Trump could cure cancer?

Trump could cure cancer?

by Wim Laven

994 words

I have the argument dozens of different ways. Video of Congresswoman Lisa McClain (from March 25^th) is routinely recycled: Trump could have the cure for cancer and the democrats would still be upset. Normally this is the kind of trolling or red-meat-to-the-MAGA-base kind of statement I ignore, but these are not normal times. In critical thinking there are several ‘smell tests’ that can be applied to check the soundness of an argument. Fallacies and contradictions are always things for which critical thinkers should lookout.

For example, when a student writes in a paper: “I know it is not true, because Trump said it,” I indicate to the student that it is an ad hominem attack, in critical thought we must confront the idea, not the source. The fact that Trump lies very frequently is not proof that any specific claim is untrue. Untrustworthiness is good reason to have suspicion, but it is not proof of fraud or dishonesty.

There are different standards/burdens we experience in life. In a courtroom there might be the heightened expectation “beyond reasonable doubt” (for good reason) but in other settings a preponderance or high likelihood might be sufficient. And, in others, we can have trust, perhaps because past behavior suggests a positive trend or because of current promises. Critical thinking frequently plays a crucial role in establishing trust, or in forming distrust. Given the volume of lies Trump tells, it would be reasonable for a person to require corroboration or validation before acting on one of his claims.

“Trump could cure cancer,” however, appears to be an obviously false premise. An unthinking individual could ask artificial intelligence and discover that Trump does not have medical training, has not conducted any experimental science (let alone work on a cure for cancer), and has woefully inadequate capacity for such a sustained activity.

The claim is obviously meant as a rebuke, to those pesky liberals who will never be satisfied, but I wonder what happens when people place such claims under scrutiny? What steps has Trump taken to cure cancer?

In 2018 Trump signed the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act into law, this was for all terminally ill patients, not just those with cancer. At Moms for Liberty 2024, Trump claimed

“I said, listen, there’s not going to be any liability. People are going to sign the documents that they’re not going to sue the country; they are not going to sue the state, they’re not going to sue the doctors or the medical platforms, are not going to sue anybody. They just want the drug. And we have saved thousands and thousands of lives.” 

But unfortunately, there is no evidence that significant numbers of cancer patients (or anyone else) are benefitting from the legislation Trump signed.

Trump really didn’t introduce a concept by signing this legislation (it was already law in 41 states), “expanded access” already existed, and had been used for decades. The bill addressed a non-problem in expanded access by essentially removing Food and Drug Administration oversight. He said there was too much red tape, but as fact checkers noted: the FDA had actually been quickly approving most requests. The FDA described the limited use of right to try as: 12 drugs 2018-22, 4 in 2023, and 5 in 2024. 

In late November 2018, ERC-USA initiated treatment of Gliovac (ERC1671) to treat a patient with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer. Nine patients received this treatment with compassionate use/hospital exemption approval from the FDA. Now, all drugs (cancer or otherwise) can be considered in evaluating how much credit Trump should receive, for trying to cure cancer, credit would be given for making treatment available. 

Glioblastoma, an aggressive cancer, is certainly worthy of attention. It is also a good example for putting your money where your mouth is—a great reflection of executive priorities. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) a part of the National Institute for Health is a major player in cancer research and conducts trials for drugs like Gliovac. The proposed budget for the NCI 2026cuts it from its current $7.22 billion down to about $4.5 billion (or even less). If enacted, this would roll federal cancer research support back to inflation-adjusted low levels not seen in decades.

Grant terminations by the Trump administration have canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in cancer-related research, reportedly claiming they were part of politically driven DEI initiatives, some studies do include DEI populations, but many do not. DOGE cut funding to universities like Harvard, and the research being conducted suffered extreme interruptions, setbacks, or cancelation. But, any critical thinker could look at the 2500 canceled NIH grants and see for themselves. Could Trump cure cancer?

It should be painfully obvious that defunding cancer research, which he has been doing bigly, makes finding effective treatments and improvements much less likely. Families dealing with pediatric cancer are “losing hope,” starting in March 2026, the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium will no longer receive funds from the NCI. 

The reality is that Trump has actively undermined the work being done to find a cure for any form of cancer. The setbacks he has caused do sustained damage to our communities. He has shrunk the talent pipeline; fewer people are working on scientific and medical breakthroughs. He has also stymied efforts from the private sector relying on foundational work from public funded research—no more innovation. 

No, Trump could not find a cure for cancer, but he may very well have blocked it. It is time we say enough is enough to the lies and damage coming from this deranged administration. We do not need such dangerously incompetent leadership, and we do not need those disingenuous enablers who deliver these lies wholesale. Critical thought, even for a brief moment, exposes these extreme dangers—Trump is making cancer great again and he is making sure more children die of cancer—Trump is just a prescription for failure.

~~~~~~~~

Wim Laven, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches courses in political science and conflict resolution.