Sen. Schiff leads probe into Freedom250, the America birthday group offering access to Trump for donations

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Thursday unveiled his TrumpRx website in an event at the White House, listing 40 drugs at lower cost than previous list prices to patients paying out of pocket and calling the launch part of the “most transformative health care initiatives.”

Trump made the announcement alongside Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz and National Design Studio Director Joe Gebbia.

“Starting tonight, dozens of the most commonly used prescription drugs will be available at dramatic discounts for all consumers throughout a new website is called TrumpRx.gov,” Trump said at the White House event.

Some of the reduced cash prices were announced last year by the administration and some of the new prices had already gone into effect. 

The president touted the use of his Most Favored Nation (MFN) policies — making sure the U.S. isn’t paying more than other countries — for making the lower prices possible.

“For years, politicians from both parties have promised to bring down prescription drug prices and make health care more affordable, but they all failed,” Trump said.

According to the TrumpRx website, these drugs can be obtained at participating pharmacies using coupon card codes displayed on the website or directly through manufacturers’ websites.

The website also notes that “TrumpRx discounted pricing is only available for cash-paying patients,” in a FAQ section. The discounts are not available for patients trying to pay through insurance and do not go toward insurance deductibles.  

Only a few dozen drugs are offered on the website, though the website says that “many more drugs are coming soon,” in a FAQ section.

What some experts are saying

“It’s nice that they are aggregating coupons in one place,” Benjamin Jolley, PharmD, a senior fellow for health care at the American Economic Liberties Project told ABC News. “But it’s a convenience to check the website to see the coupons all in one place for the first time.

Dr. Christina Madison, the founder of The Public Health Pharmacist told ABC News: “There are a lot of patient assistance programs out there and this appears similar to programs like GoodRX but the difference here is that you would not have to go through the manufacturer’s website to get them.”

In a statement, Good RX tells ABC News they are a key integration partner for pharma companies that is offering discounted cash prices on TrumpRX, “The self-pay price is hosted on the GoodRx platform and GoodRx then integrates the price into TrumpRx.” 

GoodRX-provided codes can currently be used at over 70,000 retail an home delivery pharmacies.

How much will consumers save?

Trump said the discount offers “tremendous” savings.

But experts say the overall savings are not clear and may only benefit a certain group of people. 

“TrumpRx’s offerings are very limited, fewer than 50 drugs listed,” Rena Conti, an associate professor at the Boston University Questrom School of Business, told ABC News.

“This suggests it pays for consumers to check their insurance coverage and ask their regular doctor or pharmacist before they use this service,” Conti added. 

The website boasted savings on GLP-1s, showing that the Wegovy pill’s lowest TrumpRx price was $149 a month, slashed from what the website says is an original price of $1,349. And while the full cash price of Ozempic and Wegovy (FDA approved for weight loss) did start at over $1,000 a month, those prices have been slowly going down in price. It was reduced voluntarily first to $499 in March 2025 and then to $199 in November after negotiations with the federal government.

Some drugs remain very expensive, including Xeljaz, which is marked at a starting price of $1,518, despite a 50% savings. 

Fertility drugs

One of the big categories of drugs included in TrumpRx are fertility drugs. 

According to the website, Gonal-F is available for an 83% discount, down from $966 to just $168 for the pen. Another IVF drug, Cetrotide, is offered at a 93% discount. And Ovidrel is offered for a 67% discount.  

“One in three families is having trouble having a baby. We’re gonna have a lot of Trump babies with these costs, folks cannot afford these medications. It’s gonna change their lives,” Oz said during the White House event.

“The fertility drug discount is legitimately a big deal for people trying to get IVF,” Jolley said. “These medicines are quite expensive and this seems like a big discount. In general IVF is not covered by insurance and so people prior to this who needed certain drugs would be paying the full $1400 price.”

Jolley noted for example, that the price slash on certain fertility drugs could lower the cost of an IVF cycle by about 20% overall. 

Trump first revealed his administration’s goal of launching the website back in September when he announced that Pfizer had agreed to lower its prices for prescription drugs offered through Medicaid.  Pfizer so far is the largest participant in Trump RX with over 30 medications listed. 

Trump last month released his “Great Healthcare Plan,” in which he called on Congress to codify the “most favored nation” initiative.

The plan also proposed sending money directly to Americans to buy health insurance and included calls to increase price transparency and hold insurance companies accountable — though it largely lacked specifics.

Polls show most Americans are concerned about health care costs.

A survey last month from KFF, a nonprofit health policy research organization, found two-thirds of U.S. adults worried about being able to afford health care for them and their family — outranking other expenses like gas and groceries. A majority of Americans, 56%, said they expect health care to become less affordable in the coming year.

The poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said Congress “did the wrong thing” by allowing enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire. Millions of Americans were expected to face increased premium costs as a result of the lapse.

ABC News’ Eric Strauss, Michelle Stoddart, Emily Chang and Isabella Murray contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In his opening statement to the House Oversight Committee, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime attorney Darren Indyke claimed that he had “no knowledge whatsoever” of the late financier’s crimes and categorically denied facilitating the sex trafficking of women.

“I’m left trying to explain what many people who knew Jeffrey Epstein have noted after his death: he led two entirely separate lives, his professional one and the other, a private, personal one that caused many others to suffer,” Indyke said on Thursday, according to his prepared remarks obtained by ABC News. “That I did not know what my client did in his private life may be difficult for some to believe, but it is true.”

Indyke addressed some of the allegations levied against him in civil lawsuits filed after Epstein’s death, including that he withdrew hundreds of thousands in cash for Epstein and coordinated sham marriages to keep victims in the United States.

According to Indyke, he never tried to “structure” cash withdrawals to avoid triggering an alert to the Treasury Department. He seemingly acknowledged that he did withdraw thousands for Epstein, arguing that the sex offender required large amounts of cash because he had trouble obtaining credit cards from major banks.

“For a person in Mr. Epstein’s financial position – with five multimillion-dollar residences staffed by dozens of employees and with an extensive travel itinerary – it did not strike me as unusual that Mr. Epstein’s business, household and personal needs required large amounts of cash on a regular basis,” he said. “I never believed that cash that I withdrew for Mr. Epstein and his staff was used by Mr. Epstein or his staff for any improper purposes.”

Indyke also said he never did “arrange, assist or facilitate any marriages between acquaintances of Mr. Epstein.” Multiple now-settled lawsuits alleged that he assisted with at least three marriages to keep Epstein’s victims in the United States.

“I did not consider it appropriate to interrogate anyone as to the reasons for their decisions to marry or the bona fides of their relationships,” Indyke said in his remarks.

Indyke claimed that he would have quit working for Epstein had he known about his abuse and trafficking of women and girls. According to Indyke, Epstein vowed to never commit another crime after his 2008 guilty plea.

“After he pled guilty in 2008 to procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, Mr. Epstein appeared to me to be devastated and extremely contrite,” Indyke said. “He was adamant that he had no idea anyone involved was underage, and personally assured me he would never again let himself be in that position. I believed him, and I made the mistake of believing Mr. Epstein that he would not again commit a crime. I deeply regret doing so. Most importantly, I feel horrible for those women whom Mr. Epstein abused.”

Indyke served as Epstein’s longtime attorney since the mid-1990s.

As Epstein for years attempted to avoid scrutiny while orchestrating a notorious sex trafficking operation, Indyke — together with accountant Richard Kahn — allegedly helped him navigate legal issues and formed part of the financier’s inner circle. Indyke allegedly helped facilitate at least three sham marriages between Epstein’s victims and withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash for Epstein, according to one lawsuit, and attested to Epstein’s character when he faced legal scrutiny.

“Knowing that they would earn millions of dollars in exchange for facilitating Epstein’s sex abuse and trafficking, Indyke and Kahn chose money and power over following the law,” alleged one lawsuit that Indyke and Kahn agreed to settle with no admission of wrongdoing.

Neither man has been charged with any crimes. They both deny any wrongdoing and say they were unaware of Epstein’s crimes while working for him.

The deposition Thursday comes as the House Oversight Committee attempts to zero in on members of Epstein’s inner circle to better understand how the disgraced financier was able to commit decades of crime with seeming impunity.

Following higher profile depositions of people like billionaire Leslie Wexner as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the questioning of both Indyke and Kahn arguably presents the committee with their strongest opportunity to learn more about Epstein’s life and crimes.

“I was not aware of the nature or extent of Epstein’s abuse of so many women until after Epstein’s death,” Kahn told lawmakers last week, according to his prepared remarks. “However, it pains me to think, and I deeply regret, that I may have unknowingly assisted Epstein in any way.”

Executor of Epstein’s Trust 

In a will signed two days before he was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell, Epstein named Kahn and Indyke as the co-executors of his estate and bequeathed them $25 million and $50 million, respectively. At the time of his death, Epstein’s estate was valued as much as $650 million. It was last valued at approximately $127 million, according to an October 2025 court filing, after paying out multiple settlements to Epstein’s victims.

As co-executors of Epstein’s estate, Indyke and Kahn recently agreed to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by Epstein’s victims that accused them of “facilitation, participation, and concealment of Epstein’s illegal conduct” for their own financial gain.

According to the lawsuit, both men helped “structure Epstein’s bank accounts and cash withdrawals to give Epstein and his associates access to large amounts of cash in furtherance of sex trafficking.”

“The Epstein Enterprise would not have existed for the duration it did and at its scope and scale, without the collaboration and support of others. No one, except perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell, was as essential and central to Epstein’s operation as these Defendants,” the lawsuit alleged.

The settlement did not include an admission of wrongdoing and still needs to be approved by a judge.  Though the lawsuit was brought against them personally, the $25-35 million settlement would be paid by Epstein’s estate, according to the settlement terms.

“Neither Mr. Indyke nor Mr. Kahn socialized with Mr. Epstein, and both men reject as categorically false any suggestion that they knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr. Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women, or that they were aware of his actions while they provided professional services to him,” an attorney for the men told ABC News in December.

Allegedly arranged sham marriages

In a lawsuit filed by government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Indyke and Kahn were alleged to have helped facilitate at least three sham marriages created to secure immigration status for some of Epstein’s victims, further securing control of the women and ensuring they could remain in the United States.  

“The victims were coerced into participating in these arranged marriages, and understood that there would be consequences, including serious reputational and bodily harm, if they refused to enter a marriage or attempted to end it,” the complaint alleged.

According to a civil lawsuit filed in 2019 by an anonymous accuser, one woman alleged that Epstein’s longtime attorney — not explicitly named as Indyke in the lawsuit — helped prepare the legal paperwork for the marriage, going as far as arranging photographs “to give the appearance that the marriage was legitimate.”

“When the victim inquired about getting divorced … Indyke tried to talk her out of a divorce and threatened that she would lose Epstein’s protection,” a 2024 lawsuit alleged.

Files released earlier this year by the Department of Justice appeared to reference some of the marriages allegedly arranged by Indyke and Kahn.

“Good morning Jeffrey! We are going now to get marriage license,” an unidentified individual wrote Epstein in 2013. “She is asking if it’s possible to meet with you? Because she has some questions.”  

Withdrawing thousands in cash 

Court filings as well as documents released by the Department of Justice suggested that both Indyke and Kahn played integral roles in managing Epstein’s wealth and overseeing his regular expenses, including alleged payments to women.

According to the Virgin Islands lawsuit — which was settled by the Epstein estate with no admission of wrongdoing — Indyke and Kahn allegedly arranged payments from Epstein’s personal, corporate and nonprofits bank accounts to victims. That lawsuit alleged that Epstein — together with Kahn and Indyke — managed more than 140 different bank accounts.

According to documents released by the DOJ, Indyke served as an officer for many of the holding and shell companies related to Epstein’s real estate and financial holdings.

A 2020 settlement between Deutsche Bank and the New York state financial regulator also suggested that an attorney for Epstein — who sources told ABC News is Indyke — methodically withdrew cash for Epstein in a manner they said intentionally avoided scrutiny.

Limiting the withdrawals to $7,500 in cash — the maximum amount permitted and below the threshold to trigger concerns — Indyke allegedly withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars for Epstein over four years. While the transactions were below the $10,000 limit to trigger an alert to the Treasury Department, a report by New York State’s Department of Financial Services faulted Deutsche Bank for ignoring red flags about Epstein’s bank accounts.

Jail visits and a character reference 

After securing a plea deal in Florida, Jeffrey Epstein was visited in jail frequently by Indyke, according to visitor logs maintained by the Palm Beach Sheriff. Indyke also helped secure a lenient work-release program for Epstein by vouching for his employment, allowing Epstein to leave the jail for up to 16 hours a day, ABC News reported in 2021.

Prior to Epstein’s plea deal, Indyke also attested to Epstein’s character. According to a letter sent from defense lawyers to prosecutors in Florida, Indyke vouched for Epstein’s character and claimed that Epstein provided financial and emotional support to his family.

“Although Jeffrey was adamant that we owed him nothing, Jeffery honored us by agreeing to be the godfather of our children,” the letter quoted Indyke. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow President Trump to turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, a decision which would reverse a lower court ruling that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.

A majority of the court’s conservative justices signaled during oral arguments in the case Tuesday that the administration should have broad leeway over border control and that asylum seekers who have not yet stepped foot on U.S. soil probably do not have a legal right to file a claim seeking protection.

“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived ‘in’ the house?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “The person may have arrived ‘at’ the house.”

Immigrant advocates insist the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says a noncitizen who “arrives in the U.S. … at a designated port of arrival” must be allowed to apply for asylum, includes those who have “reached the threshold” of America.

“If an immigration officer determines that an alien who is arriving in the United States has expressed a fear of future persecution, then the immigration officer shall refer them for a credible fear interview,” argued Kelsi Corkran, an attorney supporting asylum seekers.

From the start of his second term, Trump has effectively blocked the entry of all noncitizens at the southern border, including those seeking to apply for refuge from credible fears of violence and persecution.

“You can’t ‘arrive in’ the U.S. while you’re still standing in Mexico,” argued Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri. “It is entirely lawful for the executive branch to prevent aliens from reaching U.S. soil and claiming those protections.”

The dispute largely turns on competing interpretations of what it means to “arrive in” the country.

“How close do you have to be to the border?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing or the dispositive thing that we’re looking for where we say, ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that regardless of where the line is drawn, the law stipulates that the government can prevent people from filing an asylum claim if it wants to. “The government’s presumably going to stop you on the other side of that line and prevent you from getting to wherever the line is. Right?” he asked.

The court’s three liberal justices were critical of the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law.

“Imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book,” posited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “He approaches the border but does not cross, precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the U.S. without authority. Why on earth would Congress have intended or meant for his asylum request to be discarded, not taken seriously, not entertained, but someone who manages to enter the U.S. unlawfully…and requests asylum gets their application entertained? “

“That doesn’t seem to me to make any sense,” Jackson added.

At the heart of the case is the so-called “turn back” policy from Trump’s first term that kept asylum seekers waiting in Mexico as a method of “metering” access at border crossings that faced overcrowding. Border officials contend it was a temporary policy, imposed only when conditions required.

While the administration voluntarily discontinued the practice in 2021 after a lower court deemed it unlawful, the government now wants the justices to approve the ability to reinstate the policy if necessary. Trump has invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.

Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, an immigrant rights group representing several asylum-seeker plaintiffs, said a ruling for the administration could have a major impact, even if not immediate.

“We have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people seeking asylum,” Crow said.

Tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived at the U.S. southern border during Trump’s first term were forced to remain in Mexico for weeks or months in sometimes harrowing conditions in hopes they might have a chance to be interviewed about their fears of persecution.

Nicole Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group and plaintiff in the case, says Congress had a more nuanced view when it drafted the law following the U.S. failure to accept Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.

“The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right,” Ramos said. “The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”

One of those lives was Benito, a Mexican asylum seeker who declined to give his last name to protect his identity and spoke through a translator at an event hosted by Al Otro Lado.

“I was partially tortured, had a lot of lesions, and emotional harm, and traumas and I’m still healing from that,” he said of the violence he was trying to escape. “I knew I could apply for asylum in that moment, on the side of Mexico, and so I did everything correctly. I came close; I told the [U.S.] immigration agents that I needed to apply for asylum because I was scared and thought I would be killed.

“I had scars on my body, on my face, and my head,” he said, “but they said to me that they couldn’t help me, couldn’t accept me.”

The court is expected to issue a decision on the Trump administration’s bid to resurrect the “metering” and “turn back” policy by the end of June.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.