August, 04 2020, 12:00am EDT
Government Should End Monopoly Control of Remdesivir
Statement of Peter Maybarduk, Director, Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines Program
WASHINGTON
A bipartisan group of 34 state attorneys general sent a letter today asking the federal government to authorize generic competition for remdesivir, in order to mitigate drug shortages and lower prices. Public Citizen found that taxpayers have invested a minimum of $70.5 million in remdesivir's development and has contended that Gilead should price the treatment at no more than $1 per day.
Statement of Peter Maybarduk, Director, Public Citizen's Access to Medicines Program:
Gilead's monopoly control of remdesivir leads to shortages and rationing and keeps prices high. Taxpayers funded remdesivir's development from the drug's early days. Generic competition would help expand supply and ensure reasonable pricing. The federal government - we the people, that is - appears to co-own remdesivir's core patents. Remdesivir should be in the public domain.
While remdesivir is no kind of pandemic panacea, still hospitals should be able to rely on a robust, affordable supply and make choices according to medical need.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'A Good Day for Our Democracy': Judge Orders Trump to End National Guard Deployment in LA
"For more than five months, the Trump administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games," said California's attorney general. "But the president is not king."
Dec 10, 2025
In a win for Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Attorney General Rob Bonta, and the residents of Los Angeles, a federal judge on Wednesday ordered President Donald Trump to stop deploying the National Guard in the nation's second-largest city.
"The founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances," wrote US District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. "Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one."
Trump mobilized around 4,000 California National Guard troops in June amid protests against his violent crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Since then, the Republican leader has also pursued deployments in other Democrat-led cities, including Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; and Washington, DC, where two soldiers were recently shot.
The new ruling from San Francisco-based Breyer comes as the administration was cutting troops in LA from 300 to 100, according to the New York Times.
"Once again, a court has firmly rejected the president's attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force."
"Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, defendants still retain control of approximately 300 guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly," the judge said. "What's more, defendants have sent California guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops."
After ruling in September that Trump's deployment of Marines in Los Angeles violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, the judge on Wednesday blocked the president's federalization of California National Guard troops—but he also halted his own decision until next Monday, allowing for appeals.
Despite the prospect that the Trump administration would continue the court fight, Bonta and Newsom—who is expected to run for president in 2028—welcomed the ruling.
"Once again, a court has firmly rejected the president's attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force," Bonta said in a statement. "For more than five months, the Trump administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games."
"But the president is not king. And he cannot federalize the National Guard whenever, wherever, and for however long he wants, without justification," the attorney general declared. "This is a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law."
In addition to battling Trump's invasion of LA, Bonta has backed lawsuits filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, and DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb challenging the president's deployments in their cities and filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court for the Chicago fight.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Threatens ICC With More Sanctions to Prevent Future Prosecution of Trump: Report
"Amending the Rome Statute to exclude non-state parties will never happen," said one professor of international law.
Dec 10, 2025
Exclusive reporting by Reuters on Wednesday cites an anonymous government official who says that the Trump administration has privately reached out to the International Criminal Court in order to threaten new sanctions against the ICC unless it pledges not to prosecute President Donald Trump for any crimes he may have committed.
According to the news agency:
The Trump administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Washington has communicated its demands to ICC members, some of whom are U.S. allies, and has also made them known to the court. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC in 2002 as a court of last resort, with the power to prosecute heads of state.
The demand and the threat to resume the U.S. sanctions campaign towards the court have not been previously reported.
In February, just a month after taking office for his second term, Trump announced US sanctions against ICC officials following the issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli government leaders for their role in the military assault and humanitarian embargo on Gaza, characterized by a United Nations investigative body and numerous human rights groups worldwide as a genocide.
The unnamed official who spoke to Reuters said there "is growing concern" that after Trump leaves office in January of 2029, "the ICC will turn its attention to the president, to the vice president, to the secretary of war and others, and pursue prosecutions against them. That is unacceptable, and we will not allow it to happen."
According to the source, the solution is for ICC members states "to change the Rome Statute to make very clear that they don't have jurisdiction" over US heads of state, including Trump, for any possible crime no matter its nature or where it takes place.
As Reuters notes, "Enshrining blanket immunity for specific individuals would be seen as undermining the court's founding principles and would need approval by the court's governing body, the Assembly of States Parties."
Kevin Jon Heller, a professor international law as the University of Copenhagen and a special adviser to the ICC Prosecutor on War Crimes, said in a social media post Wednesday that it is highly unlikely that member states would bow to the US pressure. "Amending the Rome Statute to exclude non-state parties will never happen," said Heller.
The official did not say which acts of the president have caused the most worry within the administration as it concerns a possible prosecution.
During his second term Trump has—among other possible crimes and violations of international law—ordered the bombing of Iran, unleashed numerous strikes against Somalia and Yemen that have resulted in civilian casualties, provided political support and armed Israel as it carries out a genocide in Gaza, and conducted, since September, a series of extrajudicial murders in the Caribbean and Pacific with aerial bombings that have claimed the lives of at least 87 people.
Reuters reports Friday that it was told by two ICC deputy prosecutors that they had not received any requests to investigate US actions regarding Venezuela.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate GOP Healthcare Plan Decried as ‘Utter Joke’ That Would Devastate Sick Americans
One campaigner said Republicans want to force people "onto junk plans that leave them at risk of crippling medical debt."
Dec 10, 2025
The Republican healthcare proposal that's set for a vote in the US Senate on Thursday would not prevent insurance premiums from skyrocketing for tens of millions of Americans and would likely harm sicker people by promoting high-deductible plans.
The GOP bill, led by Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), would allow enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits to expire, replacing them in 2026 and 2027 with an annual payment of up to $1,500 in tax-advantaged health savings accounts to help cover out-of-pocket costs.
The catch is that only Americans enrolled in high-deductible bronze or catastrophic plans on the ACA exchanges would be eligible for the funding, which could not be used on monthly premiums. In 2026, the average individual deductible for bronze plans is $7,476, and the average for catastrophic plans is $10,600.
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, said Tuesday that "premium payments would still more than double next year" under the GOP plan, which does not have enough support to overcome the Senate's 60-vote filibuster.
"Healthy people could be better off in a high deductible plan with a health savings account," Levitt noted. "People who are sick would face big premium increases or a deductible they can't afford."
Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, called Senate Republicans' legislation "an utter joke that would set healthcare progress back by decades and leave Americans high and dry without the care and coverage they deserve."
"Republicans are proving once again how unserious they are," said Woodhouse. "Instead of protecting hard-working families, Sens. Cassidy and Crapo want to force them off the insurance plans they like and onto junk plans that leave them at risk of crippling medical debt. That’s not what American families want, and it’s certainly not what they deserve.”
Asked earlier this week if he supports the Crapo-Cassidy bill, President Donald Trump responded, "I like the concept."
The Senate GOP plan was introduced as a counter to Democrats' push for a clean three-year extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies. Republicans, who passed legislation over the summer that enacted the largest-ever cuts to Medicaid, are expected to vote down the Democratic plan on Thursday.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that if the ACA tax credits lapse at the end of the year, "a couple making $44,000 (208% of the poverty level) will see their monthly marketplace premium rise from $85 to $253—an annual increase of $2,013."
With the Senate vote looming, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La) is "still trying to figure out" his healthcare proposal, Politico reported Tuesday.
"The goal is for GOP lawmakers to have 'something' to vote on before the end of next week, according to one of the senior House Republicans involved in the talks," the outlet added, "even if there is no time left for the Senate to pass it before the subsidies lapse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular