Now Trump Must Deliver On His Healthcare Promises

President Donald Trump has set ambitious goals for the improvement of American healthcare. The coming months will test whether these promises will translate into tangible actions.

As the 2026 midterms draw near and Congress shifts focus to electoral strategies, the time for legislative accomplishments is running out. This summer will be crucial in determining whether the administration can turn rhetoric into policy or miss the opportunity altogether.

President Trump, along with his healthcare team comprising HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, has outlined three primary objectives: reducing drug prices, addressing chronic diseases, and harnessing generative AI. Achieving these goals could result in significant lives saved and cost reductions.

However, while promises are easy to make, real change demands political determination and congressional support. Here are three benchmarks that Americans can use to assess the success or failure of the Trump administration in delivering on its healthcare agenda.

Test No. 1: Reduction in Drug Prices

Americans currently pay significantly higher prices for prescription drugs compared to citizens of other affluent nations. This price discrepancy has persisted for over two decades and continues to grow as pharmaceutical companies introduce new medications with exorbitant list prices exceeding $370,000 per year.

Presently, nearly 30% of prescriptions in the U.S. go unfilled due to cost, leaving millions without access to necessary medications.

One key contributing factor to this gap is a 2003 law that prohibits Medicare from directly negotiating prices with drug manufacturers. While the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 granted limited negotiation rights, the initial price reductions did little to bridge the divide with other high-income nations.

President Trump has made repeated commitments to address this issue. In May 2025, he signed an executive order titled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients,” directing HHS to set MFN price targets for pharmaceutical manufacturers. The hope is that manufacturers will voluntarily align U.S. drug prices with those in developed nations. Failure to make substantial progress toward these targets may lead to additional measures such as drug importation facilitation and tariff imposition, but implementing these measures would likely require congressional action and face legal and political hurdles.

The pharmaceutical industry understands that without congressional support, the president’s ability to compel them to reduce prices is limited. They may argue that lower prices could stifle innovation and drug development, but data shows that a significant portion of pharmaceutical spending goes towards sales and marketing rather than research and development.

If Congress does not take action, alternative steps could be pursued by the administration. For instance, the FDA could redefine “drug shortages” to include medications priced out of reach for most Americans, allowing compounding pharmacies to produce more affordable alternatives, similar to what was done with GLP-1 weight-loss injections.

If no substantial action is taken, and Americans continue to pay significantly more than citizens of other affluent nations, the administration will fail this critical test.

Test No. 2: Improvement in Food Health and Quality

Obesity has emerged as a major health concern in the United States, surpassing smoking and opioid addiction as a leading cause of death.

Since 1980, adult obesity rates have skyrocketed from 15% to over 40%, contributing to various chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and different types of cancers.

One of the primary drivers of this epidemic is the consumption of ultra-processed foods, which are high in added sugars, unhealthy fats, and artificial additives. These foods are designed to be highly palatable and calorie-dense, leading to overconsumption and potentially addictive eating behaviors.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized artificial additives as “poison” and highlighted their adverse effects on children’s health. In May 2025, he oversaw the release of the White House’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report, which identifies ultra-processed foods, chemical exposures, lack of exercise, and excessive prescription drug use as primary contributors to the chronic disease epidemic in America. However, concrete reforms stemming from this report are yet to materialize.

To move beyond rhetoric and towards tangible outcomes, the administration must implement effective policies. Here are three potential approaches, ranging from easier to more challenging, that could signify meaningful progress:

• Front-of-package labeling: Introduce clear and prominent labeling to educate consumers about the nutritional content of food products, using symbols to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy options.
• Taxation and subsidization: Levying taxes on unhealthy food items and using the revenue to subsidize healthier food choices, particularly for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.
• Regulation of food composition: Restrict the use of harmful additives and limit the amount of fat and sugar in foods, especially those targeting children.

These measures are likely to face resistance from the food and agriculture industries. However, if the Trump administration and Congress manage to implement even one of these options or an equivalent reform, they can claim success. Maintaining the status quo, on the other hand, will lead to continued rise in obesity rates, signifying failure on the administration’s part.

Test No. 3: Utilization of Generative AI for Health Improvement

The Trump administration has shown a commitment to leveraging generative AI in various sectors, including healthcare. At the AI Action Summit in Paris, Vice President JD Vance emphasized the administration’s focus on seizing AI opportunities rather than fixating on AI safety.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary has echoed this sentiment through internal actions, such as piloting an AI-assisted scientific review program and announcing plans to integrate generative AI across all FDA centers by June 30.

However, internal efficiency alone is insufficient to improve the nation’s health. The real test lies in whether the administration will support the development and approval of GenAI tools that enhance clinical access, outcomes, and cost savings.

Generative AI holds immense potential in areas such as managing chronic diseases, improving diagnoses, and personalizing treatment. By analyzing real-time data from wearables, GenAI can empower patients to monitor their health more effectively, receive personalized recommendations, and reduce potential risks in real time.

These advancements are not just theoretical; they can be realized with the right support. However, broad adoption of GenAI tools will require investment in innovation, funding from the NIH for next-generation tools, and regulatory modernization at the FDA to accommodate AI models effectively.

Ultimately, federal leaders must be willing to take calculated risks in adopting generative AI to improve healthcare outcomes. If the technology remains underutilized and confined to administrative tasks, the opportunity to transform American healthcare will be missed, signifying a failure on the administration’s part.

As a strategy instructor at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, I emphasize the importance of clear goals, defined success metrics, and a commitment to overcoming challenges. Evaluating the administration based on these three healthcare tests aligns with these principles.

With the Labor Day deadline looming, the time for decisive action is now. The administration must act swiftly to turn promises into tangible achievements in the healthcare sector.