AP FACT CHECK: Trump puts fighting words in Macron's mouth

President Donald Trump put fighting words in his French counterpart's mouth this past week and assailed the special counsel's Russia investigation with a familiar and false characterization of the man leading it.

Also familiar, on a week honoring the sacrifice of America's warriors, was his inaccurate assertion that veterans, thanks to him, no longer face long waits for medical care.

A look at the president's recent rhetoric and the reality:

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

TRUMP, on special counsel Robert Mueller and his team conducting the Russia investigation: "These are Angry People, including the highly conflicted Bob Mueller, who worked for Obama for 8 years." —tweet on Wednesday.

THE FACTS: Mueller, a longtime Republican, was chosen to lead the FBI by Republican President George W. Bush in 2001. Democratic President Barack Obama kept him in the job, and Mueller left in September 2013 after six years under Obama. Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and relationships between Russian figures and Trump campaign operatives.

NATO

TRUMP: "Emmanuel Macron suggests building its own army to protect Europe against the U.S., China and Russia. But it was Germany in World Wars One & Two - How did that work out for France? They were starting to learn German in Paris before the U.S. came along. Pay for NATO or not!" — tweet on Tuesday.

TRUMP: "President Macron of France has just suggested that Europe build its own military in order to protect itself from the U.S., China and Russia. Very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidizes greatly!" — tweet on Nov. 9.

THE FACTS: Macron never suggested assembling a European army to stand against the United States, its steadfast military ally. Instead, he joined German Chancellor Angela Merkel in proposing a continental army that would give Europe more responsibility for its own security, supplementing NATO. Trump has repeatedly pushed NATO members to spend more on their own military capabilities to relieve pressure on the U.S. to protect Europe. A European army would be aimed at doing that, though in theory outside the NATO umbrella.

Macron said in a radio interview before Trump's arrival in France that Europe should be able to defend itself more than it now can, without only relying on the United States.

At another point in the interview, Macron discussed hacking and other cyberthreats and asserted that on that front, France must protect itself from China, Russia and even the United States. His concern about U.S. hackers had nothing to do with military threats or forces.

Trump misrepresented Macron's position on the matter before they met and again after they discussed it.

WHITE HOUSE

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, on a judge's order that CNN reporter Jim Acosta be allowed back into the White House: "Today, the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House."

THE FACTS: The court made no such determination. U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly issued a ruling of a "limited nature" that restored Acosta's credentials temporarily while a CNN lawsuit against the Trump administration proceeds. Kelly essentially found support for CNN's claim under the Fifth Amendment that Acosta hadn't received sufficient notice or explanation before his credentials were pulled. As a result, the judge didn't get to the First Amendment issues in the case.

TRADE

TRUMP: "On Trade, France makes excellent wine, but so does the U.S. The problem is that France makes it very hard for the U.S. to sell its wines into France, and charges big Tariffs, whereas the U.S. makes it easy for French wines, and charges very small Tariffs. Not fair, must change!" — tweet on Tuesday.

THE FACTS: Yes, U.S. wine is desired in France.

Trump, who's been in the wine business, is wrong about France applying tariffs. The European Union does.

He's right about a disparity in wine duties.

Tariffs vary by alcohol content and other factors. A bottle of white American wine with 13 percent alcohol content imported into the EU carries a customs duty of 10 euro cents (just over 11 U.S. cents). A bottle of white wine from the EU exported to the United States has a customs duty of 5 U.S. cents.

The gap in duties is narrower for red wine with an alcohol content of 14.5 percent.

Bulk wines are another story. The U.S. tariff is double the EU one, a break for American producers because bulk wine represents 25 percent of the volume of U.S. wine coming into the EU, according to the French wine exporter federation.

The value of wine imported by France has jumped 200 percent over a decade. Meantime Americans are the top consumers of French wine exports.

VOTER ID

TRUMP: "The disgrace is that, voter ID. If you buy, you know, a box of cereal, if you do anything, you have a voter ID ...The only thing you don't is if you're a voter of the United States." — interview on Wednesday with The Daily Caller.

THE FACTS: He is meaning to say that shoppers use a photo ID to make purchases, so it should not be a burden to show a photo ID for voting. But as shoppers know, no photo is required to purchase a box of cereal or other items at a grocery store when using cash or to make routine purchases with credit or debit cards.

Identifications are required to purchase limited items such as alcohol, cigarettes or cold medicine and in rapidly declining situations in which a customer opts to pay with a personal check.

According to the National Grocers Association's most recent data, the use of checks as a percentage of total transactions dropped from 33 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2015, due in part to the popularity of debit cards, which use PIN codes. The group's members are independent food retailers, family-owned or privately held, both large and small.

VETERANS

TRUMP: "In June, I proudly signed into law the most significant VA reform in half a century, called Veterans Choice. ... Now if a veteran cannot get the treatment they need from the VA in a timely manner, they can see a private doctor. They don't have to wait 12 days or 20 days. ... There is no more waiting on lines." — remarks on Thursday.

THE FACTS: He continues to spread a misleading claim about veterans now receiving immediate medical care because of his improvements. In fact, the care provided under the Veterans Choice program is not as instantaneous as Trump suggests nor will it necessarily be the biggest overhaul at the Department of Veterans Affairs in decades.

Trump signed legislation in June to expand the private-sector Choice program, which was first approved in 2014 during the Obama administration after a scandal at the Phoenix VA medical center in which some veterans died while waiting months for appointments. The current Choice program allows veterans to see doctors outside the VA system if they must wait more than 30 days for an appointment — not "12 days or 20 days." But many are waiting much longer than the program prescribes.

How much Choice will be expanded under his law will depend on yet-to-be-completed regulations that will determine eligibility for veterans as well as available money for the program. The VA has yet to resolve long-term financing due to congressional budget caps that could put money for VA or other domestic programs at risk of shortfalls next year.

The program's success will also depend on an overhaul of the VA's electronic medical records to allow seamless sharing of medical records with private physicians, expected to take up to 10 years.

Meanwhile, the current Choice program isn't always timely. A report released this year by the Government Accountability Office found that despite the Choice program's guarantee of providing an appointment within 30 days, veterans waited an average of 51 days to 64 days.

TRUMP: "Veteran unemployment has reached its lowest level in nearly 21 years, and it's going to be better." — remarks on Thursday.

THE FACTS: The veterans' unemployment rate fell to 2.9 percent in October, the latest data available, but that is still higher than the 2.7 percent rate reached in October 2017, also under Trump. That was the lowest joblessness rate for veterans in nearly 17 years.

Veterans' unemployment has fallen mostly for the same reasons that joblessness has dropped generally: strong hiring and steady economic growth for the past eight years.

In May 2000, veterans' unemployment dropped to a low of 2.3 percent, and he hasn't reached that.

In any event, it's impossible for Trump to claim an achievement not seen in 21 years on veterans' unemployment. The data on joblessness for vets only go back 18 years, to 2000.

CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES

TRUMP: "There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!" — tweet on Nov. 10.

THE FACTS: Both nature and humans share blame for California's devastating wildfires, but fire scientists say forest management is not a leading contributor.

Nature provides the dangerous winds that have whipped the fires, and human-caused climate change over the long haul is killing and drying the shrubs and trees that provide the fuel. That's not to say California is blameless: Urban development encroaching on wildlands also is a factor.

The wildfire that incinerated the Northern California town of Paradise and surrounding areas is the single deadliest such blaze in California history.

The other major fire, in Southern California, has burned through shrub land, not forest.

"It's not about forest management," said University of Utah fire scientist Philip Dennison. "These aren't forests."

The dean of the University of Michigan's environmental school, Jonathan Overpeck, said Western fires are getting bigger and more severe. He said it "is much less due to bad management and is instead the result of our baking of our forests, woodlands and grasslands with ever-worsening climate change."

Wildfires have become more devastating because of the extreme weather swings from global warming, fire scientists said. The average number of U.S. acres burned by wildfires has doubled from 30 years ago.

California also has been in drought for all but a few years of the 21st century and is now experiencing its longest drought, which began on Dec. 27, 2011, and has lasted 358 weeks, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Nearly two-thirds of the state is abnormally dry.

The first nine months of the year have been fourth-warmest on record for California, and this past summer was the second-hottest on record in the state.

Because of that, there are 129 million dead trees, which provide fuel for fires.

Associated Press writers Jessica Gresko, Darlene Superville, Christopher Rugaber and Seth Borenstein contributed to this report.

Find AP Fact Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck

.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration commissioner's effort to drastically shorten the review of drugs favored by President Donald Trump's administration is causing alarm across the agency, stoking worries that the plan may run afoul of legal, ethical and scientific standards long used to vet the safety and effectiveness of new medicines.

Marty Makary's program is causing new anxiety and confusion among staff already rocked by layoffs, buyouts and leadership upheavals, according to seven current or recently departed staffers. The people spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss confidential agency matters.

At the highest levels of the FDA, questions remain about which officials have the legal authority to sign off on drugs cleared under the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program, which promises approval in as little as one month for medicines that support “U.S. national interests.”

Traditionally, approval decisions have nearly always been handled by FDA review scientists and their immediate supervisors, not the agency’s political appointees and senior leaders.

But drug reviewers say they've received little information about the new program's workings. And some staffers working on a highly anticipated anti-obesity pill were recently told they can skip certain regulatory steps to meet top officials' aggressive deadlines.

Outside experts point out that FDA drug reviews — which range from six to 10 months — are already the fastest in the world.

“The concept of doing a review in one to two months just does not have scientific precedent,” said Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a professor at Harvard Medical School. “FDA cannot do the same detailed review that it does of a regular application in one to two months, and it doesn’t have the resources to do it.”

On Thursday Reuters reported that FDA officials have delayed the review of two drugs in the program, in part due to safety concerns, including the death of a patient taking one of the medications.

Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said the voucher program prioritizes “gold standard scientific review” and aims to deliver “meaningful and effective treatments and cures."

The program remains popular at the White House, where pricing concessions announced by the Republican president have repeatedly been accompanied by FDA vouchers for drugmakers that agree to cut their prices.

For instance, when the White House announced that Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk would reduce prices on their popular obesity drugs, FDA staffers had to scramble to vet new vouchers for both companies in time for Trump's news conference, according to multiple people involved in the process.

That’s sparked widespread concern that FDA drug reviews — long pegged to objective standards and procedures — have become open to political interference.

“It’s extraordinary to have such an opaque application process, one that is obviously susceptible to politicization,” said Paul Kim, a former FDA attorney who now works with pharmaceutical clients.

Many of the concerns around the program stem from the fact that it hasn't been laid out in federal rules and regulations.

The FDA already has more than a half-dozen programs intended to speed up or streamline reviews for promising drugs — all approved by Congress, with regulations written by agency staff.

In contrast, information about the voucher program is mostly confined to an agency website. Drugmakers can apply by submitting a 350-word “statement of interest.”

Increasingly, agency leaders such as Dr. Vinay Prasad, the FDA’s top medical officer and vaccine center director, have been contacting drugmakers directly about awarding vouchers. That’s created quandaries for FDA staffers on even basic questions, such as how to formally award a voucher to a company that didn’t request one.

Nixon, the HHS spokesman, said that voucher submissions are evaluated by “a senior, multidisciplinary review committee,” led by Prasad.

Questions about the legality of the program led the FDA’s then-drug director, Dr. George Tidmarsh, to decline to sign off on approvals under the pathway, according to several people with direct knowledge of the matter. Tidmarsh resigned from the agency in November after a lawsuit challenging his conduct on issues unrelated to the voucher program.

After his departure, Sara Brenner, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner, was set to have the power to decide, but she also declined the role after looking further into the legal implications, according to the people. Currently the agency’s deputy chief medical officer, Dr. Mallika Mundkur, who works under Prasad, is taking on the responsibility.

Giving final approval to a drug carries significant legal risks, essentially certifying that the medicine meets FDA standards for safety and effectiveness. If unexpected safety problems later emerge, both the agency and individual staffers could be pulled into investigations or lawsuits.

Traditionally, approval comes from FDA drug office directors, made in consultation with a team of reviewers. Under the voucher program, approval comes through a committee vote by senior agency leaders led by Prasad, according to multiple people familiar with the process. Staff reviewers don't get a vote.

“It is a complete reversal from the normal review process, which is traditionally led by the scientists who are the ones immersed in the data,” said Kesselheim, who is a lawyer and a medical researcher.

Not everyone sees problems with the program. Dan Troy, the FDA’s top lawyer under President George W. Bush, a Republican, says federal law gives the commissioner broad discretion to reorganize the handling of drug reviews.

Still, he says, the voucher program, like many of Makary’s initiatives, may be short-lived because it isn't codified.

“If you live by the press release then you die by the press release,” Troy said. “Anything that they’re doing now could be wiped out in a moment by the next administration.”

Initially framed as a pilot program of no more than five drugs, it has expanded to 18 vouchers awarded, with more under consideration. That puts extra pressure on the agency’s drug center, where 20% of the staff has left through retirements, buyouts or resignations over the past year.

When Makary unveiled the program in October there were immediate concerns about the unprecedented power he would have in deciding which companies benefit.

Makary then said that nominations for drugs would come from career staffers. Indeed, some of the early drugs were recommended by FDA reviewers, according to two people familiar with the process. They said FDA staffers deliberately selected drugs that could be vetted quickly.

But, increasingly, selection decisions are led by Prasad or other senior officials, sometimes unbeknownst to FDA staff, according to three people. In one case, FDA reviewers learned from GlaxoSmithKline representatives that Prasad had contacted the company about a voucher.

Access to Makary is limited because he does not use a government email account to do business, according to people familiar with the matter, breaking with longstanding precedent.

Once a voucher is awarded, some drugmakers have their own interpretation of the review timeline — creating further confusion and anxiety among staff.

Two people involved in the ongoing review of Eli Lilly's anti-obesity pill said company executives initially told the FDA they expected the drug approved within two months.

The timeline alarmed FDA reviewers because it did not include the agency's standard 60-day prefiling period, when staffers check the application to ensure it isn’t missing essential information. That 60-day window has been in place for more than 30 years.

Lilly pushed for a quicker filing turnaround, demanding one week. Eventually the agency and the company agreed to a two-week period.

Nixon declined to comment on the specifics of Lilly's review but said FDA reviewers can “adjust timelines as needed.”

Staffers were pushed to keep the application moving forward, even though key pieces of data about the drug's chemistry appeared to be missing, according to one person involved in the process. When reviewers raised concerns about some of the gaps during an internal meeting, the person said, they were told by a senior official: “If the science is sound then you can overlook the regulations.”

Former reviewers and outside experts say that approach is the opposite of how FDA reviews should work: By following the regulations, staffers scientifically confirm the safety and effectiveness of drugs.

Skipping review steps could also carry risks for drugmakers if future FDA leaders decide a drug wasn’t properly vetted. Like other experts, Kesselheim says the program may not last beyond the current administration.

“They are fundamentally changing the application of the standards, but the underlying law remains what it is,” he said. “The hope is that one day we will return to these scientifically sound, legally sound principles.”

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

FILE - The Food and Drug Administration seal is seen at the Hubert Humphrey Building Auditorium in Washington, April 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

Dr. Marty Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, speaks during a press briefing at the White House, Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)