spending to hedge against regional instability, and resulted in domestic political polarization over foreign policy alignment

Iran and its proxies have retaliated. There have been alleged Increases in cyberattacks on global banks, infrastructure, and government systems. There is a heightened terrorism alert, resulting in more resources diverted to intelligence and counterterrorism. Terrorist attacks at Old Dominion, a Michigan synagogue, and the theft of four drones may just be the beginning.

Even countries with no troops, no bases, and no direct involvement in the Iran war are paying a price—through higher energy costs, disrupted supply chains, financial instability, and geopolitical pressure. These hidden costs accumulate quietly, but can reshape national budgets, inflation rates, and political landscapes worldwide.

Conclusion

Considering the above discussion, is the cost associated with the Iran War worth the intended result, whatever that goal may be? What about America First? Shouldn’t the money spent on the Iran War be used to support the America First initiative?

Trump’s Presidency and Behavior:

As Compared to Jackson, Nixon, and Biden

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson was one of those presidents who didn’t just tweak the traditions he inherited—he bulldozed several of them and replaced them with a new model of executive power. If Washington, Jefferson, and Madison built the early presidency, Jackson re‑engineered it into something far more assertive and personal. There are some similarities between Jackson and Trump. However, Jackson did not use the presidency for his own benefit.

Before Jackson, presidents generally saw themselves as stewards of the constitutional system, not as tribunes of the people. Jackson claimed he alone represented the entire nation, not Congress or the courts. Jackson used popular support as a political weapon, something earlier presidents avoided. And he treated the presidency as an independent power base rather than a modest executive office. This shift laid the groundwork for the modern, personality‑driven presidency.

Jackson asserted that the president’s interpretation of the Constitution was equal to Congress’s and the Court’s. This was a major break from the Founders’ vision of a restrained executive.

He introduced the “spoils system” on a national scale. Before Jackson, presidents generally kept existing civil servants unless there was a clear reason to remove them. Jackson replaced large numbers of federal officeholders with political loyalists. He treated government jobs as rewards for party service. This helped create the modern party machine.

Jackson openly defied the Supreme Court. Earlier presidents sometimes disagreed with the Court, but they did not openly undermine its authority. He famously refused to enforce Worcester v. Georgia, which protected Cherokee sovereignty. He asserted that each branch could interpret the Constitution independently. Using this argument, he used executive power to pursue Indian removal despite legal and moral objections. This was a dramatic break from the tradition of respecting judicial authority.

Jackson broke with tradition by expanding presidential power, using the veto as a political tool, rewarding loyalists with government jobs, challenging the Supreme Court, treating the presidency as a direct democratic mandate, and building a mass political party around himself.

Despite Jackson’s abuse of his presidential power, he is remembered as a great president. While his personality was based on personal confidence, he did not use the office for his personal betterment. While in hindsight his policies may be questionable, his goals were viewed by him and his followers as best for the nation.

Top of Form

Richard Nixon Bottom of Form

Richard Nixon and Donald Trump share controversial presidencies. Both are marked with scandal, impeachment, and divisive leadership. The similarities end there. Nixon was secretive and manipulative, using operatives. Trump is brash, outspoken, and confrontational. He uses social media to connect directly with his base and his critics. Trump likes to be in the news, whereas Nixon operated behind the scenes.

Nixon had to deal with the Watergate scandal where a criminal conspiracy, illegal surveillance, and obstruction of justice eventually came to light. This scandal ultimately led to impeachment proceedings and his 1974 resignation. Trump has been the subject of two impeachment proceedings and ongoing criminal indictments related to the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C. He is also a convicted felon regarding his business practices, and the loser in a sexual assault civil case. Trump’s legal challenges are broader than Nixon’s. Nixon’s problems were contained within his manipulation of government offices to cover up the president’s involvement in the Watergate burglary.

Nixon was able to achieve détente with the Soviet Union, opened relation with China and managed domestic unrest without military intervention. Trump has focused on “America First” using trade tariffs to gain deals with other nations. He has withdrawn from international agreements, alienating many traditional allies. Nixon’s approach to foreign affairs was strategic and secretive. Trump’s approach is direct and transactional.

Both Nixon and Trump experienced historically low approval ratings. Just before his resignation, Nixon’s approval rating fell to 36%. Trump’s approval ratings have recently dropped to under 40%.

While Nixon and Trump share scandals, impeachment proceedings, and polarization, they are very different in style, context, and legal resolution. Although Nixon resigned in disgrace, his presidency was marked by many foreign policy achievements. While Trump claims to have resolved numerous wars, and views himself as the “peace president” the state of America’s involvement in national conflicts makes his claims questionable. Like Jackson, Nixon may have been a flawed person, but his interests as president served America.

Joe Biden

Since the Republican leadership has questioned the ethics of the Biden administration, a comparison between the two presents stark differences. Did Joe Biden use his political clout for family benefit? This claim has been investigated several times and will be examined later in this article.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden are very different people and ran very different presidencies. Biden expanded the Affordable Care Act (ACA), increased subsidies, and proposed a public option to improve accessibility to healthcare. Donald Trump has sought to repeal and then replace the ACA. He has introduced the American Health Care Act, which reduces federal involvement and increases state control of health policies. He has proposed direct payment to Americans in lieu of supporting insurance programs.

Trump has pulled back from environmental activism by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. He has promoted fossil fuels such as coal, and one of his favorite sayings is, “Drill baby drill.” He has also decimated the Environmental Protection Agency. Biden, on the other hand, invested in renewable energy and implemented policies to reduce greenhouse gases.

Donald Trump has reduced the size and influence of the Department of Education. His policies favor school choice and local controls. Biden increased federal funding for public schools, expanded access to pre-school programs, and worked for student debt relief.

Donald Trump’s immigration policies have created significant backlash, as protesters focus on ICE enforcement tactics. Trump’s stricter border enforcement has by all measures been successful in reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States. Biden tried to bring about progressive immigration reform but was blocked by the Republican controlled legislature.

There are so many issues where Trump and Biden were opposites on policy and on governance strategies. Biden emphasized unity, bipartisan cooperation, progressive social reform, multilateral foreign diplomacy, and post COVID economic recovery. Trump has focused on removing government from regulatory practices, tax cuts, and America First. Biden’s approach to economic recovery was just beginning as he ended his presidency. The data supports the contention that the nation was doing better in job creation and GDP under Biden than under Trump. Trump has done better in promoting wage growth, but the public has shown a lack of confidence in his ability to bring down the cost of living.

The claims that President Biden used his office to enrich his family started prior to 2019. Investigations into these claims have been ongoing. The House Oversight Committee has been investigating foreign business activities of Hunter Biden, James Biden and the involvement of Twitter in the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory. In August 2024, the House Committees released a report alleging impeachable conduct.

The story presented is that James and Hunter Biden owned Paradigm a major hedge fund. Hunter accepted a consulting job with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company. Joe Biden was Vice President at this time. At the same time, Hunter also co-founded BHR Partner, based in China. When Biden became the presidential candidate in 2019 the Trump re-election committee, lead by Rudy Giulini, alleged financial impropriety and influence peddling. A subsequent investigation by Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, could not substantiate Giulini’s claims.

Then in late 2020, the New York Post reported that a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden had emails that referred to President Joe Biden. There was much speculation and conspiracy mongering following the Post report. To date, nothing was found that would implicate President Biden in Hunter’s business affairs. To complicate matters, it was alleged by Alex Vindman that President Trump had tried to pressure Ukrainian President Zelenski into announcing that the Ukrainian government was investigating Hunter Biden. The Post story was investigated. Former Twitter employees testified contradicting the claim.

In June 2023, James Comer, head of the House Investigation Committee, released the committee findings on the Biden investigations. The report did NOT find any evidence of wrongdoing or money directed from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden. Furthermore, Comer said he could not name any specific official policy decision by Biden that may have been directly influenced by foreign payments. However, during this same period, the Justice Department accepted a plea deal where Hunter Biden pled guilty to federal tax offenses. Many Republicans viewed the reduced plea as a “sweetheart” deal, claiming presidential interference with the Garland Department of Justice. The final report of the committee found that the Justice Department had followed procedure.

Critics later focused on Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s partner and fellow Burisma board member, to show that Joe Biden was involved with Hunter’s Burisma business interests. During testimony, Archer acknowledged that Hunter had talked with his father over the phone a dozen times while in meetings with business associates. However, Archer said that Joe Biden “never once spoke about any business dealings.” He characterized the calls as casual niceties.

With all of the allegations, but no proof, the committee nevertheless held an impeachment hearing in September 2023. The committee claimed to have ‘uncovered a mountain of evidence,” but could not present any as the inquiry continued. In November, Speaker Mike Johnson indicated that there was insufficient evidence to initiate formal impeachment proceedings. Despite Johnson’s comments, in December, House Republicans unanimously approved a resolution to initiate formal impeachment proceedings. All Democrats voted against the resolution. On December 12, the key witness, Alexander Smirnov, admitted that he had fabricated the Burisma story about Joe and Hunter Biden (New York Times, Associated Press, CBS News).

Claims of financial gain by the President regarding Hunter Biden’s Chinese business contacts have also been investigated and found unsubstantiated. There appears to be no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. Whether investigations into President Trump’s alleged illegal activities surrounding the January 6 riots or his retaining top secret documents would have resulted in convictions is unknown. As recently as this week Judge Alien Cannon (a Trump appointee, whose decisions have been overturned by the Florida federal appeals court) has sealed the Jack Smith top secret documents investigation records.

Trump’s Promises Continued:

Social Services

Ban urban camping and arrest violators

President Trump did not need to do much on this promise since the U.S. Supreme Court’sCity of Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling of June 2024 allowed localities to ban outdoor camping even if there is no homeless shelter space available. Roughly 150 cities in 32 states have passed or strengthened such ordinances. Another 40 local bans on outdoor camping are pending, according to data by the National Homelessness Law Center. The measures vary in detail, but they typically include prohibitions on camping, sleeping, or storing property on public land. Many also include buffer zones near schools, parks or businesses.

Bans often allow for steep fines and jail time. In Indio, California, for example, people caught camping illegally could face a penalty of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail. The ordinance in Fresno, California, bans sitting, lying, sleeping, or camping on public property anytime, anywhere, with a penalty of up to a year in jail. Elmira, New York, includes sleeping in vehicles in its camping ban.

Create “tent cities” where the homeless can be moved

President Trump campaigned on a promise to create large, federally supported “tent cities” for people experiencing homelessness on inexpensive land, staffed with doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and drug rehabilitation experts. Instead, Trump has made significant shifts in federal homelessness policy, but his administration has so far not moved on a “tent city” program with accompanying services. The administration’s most consequential actions on homelessness to date involve proposed changes to homelessness funding, an executive order emphasizing enforcement, and efforts to restructure or eliminate federal homelessness coordination agencies.

End veteran homelessness

A Veterans Affairs Department census in January 2023 found more than 35,000 veterans experiencing homelessness, up 7.4% compared to 2022, but down by more than half since 2010. “The American veteran is one of our greats,” Trump declared. “These are great, great people. We have to take care of them.”

President Trump sketched out a highly ambitious agenda to end veteran homelessness in America. His plan solidified in May 2025 via an executive order in which Trump pledged to swiftly build a sprawling housing and social serves complex at the West Los Angles VA complex, a 388-acre campus originally deeded to house veterans that has since been scarred by systematic neglect, slow redevelopment, and a long trail of broken promises.

Trump’s bold rhetoric does not match his policy actions and legislative reversals. These include cuts by the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that caused many veterans to lose their jobs, and the One Big Beautiful Act’s work requirements for people (including veterans) participating in programs such as Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which can complicate their efforts to stay housed.

A clear example of the administration’s policy reversal involves the fittingly titled End Veteran Homelessness Act, which was first introduced in June 2024, during the Biden presidency. The legislation proposed to dispense with eligibility hurdles in the HUD-VASH program, an interagency rental assistance initiative that would provide housing vouchers to homeless veterans.

Various housing-related VA contracts have been axed as part of Elon Musk’s so-called DOGE initiatives. Among other things, VA cancelled a contract used to ensure housing for formerly homeless veterans meet all relevant safety standards, including lead-based paint.

Conclusions

President Trump made some great promises to improve the situation of the homeless, in particular homeless veterans. The ban on urban camping was already being considered when he took office. The plan to create “tent cities” was replaced with a better plan. However, the new plan requires changes to HUD programs. These changes seem to conflict with his veteran housing initiatives. The HUD-VASH program was cut during the DOGE phase in controlling government spending.

How has the Trump Trust and Family Benefited from the Presidency?

There have been multiple investigations and reports that estimate the Trump family earned billions of dollars during Trump’s first presidency and during the first year of his second presidency. That is far beyond what previous presidents or their families have ever accrued while in office. The New Yorker analysis reported that the family made approximately $3.4 billion across Trump’s tenure. This includes billions of dollars from cryptocurrency ventures, $339.6 million from financial ventures, $270.8 million from hospitality, $116 million from media, and $277.7 million from other sources such as private jet rentals, legal fees, and merchandise. These figures reflect a dramatic expansion of the Trump brand’s monetization during his time in office.

Reports from the Associated Press describe Trump’s second term as marked by unprecedented use of presidential power to generate profits for family enterprises. For example, cryptocurrency ventures tied to Trump or his family pulled in hundreds of millions. Foreign governments, billionaires, and crypto tycoons with interests being considered by the U.S. government, funneled money into Trump‑linked businesses. Trump’s children pursued global development deals, including projects in the Middle East and Albania. And Melania Trump secured a $40 million documentary deal with Amazon. Experts quoted in the reporting describe this as a level of self‑enrichment “totally not normal” for a U.S. president.

A detailed breakdown from The Hill shows how Trump’s children (even grandchildren) capitalized on the presidency. Kia Trump (Don Jr’s daughter) launched a high‑priced fashion line using the Trump brand. Barron Trump earned $150 million through the family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, and is positioned for future corporate influence (e.g., a potential TikTok board seat). Eric Trump became a major crypto figure, co‑founding World Liberty Financial and helping generate over $1 billion in crypto‑related revenue for the family. Forbes estimated Trump’s personal net worth of over $7.1 billion, grew from $2.3 billion (2024). This reflects a presidency intertwined with private business in ways not seen in modern U.S. history.

Although Trump placed his assets into a trust during his first term, the trust was revocable (meaning Trump could withdraw funds at any time). The trust is managed by his sons, who were simultaneously expanding Trump organization ventures. The trust is nota blind trust, whichallows Trump to remain aware of and benefit from business activities. The trust structure did not prevent Trump or his family from profiting from presidential influence.

The scale and openness of the Trump family’s financial gains during the presidency represent an historic departure from traditional presidential ethics norms. The practice blurs the lines between public office and private enrichment. The practices establish a model of governance where policy, branding, and business interests are deeply intertwined. Whether one views this as savvy entrepreneurship or a profound conflict of interest depends on political perspective, but the financial outcomes are well‑documented.

The most dramatic shift in Trump‑family enrichment came from the crypto system, which expanded rapidly during Trump’s second term. Trump publicly championed crypto, earning the nickname “Crypto President.” Trump urged Congress to pass the GENIUS Act, which eases U.S. restrictions on stablecoin (crypto) operations. After advocating for the bill, the Trump family’s crypto company began issuing its own stablecoin, becoming one of the largest issuers globally. This created a direct conflict: presidential advocacy, then regulatory change, followed by private profit.

Stablecoins are extremely profitable because issuers invest in customer deposits and keep the yield. This meant the Trump family captured the interest generated on billions in deposits. Trump’s second term saw the resumption of foreign licensing deals, including in geopolitically sensitive regions such as Qatar and Vietnam. These deals involved sovereign wealth funds and state-linked developers, raising renewed emoluments concerns.

Trump properties — hotels, golf clubs, resorts — became centers of political activity, generating revenue from political committees, lobbyists, foreign delegations, administration officials, and Republican donors. The presidency turned Trump hotels into pay-to-be-seen venues, where spending money at a Trump property became a way to signal loyalty or seek influence. This was a continuation of first-term patterns but on a larger scale.

The Trump brand became a commercial engine, with revenue from merchandise, media ventures, paid appearances, licensing deals, private jet rentals, and digital products (NFTs, tokens, etc.). The presidency amplified the Trump brand’s reach, enabling the family to monetize political identity at unprecedented scale. Various media sources including the New Yorker, CNN, and Public Citizen have described this as the “merchandise machine” in varying printed words.

The most striking theme is the collapse of boundaries between public offices and private business. The presidency itself became a marketing tool with executive actions, public statements, legislative advocacy, and regulatory positions. All serve to increase the value of Trump-owned assets, especially in crypto and media. This is described as the “conspicuous integration of federal power, personal branding, and private profit.”

Across all sources, the pattern is consistent. Presidential power amplified the Trump brand, and the Trump brand generated unprecedented private profit. The mechanisms were not subtle: they were structural, intentional, and integrated into governance itself. In summary, the Trump presidency has gone far beyond institution norms and ethical guardrails.

Donald Trump’s Promises, Continued

Health services

Leave Social Security and Medicare unchanged

What has Trump done with Medicare? The Trump administration’s second-term policy focuses on deregulation and structural reforms aimed at cost reduction. The program emphasizes protecting core Medicare benefits, with a commitment to maintaining current eligibility ages and premium structures. In 2025, over 67 million people were enrolled in Medicare (including both original Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans). That number is expected to grow to 68 or 69 million over the next few years. Medicare spending reached approximately $1.1 trillion in 2024 (the most current data), accounting for about 21% of total national health expenditures and roughly 12-14% of federal spending in recent years (Kaiser Foundation).

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) lowers costs for seniors. The current law excludes anyone in the U.S. from unlawfully receiving Medicare benefits. The law states that to be eligible to enroll in Medicare as a retiree, you must be 65, have worked for at least 10 years, and be either a U.S. citizen or have been a permanent resident of the U.S. for at least five consecutive years. Trump’s OBBBeliminatedMedicare eligibility for some immigrants, including refugees, asylum seekers, and those with Temporary Protected Status. The work and age requirements are unchanged.

The fulfillment of two finalized rules that would have made it easier for very low-income Medicare enrollees to access Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs) has been delayed until October 1, 2034.

Expansion of the drug price negotiation program

In May, the Trump administration announced an expansion of the Inflation Reduction Act’s drug price negotiation program to include Medicare Part B drugs for the first time. This action added to Trump’s earlier efforts to negotiate drug prices during his first term. The Trump administration moved forward with expanding Medicare and Medicaid coverage for obesity treatments– specifically GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy, Zepbound, Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Rybelsus, when used for chronic weight management in obese patients.

The changes emerged through a series of November–December 2025 announcements, such as:

negotiated “most-favored-nation” pricing dealing with drug manufacturers (slashing costs by up to 80%)
enabling coverage under new voluntary payment models like the Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (GUARD) model for Part D
a similar “Weight-Loss Drug Coverage Model” for Medicare and Medicaid.

The stated objective is to initially cover around 10% of Medicare beneficiaries while also controlling federal spending. Central Management Services (CMS) has begun implementing these through the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program (MFP), with negotiated prices recently announced for select GLP-1 drugs.

Beyond GLP-1s, the CMS has continued the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, with Maximum Fair Prices for the first ten selected Part D drugs — Eliquis, Jardiance, Xarelto, Januvia, Farxiga, Entresto, Enbrel, Imbruvica, Stelara, and certain insulins — with projected savings of $6 billion annually for Medicare and $1.5 billion in beneficiary out-of-pocket costs.

The Trump administration has also advanced Most-Favored-Nation pricing through voluntary models from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), including the GENEROUS Model and the proposed GLOBE Model. Launched in January 2026, the GENEROUS Model creates Medicaid supplemental rebates for certain Part B drugs like cancer therapies. The GLOBE Model, with a proposed launch in October 2026, will impose rebates if U.S. prices exceed those of global competitors.

These efforts coordinate with reduced prices via the TrumpRx.gov platform, launched in early 2026. The platform doesn’t sell drugs but instead connects patients to discounted most-favored-nation rates from participating manufacturers. TrumpRX is only available to those not covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance (about 8% of the nation’s population).

Medicare Premiums and Programs

In 2026, Medicare beneficiaries saw an increase in their monthly Part B premiums to $202.90 (up from $185), a higher Part D deductible of $615 (up from $590), and a rise in the Part D out-of-pocket cost cap to $2,100. Other changes include potential reductions in negotiated drug prices, stricter rules for extra benefits in Medicare Advantage plans, and the introduction of enhanced security measures.

Stricter rulesfor Medicare Advantageplans mean fewer extra benefits for Medicare beneficiaries as plans face tighter spending restrictions. Perks such as grocery cards and transportation have been cut from many Advantage programs. Free dental, vision, and gym memberships have also been curtailed.

Medicaid

Although not directly related to Medicare, it’s worth mentioning that Medicaid, the state and federal program that provides health coverage for millions of low-income Americans (about 23% of the U.S. population), was at center stage in Congress’s bid to pass Trump’s sweeping agenda.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB)—which Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, includes cuts to Medicaid of almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million Americans may lose their health insurance.

Work reporting requirements are also among the changes. These changes, which are effective January 1, 2027, require that workers document at least 80 hours per month of qualifying activities (work related or community service). Those over 65 are exempt, as are veterans with disabilities and caregivers of young and disabled dependents.

Medicare Advantage payment boost

Initially, the government payments to Medicare Advantage plans were expected to increase by an average of 5.06% for 2026. This week President Trump announced that he would not increase the government payments for Medicare Advantage plans. The Kaiser Foundation warns that this policy will likely cause providers to leave the plan. To maintain profits, insurance companies will need to cut additional benefits, and are likely to require more pre-approval of procedures.

Rural health investments

OBBB created the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program. CMS awarded funds in early 2026 to modernize rural health care, directly benefiting Medicare beneficiaries in designated rural areas (Kathryn Pomroy , Kiplinger). As of January 2026, states were given 52 days to pull together applications and outline how they would use the funding to improve outcomes, grow the rural health care workforce, and drive innovation.

Each state is guaranteed $100 million a year over the next five years. The rest of the money was awarded based on a series of factors — including how rural a state is, what states propose to do with the money, and whether the states adopt policies aligned with the administration’s Make America Healthy Again priorities.

There’s bipartisan excitement about rural health finally getting some attention and investment. However, Democrats and many health policy experts argue, that this temporary $50 billion infusion pales in comparison to the roughly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare, also passed by Congress last year.

Keep the Social Security retirement age unchanged

Trump has been consistent in his written platforms and in public remarks regarding this promise.

Either the government pay for, or requires insurers to pay for, in vitro fertilization treatment

Trump has billed himself as the “fertilization president.” Trump’s administration issued guidance that would allow employers to offer IVF coverage as a benefit as part of company insurance plans. The updated guidance would make opting in to fertility benefits like opting in for dental or vision benefits as part of an employer’s insurance plan. The guidance does not require employers to offer a fertility benefit. Premium costs for any fertility benefit would be dependent on a specific employer’s contributions, and which benefits the company and insurer offers.

In addition, Trump announced an agreement intended to lower the cost of a popular fertility drug. His administration reached an agreement with EMD Serono to offer its fertility drugs, including Gonal-F, as part of a “most favored nation” plan that stipulates that certain medications cannot be sold to Americans for more than the highest price overseas.

As of February 2026, Senator Tammy Duckworth claims that she has worked tirelessly to pass legislation ensuring coverage for IVF, but Republicans have blocked her efforts again. If Trump really supports expanding IVF access — which he’s shouted from the rooftops but done virtually nothing meaningful to accomplish — this should be a no-brainer. He can and should expand IVF coverage to all federal workers now.

Give a tax credit for family caregivers who take care of a parent or a loved one

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the Caregiver Tax Credit bill (also know as the OBBB), which provides a non-refundable tax credit that reduces your income tax. To qualify you must be an individual who provides care for a spouse, common-law partner, or a dependent person with physical or mental impairment.

Create a presidential task force to investigate the rise in chronic health problems, including autism, autoimmune disorders, and obesity

President Trump established the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission to investigate the rise in chronic health problems, including autism, autoimmune disorders, and obesity. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. chairs the commission. Kennedy’s objectives have been covered extensively by the media.

Conclusions

There has been much activity in some of these areas. President Trump is keeping his promise and has not raised the social security eligibility age. He has developed programs to tackle drug pricing and has provided a tax credit for caregivers. However, his drug pricing programs, while politically noteworthy, do not solve the problems. His promise to boost the Medicare Advantage program is now on hold. His decision to keep the program payments steady is NOT a boost. The rollout of TrumpRX makes for great press, but it is only a “drop in the bucket.”