SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks to members of the press outside the West Wing of the White House on January 25, 2023 in Washington, DC. Sen. Sanders had a meeting with President Joe Biden earlier.
Let's see how Bernie Sanders can use his staff and public hearings to jolt the Big Pharma toadies in Congress with the rumble from the people who are in dire straits.
It is showdown time. Senator Bernie Sanders, new chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee versus Big Pharma.
The self-described “democratic socialist” from a safe seat in Vermont has long been a Big Pharma nemesis. He has issued detailed critiques of what others have called a “Pay or Die” industry coddled by Congress that provides huge tax credits, free government-developed medicines, and free, with few exceptions, unbridled power to charge what their monopoly markets can’t bear.
Americans are charged the highest drug prices in the world. U.S. drug companies feed off taxpayer subsidies yet are under no reasonable price controls even for those new drugs they get free from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Senator Sanders has taken busloads of Vermonters to Canada to buy the same medicines sold in the U.S. at much cheaper prices just over the Canadian border. During his presidential campaigns, he assailed high drug prices and supported single-payer or full Medicare-for-All. The latter, he has told the pro-single-payer group, Physicians for a National Health Program, is off the table. Astonishingly, he is not going to push it. That leaves the drug companies on which to focus his power.
Big Pharma is ready for Bernie’s thunderous denunciations. As witnesses, Pharma executives play humble rope-a-dope and exude courtesy. Their 500 full-time lobbyists outnumber the members of the Senate, and Big Pharma’s backup brigades of corporate lawyers, propagandists and local chambers of commerce add to the power imbalance. They’ve survived Congressional table-thumping for decades by both Democrats and Republicans, knowing that it is largely all theatre.
The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.
The three drug companies—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—that control the price of insulin, have withstood verbal blast after verbal blast by candidates campaigning for public office. They’re still jacking up their price, 1,100% since the 1990s, even though it’s the same product and is sold in other wealthy countries for a fraction of what Big Pharma bills Americans in the U.S. Still, uninsured or underinsured people who need insulin have to pay, but are so hard-pressed they often ration their supply of this essential drug. Up to 1 in 4 people with Type 1 diabetes ration insulin. There are fatal consequences to such rationing.
The bosses of these three companies—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—are not ready to budge.
Nor are other giant drug companies ready to disturb their subsidized and anticompetitive business model. This model includes finding tricky ways to continually extend their monopoly patent period, taking control of the comparable generics, spending more on advertising and marketing than on research and development for which they get a generous tax credit from Uncle Sam, taking good care of key physicians who tout their products and gaming the insurance industry that in theory should be resisting gouging payouts for drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.
Big Pharma is insatiably avaricious. They obstruct incoming free trade of lower-priced drugs while they outsource the production of key medicines to countries like China and India where drug manufacturing plants are poorly monitored by the understaffed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Big Pharma has maneuvered Congress into having a large portion of the FDA’s meager budget come from the drug companies with the invisible strings attached. Imagine paying the police who are supposed to be holding you to the law.
There is more. With some Democratic House members joining the Republican legislators in 2003, a bill was passed expanding Medicare’s drug benefits and prohibiting Medicare from negotiating volume discounts with the drug companies. This has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Thank you, Republican Party – the constant avatar of corporate greed and leaving our country defenseless. For example, no antibiotics are now produced in the U.S. Many come from China. The GOP exhibits both a disregard for national security peril and a lack of patriotism, while it takes campaign cash from the drug goliaths.
The latest outrage comes from a report by the Wall Street Journal that Pfizer and Moderna intend to quadruple the price of their Covid vaccine, once their government purchasing contracts run out, to a range of $110-130 a shot. Bear in mind, both companies have made enormous profits from a government-guaranteed market of tens of billions of dollars. But readers may ask: “Won’t the higher price lead to fewer people being able to afford the vaccines, especially those not covered by insurance?” Correct. Big Pharma doesn’t care.
Moderna is a creature of the government’s National Institutes of Health research and development for the mRNA type Covid-19 vaccine. NIH scientists were in the lead, in collaborating with the scientists at this formerly tiny Boston-based company. The result turned Moderna into a multibillion-dollar firm. One would think being bred to commercial success by the taxpayers would result in some restraint. Not so.
Lives lost, injuries and diseases are at stake. For decades Big Pharma has refined its gigantic profits into an invulnerable racket that is impervious to media exposes, occasional prosecutions and fines, political campaign denunciations and keeping promises of patient relief.
Here is a solution. Since the NIH R&D programs have developed many drugs to the clinical trial level, let NIH proceed to manufacture these drugs in the good old USA and market them through government health programs.
There is a precedent from the Pentagon during the Vietnam War when the second leading cause of hospitalization for U.S. soldiers there was malaria. The drug companies were not willing to invest in developing anti-malarial medicines (not enough profit). The Pentagon set up its own “drug firm” inside Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital (now the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center). For a tiny fraction of what the drug companies would have charged the government, MDs and PhDs produced three new anti-malarial medicines, plus other medicines, which were positively reported in peer-reviewed medical journals.
So, let’s go, Bernie Sanders. This is “democratic socialism” fostering domestic and national security replacing unpatriotic, greedy “corporate socialism” that abandons the U.S. to communist China, leaving behind the federal safety regulatory watchdogs.
Let’s see how Bernie Sanders can use his staff and public hearings to jolt the Big Pharma toadies in Congress with the rumble from the people who are in dire straits. Senator Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and other compatriots can barnstorm the country and energize super majorities of both liberal and conservative Americans to back their cause since they all bleed the same color.
Otherwise, it’s just going to be the same old song – “There goes Bernie again – baying at the moon.”
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
It is showdown time. Senator Bernie Sanders, new chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee versus Big Pharma.
The self-described “democratic socialist” from a safe seat in Vermont has long been a Big Pharma nemesis. He has issued detailed critiques of what others have called a “Pay or Die” industry coddled by Congress that provides huge tax credits, free government-developed medicines, and free, with few exceptions, unbridled power to charge what their monopoly markets can’t bear.
Americans are charged the highest drug prices in the world. U.S. drug companies feed off taxpayer subsidies yet are under no reasonable price controls even for those new drugs they get free from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Senator Sanders has taken busloads of Vermonters to Canada to buy the same medicines sold in the U.S. at much cheaper prices just over the Canadian border. During his presidential campaigns, he assailed high drug prices and supported single-payer or full Medicare-for-All. The latter, he has told the pro-single-payer group, Physicians for a National Health Program, is off the table. Astonishingly, he is not going to push it. That leaves the drug companies on which to focus his power.
Big Pharma is ready for Bernie’s thunderous denunciations. As witnesses, Pharma executives play humble rope-a-dope and exude courtesy. Their 500 full-time lobbyists outnumber the members of the Senate, and Big Pharma’s backup brigades of corporate lawyers, propagandists and local chambers of commerce add to the power imbalance. They’ve survived Congressional table-thumping for decades by both Democrats and Republicans, knowing that it is largely all theatre.
The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.
The three drug companies—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—that control the price of insulin, have withstood verbal blast after verbal blast by candidates campaigning for public office. They’re still jacking up their price, 1,100% since the 1990s, even though it’s the same product and is sold in other wealthy countries for a fraction of what Big Pharma bills Americans in the U.S. Still, uninsured or underinsured people who need insulin have to pay, but are so hard-pressed they often ration their supply of this essential drug. Up to 1 in 4 people with Type 1 diabetes ration insulin. There are fatal consequences to such rationing.
The bosses of these three companies—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—are not ready to budge.
Nor are other giant drug companies ready to disturb their subsidized and anticompetitive business model. This model includes finding tricky ways to continually extend their monopoly patent period, taking control of the comparable generics, spending more on advertising and marketing than on research and development for which they get a generous tax credit from Uncle Sam, taking good care of key physicians who tout their products and gaming the insurance industry that in theory should be resisting gouging payouts for drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.
Big Pharma is insatiably avaricious. They obstruct incoming free trade of lower-priced drugs while they outsource the production of key medicines to countries like China and India where drug manufacturing plants are poorly monitored by the understaffed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Big Pharma has maneuvered Congress into having a large portion of the FDA’s meager budget come from the drug companies with the invisible strings attached. Imagine paying the police who are supposed to be holding you to the law.
There is more. With some Democratic House members joining the Republican legislators in 2003, a bill was passed expanding Medicare’s drug benefits and prohibiting Medicare from negotiating volume discounts with the drug companies. This has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Thank you, Republican Party – the constant avatar of corporate greed and leaving our country defenseless. For example, no antibiotics are now produced in the U.S. Many come from China. The GOP exhibits both a disregard for national security peril and a lack of patriotism, while it takes campaign cash from the drug goliaths.
The latest outrage comes from a report by the Wall Street Journal that Pfizer and Moderna intend to quadruple the price of their Covid vaccine, once their government purchasing contracts run out, to a range of $110-130 a shot. Bear in mind, both companies have made enormous profits from a government-guaranteed market of tens of billions of dollars. But readers may ask: “Won’t the higher price lead to fewer people being able to afford the vaccines, especially those not covered by insurance?” Correct. Big Pharma doesn’t care.
Moderna is a creature of the government’s National Institutes of Health research and development for the mRNA type Covid-19 vaccine. NIH scientists were in the lead, in collaborating with the scientists at this formerly tiny Boston-based company. The result turned Moderna into a multibillion-dollar firm. One would think being bred to commercial success by the taxpayers would result in some restraint. Not so.
Lives lost, injuries and diseases are at stake. For decades Big Pharma has refined its gigantic profits into an invulnerable racket that is impervious to media exposes, occasional prosecutions and fines, political campaign denunciations and keeping promises of patient relief.
Here is a solution. Since the NIH R&D programs have developed many drugs to the clinical trial level, let NIH proceed to manufacture these drugs in the good old USA and market them through government health programs.
There is a precedent from the Pentagon during the Vietnam War when the second leading cause of hospitalization for U.S. soldiers there was malaria. The drug companies were not willing to invest in developing anti-malarial medicines (not enough profit). The Pentagon set up its own “drug firm” inside Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital (now the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center). For a tiny fraction of what the drug companies would have charged the government, MDs and PhDs produced three new anti-malarial medicines, plus other medicines, which were positively reported in peer-reviewed medical journals.
So, let’s go, Bernie Sanders. This is “democratic socialism” fostering domestic and national security replacing unpatriotic, greedy “corporate socialism” that abandons the U.S. to communist China, leaving behind the federal safety regulatory watchdogs.
Let’s see how Bernie Sanders can use his staff and public hearings to jolt the Big Pharma toadies in Congress with the rumble from the people who are in dire straits. Senator Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and other compatriots can barnstorm the country and energize super majorities of both liberal and conservative Americans to back their cause since they all bleed the same color.
Otherwise, it’s just going to be the same old song – “There goes Bernie again – baying at the moon.”
It is showdown time. Senator Bernie Sanders, new chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee versus Big Pharma.
The self-described “democratic socialist” from a safe seat in Vermont has long been a Big Pharma nemesis. He has issued detailed critiques of what others have called a “Pay or Die” industry coddled by Congress that provides huge tax credits, free government-developed medicines, and free, with few exceptions, unbridled power to charge what their monopoly markets can’t bear.
Americans are charged the highest drug prices in the world. U.S. drug companies feed off taxpayer subsidies yet are under no reasonable price controls even for those new drugs they get free from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Senator Sanders has taken busloads of Vermonters to Canada to buy the same medicines sold in the U.S. at much cheaper prices just over the Canadian border. During his presidential campaigns, he assailed high drug prices and supported single-payer or full Medicare-for-All. The latter, he has told the pro-single-payer group, Physicians for a National Health Program, is off the table. Astonishingly, he is not going to push it. That leaves the drug companies on which to focus his power.
Big Pharma is ready for Bernie’s thunderous denunciations. As witnesses, Pharma executives play humble rope-a-dope and exude courtesy. Their 500 full-time lobbyists outnumber the members of the Senate, and Big Pharma’s backup brigades of corporate lawyers, propagandists and local chambers of commerce add to the power imbalance. They’ve survived Congressional table-thumping for decades by both Democrats and Republicans, knowing that it is largely all theatre.
The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.
The three drug companies—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—that control the price of insulin, have withstood verbal blast after verbal blast by candidates campaigning for public office. They’re still jacking up their price, 1,100% since the 1990s, even though it’s the same product and is sold in other wealthy countries for a fraction of what Big Pharma bills Americans in the U.S. Still, uninsured or underinsured people who need insulin have to pay, but are so hard-pressed they often ration their supply of this essential drug. Up to 1 in 4 people with Type 1 diabetes ration insulin. There are fatal consequences to such rationing.
The bosses of these three companies—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—are not ready to budge.
Nor are other giant drug companies ready to disturb their subsidized and anticompetitive business model. This model includes finding tricky ways to continually extend their monopoly patent period, taking control of the comparable generics, spending more on advertising and marketing than on research and development for which they get a generous tax credit from Uncle Sam, taking good care of key physicians who tout their products and gaming the insurance industry that in theory should be resisting gouging payouts for drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.
Big Pharma is insatiably avaricious. They obstruct incoming free trade of lower-priced drugs while they outsource the production of key medicines to countries like China and India where drug manufacturing plants are poorly monitored by the understaffed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Big Pharma has maneuvered Congress into having a large portion of the FDA’s meager budget come from the drug companies with the invisible strings attached. Imagine paying the police who are supposed to be holding you to the law.
There is more. With some Democratic House members joining the Republican legislators in 2003, a bill was passed expanding Medicare’s drug benefits and prohibiting Medicare from negotiating volume discounts with the drug companies. This has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Thank you, Republican Party – the constant avatar of corporate greed and leaving our country defenseless. For example, no antibiotics are now produced in the U.S. Many come from China. The GOP exhibits both a disregard for national security peril and a lack of patriotism, while it takes campaign cash from the drug goliaths.
The latest outrage comes from a report by the Wall Street Journal that Pfizer and Moderna intend to quadruple the price of their Covid vaccine, once their government purchasing contracts run out, to a range of $110-130 a shot. Bear in mind, both companies have made enormous profits from a government-guaranteed market of tens of billions of dollars. But readers may ask: “Won’t the higher price lead to fewer people being able to afford the vaccines, especially those not covered by insurance?” Correct. Big Pharma doesn’t care.
Moderna is a creature of the government’s National Institutes of Health research and development for the mRNA type Covid-19 vaccine. NIH scientists were in the lead, in collaborating with the scientists at this formerly tiny Boston-based company. The result turned Moderna into a multibillion-dollar firm. One would think being bred to commercial success by the taxpayers would result in some restraint. Not so.
Lives lost, injuries and diseases are at stake. For decades Big Pharma has refined its gigantic profits into an invulnerable racket that is impervious to media exposes, occasional prosecutions and fines, political campaign denunciations and keeping promises of patient relief.
Here is a solution. Since the NIH R&D programs have developed many drugs to the clinical trial level, let NIH proceed to manufacture these drugs in the good old USA and market them through government health programs.
There is a precedent from the Pentagon during the Vietnam War when the second leading cause of hospitalization for U.S. soldiers there was malaria. The drug companies were not willing to invest in developing anti-malarial medicines (not enough profit). The Pentagon set up its own “drug firm” inside Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital (now the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center). For a tiny fraction of what the drug companies would have charged the government, MDs and PhDs produced three new anti-malarial medicines, plus other medicines, which were positively reported in peer-reviewed medical journals.
So, let’s go, Bernie Sanders. This is “democratic socialism” fostering domestic and national security replacing unpatriotic, greedy “corporate socialism” that abandons the U.S. to communist China, leaving behind the federal safety regulatory watchdogs.
Let’s see how Bernie Sanders can use his staff and public hearings to jolt the Big Pharma toadies in Congress with the rumble from the people who are in dire straits. Senator Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and other compatriots can barnstorm the country and energize super majorities of both liberal and conservative Americans to back their cause since they all bleed the same color.
Otherwise, it’s just going to be the same old song – “There goes Bernie again – baying at the moon.”
Any such effort, said one democracy watchdog, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
In his latest full-frontal assault on democratic access and voting rights, President Donald Trump early Monday said he will lead an effort to ban both mail-in ballots and voting machines for next year's mid-term elections—a vow met with immediate rebuke from progressive critics.
"I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election," Trump wrote in a social media post infested with lies and falsehoods.
Trump falsely claimed that no other country in the world uses mail-in voting—a blatant lie, according to International IDEA, which monitors democratic trends worldwide, at least 34 nations allow for in-country postal voting of some kind. The group notes that over 100 countries allow out-of-country postal voting for citizens living or stationed overseas during an election.
Trump has repeated his false claim—over and over again—that he won the 2020 election, which he actually lost, in part due to fraud related to mail-in ballots, though the lie has been debunked ad nauseam. He also fails to note that mail-in ballots were very much in use nationwide in 2024, with an estimated 30% of voters casting a mail-in ballot as opposed to in-person during the election in which Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took back the US Senate and retained the US House of Representatives.
Monday's rant by Trump came just days after his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Trump claimed commented personally on the 2020 election and mail-in ballots. In a Friday night interview with Fox News, Trump claimed "one of the most interesting" things Putin said during their talks about ending the war in Ukraine was about mail-in voting in the United States and how Trump would have won the election were it not for voter fraud, echoing Trump's own disproven claims.
Trump: Vladimir Putin said your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting… he talked about 2020 and he said you won that election by so much.. it was a rigged election. pic.twitter.com/m8v0tXuiDQ
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 16, 2025
Trump said Monday he would sign an executive order on election processes, suggesting that it would forbid mail-in ballots as well as the automatic tabulation machines used in states nationwide. He also said that states, which are in charge of administering their elections at the local level, "must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do."
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, which tracks voting rights and issues related to ballot access, said any executive order by Trump to end mail-in voting or forbid provenly safe and accurate voting machines ahead of the midterms would be "unconstitutional and illegal."
Such an effort, said Elias, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.