Trump’s Unknown Frontiers

 by Victor Davis Hanson

Donald Trump’s far-ranging counter-revolution, to quote the old Star Trek mission statement, seeks “To boldly go where no one has gone before.”

Because no conservative president has dared to question the last 70 years of progressive cultural, social, economic, and political dominance, all traditional wisdom, all our renowned “experts,” and all the self-described “authorities” have no real credibility in their mostly flawed analyses and wrong prognoses.

Read what our legacy media predicted in March for this summer’s economy, or in January for the future of the border, or what would happen should the U.S. Air Force enter Iranian airspace.

Take the border. “Comprehensive immigration reform” (a euphemism for rolling amnesties and a still-open border) was the establishment’s answer to 10,000 foreign nationals storming the border during peak surges of the Biden administration.

But no president had ever simultaneously 1) pressured Mexico to close its borders and patrol ours, 2) announced a plan to complete a border wall along the entire US-Mexico boundary, 3) stopped catch-and-release, 4) ceased refugee applications after illegally entering the U.S., 5) introduced policies encouraging voluntary self-deportation, and 6) prevented all illegal entries at the border.

The result is that we do not know the full effects of these combined border policies.

So far, one million foreign nationals have lost jobs, and 2 million Americans have gained them since Trump’s inauguration. How much money will be saved in local, state, and federal entitlements if illegal immigrants return home?

How much trauma and costs will be avoided if 500,000 criminal aliens are deported?

How many serious and lethal hit-and-run accidents will be prevented?

To what degree will the idea of citizenship be reenergized once it is not reduced to the equivalency of mere residence?

How many emergency rooms will have more space for U.S. citizens? No one knows, but the consequences could be enormous.

The U.S. has never applied so many tariffs in so many ways upon so many goods from so many countries. As a result, economists have sworn since March that we are headed to a recession, stock collapse, stagflation, and high unemployment.

But do they really know the profit margins of our mercantile importers, who tariff our goods but expect easy entry for their exports to the U.S.?

Can importers pay a 15% tariff, still make a handsome profit, and not raise costs excessively on the U.S. consumer? If trade surpluses do not matter and tariffs hurt those who implement them, why do sophisticated Europeans, adroit Japanese, and smart Chinese prefer surpluses and tariffs to our deficits and zero or low tariffs? Are they on to something?

Do moderate tariffs encourage rather than retard American enterprise, on the theory that it will not be undercut by dumping and exchange manipulation and can also compete with far cheaper energy and transportation costs?

No one really knows these answers because the U.S. has never tried the current policy in quite the present way before. We do know that the radical free trade and asymmetrical tariffs of the last half-century empowered China to world power status with a dangerous military and hollowed out the U.S. industrial interior.

Is the $2 trillion budget deficit, as predicted, set in stone? Will the national debt only grow to unsustainable levels? However, federal agencies have never announced annual cuts of nearly $200 billion—along with a ten percent reduction in the budget deficit.

Never has the government promised to deregulate and fast-track permits for construction, energy development, and manufacturing from 2-3 years to mere months. What will the financial results be?

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggests that $15 trillion in new foreign investments are now promised. If accurate, what will such influxes do to employment? To federal revenues? To the economy in general?

Is it possible that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent could be right that $300 billion in federal income will come from new tariffs—if true, that might reduce the deficit by another 15 percent?

What is the effect on the economy of cheaper energy costs when production is slated to rise without draining the strategic petroleum reserve on the eve of elections?

No one has ever questioned universities before so systematically.

We do know that student loan debt has spiraled to $1.7 trillion. Graduation rates have dropped to about 50-60 percent of those who enroll. The average student now takes six—not four—years to graduate. Today’s graduates, by all accounts, leave universities with fewer analytical skills, less language fluency, and reduced general knowledge than in past decades. Faculties have never been more weaponized, with 90-95 percent reportedly holding progressive views.

If universities are taxed on their endowments, will that not force them to reconsider their efforts to maintain their non-profit status?

Will 15 percent limits on overhead charges on federal grants force researchers to watch their budgets and universities to curb their bloated administrative legions?

What is so wrong with curbing the tuition gouging and profiteering off foreign students, and limiting their numbers to ensure access to underserved, deserving Americans?

Will the end of segregated dorms, safe spaces, and “affinity” graduations lead to more integration and assimilation than do the current tribal fixations on race and ethnicity? Historically, does tribalism or assimilation best serve a nation?

Will meritocratic admissions improve student skills, rewarding those who study hard and encouraging those who do not to emulate those who do? Will minorities who are admitted under meritocratic criteria be seen as more or less qualified?

Are far fewer administrators, more emphasis on instruction and less on politics, and more students from the heartland and fewer from communist China or the illiberal Middle East such bad things?

In the last 50 years, affirmative action transmogrified into DEI racial separatism, chauvinism, and a system of reparatory spoils, played and manipulated by grifters, opportunists, and fakers, from Elizabeth Warren-style phonies and Jussie Smollett-like con artists to opportunists like Zohran Mamdani who game the system.

Has any chauvinistic multiracial democracy—like Brazil or India—or any multiethnic or multireligious confederation—such as Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, or Iraq—ever succeeded by prioritizing caste, race, religious sectarianism, or ethnic tribalism?

Can any top-down imposed policy ever be successful when 70 percent of the electorate opposes it?

Can any government that institutionalizes bias and preferences succeed while ignoring class in favor of race—without ever clearly defining which racial criteria justify the entire spoils system, or why?

In our postmodern 21st-century system, no one knows exactly what will happen when race becomes incidental rather than essential. But we do know from history where we were headed under the current aberrant system.

Abroad, in the last 30 years, NATO was voluntarily hollowed out—largely praised in the abstract by European grandees and shorted and ignored in the concrete by Euro budget technocrats. Yet since the days of the Cold War, NATO members had not met their defense expenditure promises.

Now, most NATO members have met those commitments. Frontline NATO states like Sweden, Finland, and Poland are far better armed and prepared than legacy Western members like Belgium, Spain, or Italy. If there follows a rearmed and recommitted NATO, will not the world become a safer place?

We were told for a half-century to steer clear of Iran, the supposed unhinged, lethal bully of the Middle East. Their henchmen blew up barracks and embassies, took and executed hostages, and sowed terror throughout the Middle East with their killer surrogates Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

But Iran had never really fought, much less won a war, since it pleaded with Saddam Hussein for an armistice from the catastrophic Iran-Iraq conflict.

What will be the effect on the Middle East with a currently impotent Iran, an inert Hezbollah, and a subterranean Hamas in hiding? More importantly, what is the current regional role of Iran without a nuclear program, air defenses, a navy, or expeditionary terrorist forces? Again, no one knows.

Finally, we have never seen anything quite so radical as the new Democratic Party, at least not since the McGovern blowout of 1972. In its 24/7, 360-degree fixation on hating Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda, rarely has a party embraced signature policies that are so despised by the American people. As a result, we have no idea what the result will be other than a national implosion at the polls.

Why would any political party embrace open borders, the influx of 12 million illegal aliens, 600 sanctuary cities, biological men dominating women’s sports, dismantling the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries, prosecutors who release rather than indict and convict violent criminals, defunding the police, tribal fixations and racial spoils systems in defiance of the Supreme Court, the terrorists of Hamas over democratic Israel, and overt campus anti-Semitism?

We are in the middle of a counter-revolution, whose fate will likely be decided in 15 months by the midterm elections and the status of the late 2026 economy.

Structural changes across the economy, culture, and politics of the country are underway. Our bicoastal experts and authorities are mostly predicting a multifaceted systems failure—without explaining why or how.

Yet the only constant in their predictions is that when and if they prove wrong, they will not pivot, correct, or apologize, but simply move on to their next flawed prognosis, fortified by their titles and letters after their names—but otherwise little else.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/08/04/trumps-unknown-frontiers/

Solution to Foreign Freeloading on Prescription Drugs Starts Here at Home

 President Trump recently set an ambitious goal -- ensure that Americans pay lower prices for medicines than patients in any other developed country. He's rightly frustrated that other wealthy nations artificially suppress their drug prices, which shifts the global research burden onto Americans and forces us "to pay almost three times more for the exact same medicines, often made in the exact same factories." 

But while his executive order mostly deals with a proposal to directly tie U.S. drug prices to the lower "most-favored-nation" prices offered abroad, the most effective solutions are actually contained in other parts of his order.  

In particular, the White House suggested creating a streamlined way for Americans to purchase medicines without having to go through the "middlemen" that heavily mark up prices. Simply targeting these intermediaries would dramatically reduce American patients, employers, and taxpayers' spending on prescription drugs -- without deterring the research investments that lead to lifesaving new medicines. 

America's prescription drug supply chain is maddeningly complex. And middlemen exploit that complexity to maximize their own profits -- at the expense of patients and taxpayers. 

The biggest offenders are pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. These giant companies -- just three of which control 80% of all prescriptions dispensed nationwide -- determine which drugs are covered by insurance plans, and how much patients must pay out-of-pocket for those medicines. PBMs use their leverage to extract huge discounts and rebates from drug companies. 

Unfortunately, PBMs' interests are often diametrically opposed to patients' and employers' interests. 

PBMs' earnings are generally calculated as a percentage of a drug's nominal price. Consequently, PBMs have a powerful incentive to force patients onto higher-cost medicines: the more expensive the drug, the higher the rebate for the PBM. 

PBMs now collect roughly 42 cents of every dollar Americans spend on brand-name drugs. In many cases, the value of PBM rebates and fees for a given drug in the United States far outstrips the total cost of the drug in Europe.

In other words, if PBMs' influence were significantly curtailed, and they had to charge a flat administrative fee for their services rather than reaping a percentage of a drug's total price -- a reform that many in Congress have already proposed -- U.S. drug prices could be considerably lower without diverting a dollar away from research and development.

The federal 340B program, which enables hospitals to purchase prescription drugs at mandatory discounts, plays a similarly inflationary role. Congress intended hospitals to use the savings from 340B to offer more affordable care to low-income and uninsured patients.

Yet since hospitals are not explicitly required to pass those savings on, many opt to exploit the 340B program instead. They buy discounted drugs for pennies on the dollar and sell them to patients at enormous markups, sometimes exceeding 700%. In 2023, the total value of discounts on drugs purchased under 340B was roughly $58 billion -- much of which patients never saw.

By reforming PBMs and the 340B program, the Trump administration and Congress could substantially reduce the prices that patients pay for medicines. Simultaneously, the administration could follow through on the president's order instructing the U.S. Trade Representative -- the nation's top trade negotiator -- to ink deals that "ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act . . . [that] suppress[es] the price of pharmaceutical products below fair market value."

Negotiating trade agreements and cracking down on PBMs' and hospitals' abuse of patients would lead to real savings for patients -- without sacrificing innovation. If the United States instead imports other countries' price-control schemes, global medical R&D will collapse, with no country but China likely to pick up the slack.

The White House is right to focus on making medicines more affordable. But not all solutions are equally effective. Patients, and researchers, are counting on the president and his advisers to choose wisely. 

Dr. Wolfgang Klietmann is a former clinical pathologist and medical microbiologist at Harvard Medical School.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2025/08/04/the_solution_to_foreign_freeloading_on_prescription_drugs_starts_here_at_home_1126808.html

Dr. Oz on Face the Nation

 The following is the transcript of an interview with Dr. Mehmet Oz, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Aug. 3, 2025.

---

MARGARET BRENNAN: Change is coming for the country's Medicaid system as part of the enactment of the Big, Beautiful Bill. To help us understand what's ahead, we turn now to the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz. Good morning. Welcome to Face The Nation. 

DR. MEHMET OZ: Thank you. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: You've got a lot of work ahead. I want to start on drug costs. The president put this 25% tariff on India, big drug producer. The President's trade deal with the EU puts a 15 percent tariff on imported medicines from Europe. How do you stop the drug makers from passing along those costs to people on Medicare and Medicaid?

DR. MEHMET OZ: Well, the president's letter on Thursday for most favored nation pricing is a good example of that, and he's been working on this tirelessly since the first administration. And just to put this in context for many of the viewers, about two thirds of bankruptcies in America are caused by health care expenses. About a third of people when they go to the pharmacy, they leave empty handed. They can't afford the medication. So the President has said, Enough global freeloading. We've been covering much of the development costs for new drugs to cure cancer, deal with lots of other illnesses that are life threatening. It is in time for the American public to understand that we should not be paying three times more for the exact same medication in the same box, made in the same factories. The president's saying, equalize it out. Let's use a model that's worked, for example, for external threats, that's what NATO did. Everyone has to pay a little more. We'll pay extra too, but we won't pay a lot more than everybody else, so they actually have to raise their contributions, in this case, to an internal threat, which is illness. We'll pay a little less than America that way more Americans can afford these medications, and it's a fair system for the entire globe.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So this was declared in these letters that were sent out to 17 pharmaceutical companies this past week, and it calls for extending that to Medicaid drug prices. Is that intended to offset what will be, you know, cuts to Medicaid? And do you know, you know, if the companies are actually going to follow through on this, like, how do you actually strong arm them into doing it?

DR. OZ: Well just get the numbers correct. We're putting 200 billion more dollars into Medicaid. So we're actually investing—

MARGARET BRENNAN: —by the time when costs are going up, so. 

DR. OZ: Costs are going up, but there's been a 50 percent increase in the cost of Medicaid over the last five years. So I'm trying to save this beautiful program, this noble effort, to help folks giving them a hand up. And as you probably gather, if Medicaid isn't able to take care of the people for whom it was designed, the young children, the dawn of their life, those are the twilight of their life, the seniors and those who are disabled living in the shadows, as Hubert Humphrey said, then we're not satisfying the fundamental obligation of a moral government. And this President has said over and over that he believes that it is the wise thing and the noble thing to help those who are vulnerable and every great society does that, we're going to as well. So we're going to invest in Medicaid as is required, but we want an appropriate return on that investment. One thing that Medicaid patients should not face are drug prices they can't afford.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, how do you enforce this? Pharmaceutical companies—

DR. OZ: Well, the pharmaceutical companies, if you sit them down quietly, Margaret, and we've done that, and say you went into this business at some point, because you cared about people. I know there's many out there shaking their heads, but that is actually the truth. People go into health care, whether they're pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies or the PBMs or anybody in the space. Even at the CMS, the most impressive thing to me in my new task, and the President has appointed me to, is the remarkable quality of people within the organization, just unbelievably talented. They went into this job because they care about health care and about people. Somewhere along the lines, people forget. They put numbers ahead of patients. And when that happens, then you start running into problems. We went to the pharmaceutical companies and we said, you appreciate this is not a fair system. We should not be paying more in America, three times more, for your products than you charge in Europe. They get the joke. They understand the reality of this problem. They are engaging with us. We're in the middle of those negotiations. The President has a unique power to convene. We've done it with dealing with prior authorization, this heinous process where patients feel like they're trying to get care from a doctor. Everything's being done except all of a sudden the arm of insurance comes in and stops the whole process for unknown reasons for weeks, sometimes months. The insurance companies, representing 80 percent of the American public, got together and they said, because we pushed them, we're going to deal with this. We can do the same, I believe, with the pharmaceutical industry, with most favored nation pricing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about the changes that are coming because of this new law to Medicaid, which is jointly administered between the feds and the states. There are major reduction- reductions to federal health care spending here, one of the changes are these work requirements. It's about 20 hours a week, volunteer or work to qualify for health care. What is the guidance you are giving to states on how to implement this? Because in this economy, things are more complicated. Uber driver, independent contractor, how do they show they work their 20 hours a week?

DR. OZ: Last weekend, I was at the National Governors Association with Secretary Kennedy, who has been a big advocate of work as well. Every Democratic president and Republican president has said that the foundation of a healthy welfare system of a social system of support is work.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, but I'm asking how you actually implement that and register it so that people who are working do qualify, and they don't get caught up in paperwork because they didn't file something on time. 

DR. OZ: As long as we're okay that people should work and would want to work, and it's not just work, it's community engagement. They can go get educated, right? They can take care of family members. They can contribute in other ways, but work is a great way of doing and get you out of poverty if you can find jobs and elevate yourself. There have been efforts to do this in the past, but they haven't been able to achieve what we can achieve, because we have technologies now. And we've invested already, as soon as the bill was signed, began pilots to try to demonstrate that we can actually do this correctly. We have pilots now in Louisiana and in Arizona, in both cases, within seven minutes, you can click on where you're working. You mentioned Uber, you're an Uber driver. You click that button on your phone. It just takes you to your payroll provider. Let's say it's ADP. We then ask your permission, can we connect with this payroll provider to demonstrate what you've actually been able to work and earn over the past month? This also, by the way, confirms your eligibility. But there's a bigger benefit here. Once you do that, you're in, you're done. However, what if we take one step further, Margaret? What if we go beyond just proving that you tried the work to actually say, You know what, you didn't work enough, but we can actually help you by connecting you through an employment office? 

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you're still figuring out the technology, but isn't there an end-of-December deadline for a lot of these things to be figured out? And how do you make sure that people don't get kicked off? Because in the state of Georgia, which already had work requirements, they have really struggled to make this work.

DR. OZ: Well, a couple of things. It's not the end of December, it's end of December a year from now, and Georgia is apples and oranges. Georgia had a program only for people under the poverty level, and for those people, if they wanted, they could elect to come into a system to help them get jobs. There have been 50,000 reduction in head count of uninsured people in the overall program in the last five years. Overall, Georgia, 2 million less uninsured people. So Georgia is using a lot of tactics, and they're going in the right direction. I would argue that if you have confidence in the American people and their desire to take to offer to try to get a job, if we challenge you to that. And remember, if you're an able-bodied person on Medicaid, you're spending 6.1 hours watching television or leisure time, so you don't want that—

MARGARET BRENNAN: —Well, KFF Health Policy found 92 percent of adult Medicaid recipients already are working. Or they have the carve out because they have to have caregivers, or they have to do other things.

DR. OZ: They're fine. All they have to do is there'll be a simple app. If you've already carved out, that's super simple. If you're supposed to be if you're able-bodied and supposed to be working, we want to help connect you to the job market and get you into work. We have twice as many jobs available in America as people who seem to want them. The foundation of work is not just about fulfilling eligibility. The goal of health care insurance is to catalyze action in the right direction, to get you healthier, to give you agency over your future, so you recognize you matter, and you should have a job, therefore to go out and change the world.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So there's a drug addiction problem in this country. How are those changes going to impact people who are on Medicaid in states like Kentucky, in states like West Virginia?

DR. OZ: In many instances, there are carve outs for folks who have substance use disorder problems. There are programs--

MARGARET BRENNAN: —How do they prove that? 

ADMINISTRATOR OZ: Well, they can—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is this in the app?

DR. OZ: Yes, it will be in the app. The app, again, this is being developed by the United States Digital Service, led by Amy Gleason, who is a wonderful technologist. She and I were with the President and Secretary Kennedy and the head of the czar for AI in this country on Wednesday, talking about overall how we're going to change the use of health technology in America. We've got to get into 2025 with health technology, as is true in every other sector. If you're watching the show right now, you could also be streaming media. You could take an Uber somewhere, the rideshare. You could do an Airbnb. Technology should make the system more efficient. We should have confidence that it will also allow us to do what we all agree is possible. If the whole challenge to a work requirement is that you don't have confidence in our ability to accomplish it, that's a separate question, because I do have confidence in the American people, and we have confidence we can pull this off. Look at the passport system, Margaret. Right now, you can go and get a passport in two weeks without having to go to the post office, send pictures, and all that's gone. It's fixable. Let's use technology.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm still confused on how someone who is in the throes of substance abuse is going to use an app to say, I'm in the throes of substance abuse every week, to file on online—

DR. OZ: —When they go in to get their help for their substance abuse treatment, assuming they're going for help on that, they can also get enrolled in, in those requirements, can be fulfilled. We want to talk to them in as many ways as possible. It's not going to happen just because we put an app out there, you, you have social workers and other folk elements who care a lot about this population, who are coming together, but they have to have some mechanism to report back. That just has not been done well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, and this is incredibly detailed, and that's why we wanted to have you on. I have so many more questions for you on rural hospitals and some of the other criticisms. I have to leave it there for now. But thank you, Dr. Oz--

DR. OZ: Can I give you 30 seconds on rural hospitals, because this is important. You have 7 percent of Medicaid money going to rural hospitals. We're putting 50 billion dollars the president wants us to, Congress wants to—

MARGARET BRENNAN: There are a lot questions on how you're going to duel that out, and whether you have already made promises. Do you have any specifics for us?

DR. OZ: Yes. Wait, wait, it's going to be, they'll get the applications in early September. The money is designed to help you with workforce development, right sizing the system and using technology to provide things like telehealth that can change the world. Imagine if we can change the way we think about the delivery of health and make it more about getting people healthy so they can thrive and flourish and be fully present in their own lives and as Americans.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Dr Oz, we'll leave it there.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-mehmet-oz-cms-administrator-face-the-nation-08-03-2025/

Microsoft: partnership with Thrive Global on a wellness app

 Thrive Global's science-backed behavior change platform, integrated into Microsoft Teams, will offer seamless, daily access to personalized wellbeing benefits and tools.

Microsoft and Thrive Global today announced a new partnership to further integrate wellbeing into Microsoft's culture and employees' daily routines. Thrive Global lets employees access Microsoft's complete suite of wellbeing tools and benefits right from Microsoft Teams, making wellbeing more accessible than ever. This partnership reflects Microsoft's ongoing commitment to support holistic wellbeing across its global workforce.

Thrive Global's methodology is grounded in research showing that five daily behaviors—food, movement, sleep, stress management, and connection—are the most powerful drivers of long-term health. These behaviors align closely with Microsoft's own goals of supporting employees' wellbeing in every aspect of life—physical, mental and emotional, and financial. The new partnership grants Microsoft's global workforce direct Teams access to Thrive Global's science-backed behavior change engine, including Microsteps to build healthier habits, Thrive Resets to reduce stress in 60 seconds, a Wellbeing Score to help users evaluate their health and chart a personalized path to progress, and a robust content library to support further learning.

"Microsoft's commitment to employee wellbeing comes to life through this partnership with Thrive Global," said Arianna Huffington, Founder and CEO of Thrive Global. "By bringing Thrive's science-backed platform to Microsoft's global workforce, we're making healthy behavior change simple, accessible, and even joyful—and setting a new standard for how large companies can scale personalized wellbeing."

"At Microsoft, our goal is to make wellbeing easy to access, relevant to everyone, and embedded into our daily lives at work and home," said Kristen Roby Dimlow, CVP of Total Rewards and Talent Acquisition at Microsoft. "We listened to what employees needed, and we're excited to deliver a global platform that puts personalization, accessibility, and simplicity first—alongside real, measurable outcomes."

The kickoff campaign, Healthier Together, launched July 15th. It aligns with Microsoft's new fiscal year—a natural moment of reset—to introduce the Thrive Global Teams app and help employees get a fresh start on their wellbeing. Each subsequent month will feature a different theme (such as energy management, gut health, boundary setting, and the power of connection) reinforced by relevant webinars, coaching, and content.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-partners-thrive-global-launch-120000275.html

Krystal Biotech stock price target lowered to $182 at BofA on growth concerns

 BofA Securities lowered its price target on Krystal Biotech (NASDAQ:KRYS) to $182 from $192 on Monday while maintaining a Buy rating, citing concerns about near-term growth trajectory. According to InvestingPro data, the stock appears undervalued based on its Fair Value analysis, with analyst targets ranging from $176 to $252.

The price target reduction follows Krystal Biotech’s second-quarter Vyjuvek revenues of $96 million, which exceeded BofA’s estimate of $95 million and consensus expectations of $92 million. Despite the revenue beat, the company’s shares fell approximately 13% after management indicated third-quarter revenue would be lower than second-quarter figures due to patient pausing trends. InvestingPro data reveals impressive gross profit margins of 93.2% and an excellent financial health score, with more than 10 additional ProTips available to subscribers.

BofA noted that Krystal Biotech is behind on its goal of reaching 720 reimbursement approvals originally targeted for September/October, with that target now shifted to early next year. This delay contributes to the unpredictability in the company’s near-term growth outlook.

Recent regulatory approvals in the European Union and Japan are expected to create additional revenue opportunities outside the United States. The company plans to launch in Germany in the third quarter of 2025, followed by France in the fourth quarter and Japan by year-end 2025.

BofA’s updated financial model reflects decreased near-term Vyjuvek revenues and delayed launches for Krystal’s pipeline products KB407 and KB408.

In other recent news, Krystal Biotech Inc. reported its financial results for the second quarter of 2025, surpassing analysts’ expectations. The company announced earnings per share (EPS) of $1.29, which exceeded the projected $1.22. Revenue also outperformed forecasts, reaching $96.04 million compared to the anticipated $92.24 million. Despite these positive financial results, the company’s stock experienced a decline in pre-market trading, attributed to cautious guidance for the upcoming quarter.

https://www.investing.com/news/analyst-ratings/krystal-biotech-stock-price-target-lowered-to-182-at-bofa-on-growth-concerns-93CH-4168444

HilleVax to be Acquired by XOMA Royalty for $1.95 in Cash per Share Plus CVR

HilleVax (NASDAQ: HLVX) has entered into a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by XOMA Royalty (NASDAQ: XOMA) in a structured deal. Shareholders will receive $1.95 in cash per share plus a non-transferable contingent value right (CVR).

The CVR includes potential payments from: (1) excess cash above $102.95M, (2) 90-100% of Boston office lease savings, and (3) 90% of proceeds from any norovirus vaccine program sales within specific timeframes. The deal has received unanimous board approval, with 22.9% of stockholders already committed through support agreements.

The tender offer will commence by August 18, 2025, with the acquisition expected to close in September 2025, subject to standard conditions including majority shareholder approval and minimum cash balance requirements.

https://www.stocktitan.net/news/HLVX/hille-vax-enters-into-a-definitive-agreement-to-be-acquired-by-xoma-jswovusoku9x.html

BioNTech SE (BNTX) Misses Q2 EPS by 19c; reaffirms guidance

 BioNTech SE (NASDAQ: BNTX) reported Q2 EPS of (EUR1.60), EUR0.19 worse than the analyst estimate of (EUR1.41). Revenue for the quarter came in at EUR260.8 million versus the consensus estimate of EUR137.9 million.

GUIDANCE:

BioNTech SE sees FY2025 revenue of EUR1.7-2.2 billion, versus the consensus of EUR2.27 billion.

https://www.streetinsider.com/Earnings/BioNTech+SE+%28BNTX%29+Misses+Q2+EPS+by+19c%3B+reaffirms+guidance/25139436.html