The Shocking Truth About DC Spending & Corruption - Scott Bessent

Okay, we are here in Washington DC in. front of the White House having spent. the afternoon with our friend David. Saxs, our friend Elon Musk and others. We are here to learn about the debt, the. deficit, what's going on in DC. And we. have an incredible interview lined up. with Scott Bessant, Treasury Secretary. of the United States. It was amazing and. it's been an amazing afternoon and we're. really looking forward to it. It was. amazing. Well, this is the pre the intro. to the video. It will be amazing. It's not the pre. Let's just What the.

We're going to pretend it's the pre. It. was amazing. It It will be incredible. It was incredible. But how cool is the. White House? And here's a bell. I'm. pretty sure I'm pretty sure the bell I. cannot even describe to you the day we. had running around. It's incredible. Running around room to room in the White. House. One of the best days of my life. It was one of the best days of my life. It was incredible. Incredible. I think. this bell is probably pretty important. Can you guys get a shot of this bell? I. don't know what it is, but it's really. important. Yeah. The White House, the. people to a one super kind, super open,

super curious. I mean, did you felt it? I You felt accepted. Yeah, I felt But I. got free soda. They have a soda machine. where you can make any Coca-Cola flavor. you want in the White House. It was. pretty cool. I took some uh hummus. I. wrapped it on Creeper's face. I punched. him in. It was a cool afternoon. And uh. this is what is this? The east wing of. the White House. And we took a walk from. the west wing all the way over to the. east wing to the portico. And then we we.

snuck in. Well, we didn't sneak in. We. walked in. And then we're walking around. the east wing. We went to all of the. private rooms. I got great photos. We'll. we'll we'll slice him into this video. And then some secret service dude comes. up and he's like, "What are you guys. What are you doing here? This is the. residence of the president. You have to. get the out." He's like, "You need to go. downstairs now." So, we got kicked the. out. But it was an incredible um. incredible tour. Super great. Yeah. Anyway, we're excited for this interview. with Scott Bess and hope you enjoy it. All right, besties. I think that was. another epic discussion. People love the.

interviews. I could hear him talk for. hours. Absolutely. We crush your. questions in a minute. We are giving. people ground truth data to underwrite. your own opinion. What do you guys. think? That was fun. Pal. Well, today's a really important day. We're joined by the 79th Secretary of. the Treasury, Scott Bessant. And this is. an opportunity that we wanted to take as. part of a longer form way of explaining. to people not just how the economy works. but in a little bit more detail where. are we in this moment in time where are.

we with deficits, tariffs, the budget, economic, monetary, fiscal policy. How. do we make sure that we all understand. the plan to make America great again? So. Scott, thank you for joining us. Good. Thanks for having me. I actually want to. start with let's go back in the way back. machine. So, South Carolina, your father. was a real estate developer. Tell us. where the passion for finance came from. Uh, well, um, I don't know where finance.

in particular came from. As you. mentioned, my dad was a real estate. developer and he he was kind of boom bus. kind of uh, guy. So, I think that's. where my passion for risk management. came from. But uh I I was I was very. fortunate. Went to Yale. Wasn't sure. what I wanted to do. N 1980 when I got. there. Probably you all can imagine. this, but uh there used to be these. things called punch cards and we just. gone the Yale computer system just gone.

from punch cards to screens. I was going. to think of being a computer science. major, maybe a journalist because people. actually used to read newspapers. So. punch cards and newspapers from the way. back machine. Uh, and I. um I I got an. internship at just for an individual and. he taught me the investment business. really well. And I And who was that? His. name is Jim Rogers. He's famous. He was. George Soros's first partner. Uh he uh.

had just completed an around the world. motorcycle trip and written a book. called Investment Biker, right? and fa. fascinating guy and um I did the. investment business and I thought this. is really what I like because it's. quantitative so I get to use my. quantitative skills but you're also. constructing a narrative um and it's. also like human emotions and you were.

trading equities bonds everything. currencies uh well I started out with. equities and I I did that for several. years and then I actually ended up at. Soros Fund Management. I worked for a. fellow who's my mentor, Stan Draen. Miller, who's incredible, but I I think. he's on he's more than 40 years now. Never a down year. And you know, when. you're sitting next to him, I think, what am I doing all day and notorious. for going allin several times in his. career? All in all, all in. And uh only.

when he's he's right. Yes. Well, I but. he he is the best at changing his mind. That's right. Of anyone I've ever seen. So, Duck has that famous adage, invest. then investigate. Well, he he has. several and and I'm trying to get him to. write a book because he has so many of. these great things. Uh maybe you will. press him. Um but invest investigate. It. takes courage to be a pig. Right. Right.

So uh and then I I was hooked on markets. because again it was everything. It was. quantitative, it was qualitative and. it's real time. You get real- time. feedback all the time. And you you're. could have a long-term view, but then. you're trying to gauge the short term. against that. And you know, I I loved. it. And uh for 35 years I've got into I. did what's called macro investing. So uh.

eventually I was trading currencies, bonds, commodities, the equities, uh some. credit and I got to travel around the. world meeting leaders and trying to. figure out what the next move was in. policy. I think this is important. because I've spoken with folks who um. trade in macro and a big part of the the. role of being a macro investor, macro. trader, is really knowing where central. bank action is going to be, really.

knowing how government bonds are going. to move and spending time with. economists, not just central, but around. the world and learning a little bit. about how capital is flowing all over. the world. Is that kind of the right way. to describe that role of being a macro. investor just for folks? Yeah, you know, it's it's a lot of it's a lot of that. There's another great macro investor. called Bruce Ker and he had this saying. that he said, you know, I succeeded. because I could imagine a different.

future and believe it could happen. So. the key is to believe it could happen. and then manage the risk. So you know. could you imagine like what would happen. if the iron curtain came down? What. would happen? I mean you all do it as. venture capitalists but like you know. how could the world live in a different. state. Okay. Well let's hold that idea. and double click for us to 92. It's. probably one of the most famous moments.

where the broader world at large metro. trading. And this is really where you. and Duck and Soros basically broke the. back of the Bank of England. And it's. really an interesting window into. assessing all of these things. So can. you give us the conditions on the ground. at that moment and what new reality you. saw for England? And then it would be. great from there we'll contrast and. compare to America today. Good. So uh it.

it's a great historical example and it. also kind of brings in three dimensions. So I I was the analyst, Stan was the portfolio manager and then. in a way George was the risk manager. Okay. So I I was running the the UK. office. I was on the ground in the UK. and I I had this light bulb go off and. you know I thought kind of the fulcrum. thought or like my differentiated view.

was that the UK had just had a big. housing boom and UK mortgages at that. time they didn't have long-term. mortgages. They were all floating rates. So if the Bank of England raised rates. on a Wednesday the your mortgage went up. on a Friday. Yeah. uh the UK had hooked. into something called the exchange rate. mechanism. They had to balance versus. the Deutsch mark. They had to stay. within a band. Um I noticed that if they. raise or I thought if they raised rates.

to try to stay in the band and protect. the currency, it would be unsustainable. because British homeowners would get. bankrupted. Uh Stan's great uh feat of. analysis was figuring out that gosh the. these bands set up this incredible. asymmetric bet. because I can push them up against one. side of the band and their mandate is. just to push me back to the other side.

so we just lose two and a half%. And um you know Stan tells this great. story of. like telling George Soros, oh well you. know here's what I want to do and he. says he told him and George says well. how much do you want to do? And he said. probably 100% of the fund and he said. Soros gave him this really sour look and. he thought that he had said something. wrong why wouldn't you do three times.

that deal? So uh but anyway it was um we. pushed them against the the ban. the. Bank of England, the British government. uh had to buy this unlimited amount of. pounds and they started raising interest. rates and this was September of. 1992 and uh you know. eventually they just weren't able to. sustain the the pressure from the high. rates and came out and then the.

asymmetric riskreward was we made about. 20 something% in a day. Yeah. Right. And. back to what was really Stan's genius is. I don't know if either of you play back. gammon but in back gammon there's the. move after the move and so Stan we'd. made all that money and we were kind of. euphoric okay now what because there's. going to be the trade after the trade so. we made that much in a day but then it. was actually the trade after the trade.

and this isn't well publicized I think. we made another 20%. during the rest of the year. Wow. So in. that moment, what you're really. observing is that the real economy is. somewhat dislocated, maybe meaningfully. dislocated from the financial economy in. your operating. And I think you've said. this now many times and you've basically. used the terminology the main street. wall street dichotomy. How do you observe the moment in 2025,

the maybe what rhymes with the early 90s. or other periods where you've been. trading actively? Well, look, I I I. think it goes back. to something that's unsustainable is. unsustainable. And um one of the reasons. I'm sitting here now is uh about 18. months ago, I went to see President. Trump. I'd known the Trump family for 30. years. I'd never known the president. that well, but to tell him that I want.

to get involved in the campaign because. I was so alarmed with what the Biden. administration was doing with the defic. debt and deficit, endless stimulus, endless spending, endless spending, but endless spending. when we were in like solid economic. territory or not in a war. First time, first time ever. And I I thought it was. very cynical because I I actually. thought, well, we're going to spend. spend spend and then there'll be no.

choice but to raise taxes. So you'd go. into this equilibrium that you could. just never get out of and you become. kind of a European style social social. democracy, you know, the malaise. And. you know, I I also think that we're very. cynical on immigration, right? Because. if you take kind of the stated number 12. million, the president's number 22. million. I don't know what the truth is. Kind of lean toward the president. But. it was, oh, we're going to let all these.

people cross the border. You can't ever. make them. Problem's too big to make. them go home. But I like to stay in my. finance lane. So the finance lane was. we're going to just go to the point of. no return and kind of inflict these. the progressive financial values on the. country. There'll be no way out. Very. meaningful wage suppression in that. period and you had an equity market that. was incredibly well bid just because the. money supply was just always there.

Well, it was always there and you had. these distributional aspects because. back to your question, Wall Street. versus Main Street that it was driving. me crazy when Vice President Harris. said, "I'm going to fight for the middle. class." And she'd eviscerated the middle. class or or these policies, inadvertent, intentional, had. eviscerated the middle class and really. the bottom 50%. So you we're we're in.

this uh because purchasing power goes. down, inflation went up. Well, per if. you didn't have assets, right? So, uh. that's really important. I think people. don't understand this that if you had. stocks, if you had assets, your assets. inflated. Y but if you didn't, the cost. of everything inflated, but you didn't. have the ability to purchase because. your wages don't go up. Yeah. And they. not not only. did inflation go up, but if you look uh. Jason Trinard has this thing I think he.

calls it the everyman index and um so. CPI went up about 22 during the period. but the everyman index was up over 30. 35%. Because the the bottom 25% the. bottom 50% of wage earners have have a. different basket than we do and it. inflated much faster% used car prices. around car insurance car insurance rent. groceries and you like not not only is.

it unfair but it's just unstable and. great civil civil issues societal issues. and so yes but sorry as you guys got. into looking at this I and I remembering. and talking about this in the. summer of 23 I think it was or 23. Yeah. And what was the point of view on what. should have been done at that point in. time and then how much farther did it. go? How much longer did it last? Well, I. I think what happened the the Democrats.

will tell you that the big spending. bills were needed for rescue. Yeah. And. I would say in March of 21, the economy. didn't need rescue, was already in. recovery, right? So these were rescue. size packages. And even Larry Summers, I. remember there was a great debate. between Larry Summers and Paul Krugman. And Summers I think said, "Look, this is. at least 900 billion, a trillion, too.

much." And the Federal Reserve was ve. summer of 23 22 Federal Reserve was very. slow off the mark and you know we we. ended up and you know again imagine top. 10% has assets stock market is flying. you're in the bottom 50% you have no. assets but you have debt. Yes. So you. credit cards are up u mortgages. impossible to buy a house. house prices.

had gone through the roof due to COVID. So, it really did like end the American. dream and but we we've been suffering. these distributional effects. Scott, what what is the American dream today? Do you think? Uh look, I I think the. American dream is what it what it's. always been. But after World War II, I. think 90% of American families uh the. the children made more than the parents. Now, now I think it's 50/50, but you.

know, it's to to own a home. It's. financial security. It's to uh some some. level of comfort. It's purpose in your. work. It's the to be able to support. your family. Uh to be able to have. choices to not have to work two two. jobs. I I made a remark at the Economic. Club of New York last week, two weeks. ago and Mike Pence decided he was going.

to troll me and because I said the. American dream is not built on cheap. goods, right? And he said, "Well, yes, it is." And you know, I I just say, "Vice President Pence, this let them eat. flat screens economic policy that. doesn't is isn't what people want. They. we they don't want the bobbles from. China. It's like the old they want. progression. People want progression. I. I mean I remember reading um there's a.

uh I think Jonathan height had some work. on this a long time ago where happiness. is measured by your change in net worth. or income per year. It doesn't matter. what your absolute levels are by all. these. socioeconomic kind of surveys that they. do. That feeling like you're having some. progression in life is what folks are. looking for. And I wonder whether. solving for that, we created a system, and I I I'd love your point out your. your your read on this, that we said. everyone should own a home. That's the. American dream. And in order to do that, people put most of their net worth into.

a home. 60% I think of middle class net. worth is tied up in their in a single. asset. And then in order to get them to. feel like they're progressing, we've. created a system of loans and a system. of kind of economic and fiscal policy. that ultimately drives the value of the. home up every year. Now we're kind of in. an unsustainable housing bubble. Can. most people can't even afford to buy a. home. What did we get wrong there? And. how does that affect what the American. dream should look like going forward? Well, I I think a lot of it is scarcity. because what what you're talking about.

is like out in San. Francisco, super tight zoning laws. So. there there's scarcity for home. If if. you think like Ivy League education, all. of a sudden you gave all these people. access to Ivy League educations. You. brought in international students, but. the the number of degrees awarded at. Harvard, Dale, Princeton probably hasn't. changed very much since the 1950s. So. you you created just this demand for.

scarce things which leads to this. anxiety. Um, but you you you. also created, I think, a sense of. hopelessness through cuz if you're I. can't access I will never get I will. never be able to pay down my student. loan. I will never be able to afford a. home. I can never see my income growing. to give me access there. Yeah. A and um. so is that is that a dereg solution? Is. that the Well, I think the first the.

first part of it is it's a data problem. because in order for the government I. mean the one thing that struck me about. I think this Trump 2.0 administration is. I think you have a better beat on the. fact that this data is not as reliable. as other administrations would say they. were in order to do whatever it is they. wanted to do anyway. So it's sort of. like let me just find the data that. justifies what my action is. Um, and. part of why you can't, I think, tell. this story is, do you trust the GDP. numbers? Do you trust non-farm payrolls?

Do you think these are reliable enough. for you to act on behalf of the United. States? No. Look, that they're subject. to big revisions o over time. And I. thought one of the big mistakes the. Biden administration made, and thank. goodness they made it, was they refused. to they went with the numbers, not what. the American people were feeling. They. said, "No, it's a vibe session and you. really don't understand how good you. have it. This has happened. This has.

happened." When when in. reality, I was on Meet the Press. yesterday and there's something that. said, "Well, the American people don't. believe Donald Trump's doing enough on. the economy." And I told the host, I. said, "You know, the one thing I'm not. going to answer is that they don't know. what they're talking about. I have to. have respect for how they feel and then. we need to go back and look at what is. causing this anxiety. So you that's what.

that's what we're going to do. So let's. peel the onion back. What do you think. is causing this anxiety? Where are the. levers that maybe the federal government. can control in releasing some of the. pressure? And what are more market. functions that just need to clear up. some of these dis Well, look, I I think. there we we're we're trying to do three. things. And I I think you may have. talked about it last week week before. the the three legs on the stool. Three.

legs in the stool. And and from from the. outside that you intuited that very. well. I I would do just a little. refinement on that. That's what I was. going to ask you. Yeah. just tell me. where I was right and wrong. But the you. were adjacent to everything. Okay. So, uh on on one uh we are trying to bring. down this massive federal debt, cut the. spending and but in a controlled way. because you can't do it all at once. I I.

don't like to repeat private. conversations with the president, but. I'll repeat this one because I think. it's very the it really illustrates. where his head was at. First time I went. to SE into seam saw him at Mara Largo. and walk in the door and said, "Scott, how are we going to get these debt and. deficits down without causing a. recession?" Fantastic. And that's. exactly where we are now. How are we. going to get the debt and deficits down, not cause a recession? And I said, "Sir,

um, when you win, you didn't get us. here. We're going to set a goal by 2028. We want to get back to the long-term. average. We're going to deflate it. slowly. And long-term average being. about 3% deficit to GDP. About three. three and a half% deficit to GDP. And. you know, like I keep saying the US, we. don't have a revenue problem. We have a. spending problem because we are. averaging right about 18% revenue. And.

I'm talking about federal government. Federal government only. We're at about. 18%. and Biden administration blew it out. blew the spending out to 25. Normally. it's about 21 21 and a half. We have the. 2% inflation nominal GDP it take real. GDP is 18. So we get nominal GDP 3.8 and. it all works out. Yeah. And it was very.

I had uh one of the heads of one of the. Singapore sovereign wealth funds here. last week. Guess what Singapore spends. the in terms of spending to GDP deficit. 3%. Uh they they have no deficit but. they they spend 18%. 18% 18%. And he. said you know he said we have a lot in. common with the Trump administration. We. like small government. We don't like. immigration, illegal immigration, and we. like personal safety, which I thought.

was very interesting. Sorry. So, let me. just um understand. So, deflating. government spending is key, but the big. challenge has been that we have now. accumulated 30 some odd trillion dollars. nearly of. debt. And the interest on that debt has. started to grow. We now have to pay $1.2. trillion in interest payments per year. So that starts to consume more of the. spending budget that we have at the. federal level, which means we can spend.

less on the rest of the federal. government's programs, meaning you have. to cut a lot more than you otherwise. would have, which is what makes it so. difficult and so painful. Is it. realistic that you can get Congress to. act in the way that Congress needs to. act to get to the level that we need to. get to given the high interest payments. and the high debt level that we have? Yeah. and w with this Republican. Congress. Uh, and look, I I I'm I'm not. sure what a deficit hawk is, but I I. think I I would qualify as one. And, uh,

a lot of the Republicans, I actually. have to coax him, you can't do this all. at once. I I was with the one of the. congressional budget committees two. weeks ago, and, you know, they really. want to cut this fast. And I said, you. do realize every 300 billion we cut is. about a percent of GDP. So you you could. so we we are trying to land the plane, right? Uh well,

and the plan uh because that that's. really what I'd like to talk about. today. I think there are three plans. here, but plan one, we're going to. delever the government via the spending. uh we are also going to shed excess. labor from the government. So on that. side and then on the other side we're. going we're going to deregulate the. financial system. The regulated. financial systems really been what I. call a regulatory corset for a long time.

and as we deregulate that then the. private sector can relever. So. government deleveraging, private sector. releveraging and the employment or. the folks who lost their government jobs. will be picked up by the more. productive. But this sorry this is. really important and I think this is the. most critical thing. I'm really glad we. got the chance to talk today because I. hear so much about the conversation on. any one of these topics independent of.

the others and there's a relationship. between them that I think is critical to. understand on how this administration is. aiming to drive an economic recovery. that is not inflationary is sustainable. and also will allow people to have the. American dream in a way that they can't. have access to today. Yeah. And the so. part of fixing the affordability crisis. is what can and we we come back and talk. about it if you want, but what where can. we get prices down? You know, like e. eggs are easy or but the the other side.

of getting prices. down is getting real wages up. So on. getting real wages for working people. up, it goes back to the main street. versus Wall Street. And the the second. plan is to the reorder the international. trading system and bring manufacturing. jobs back to the US and you have. reinvigorate the the middle class.

because again through tariffs well to to. use. tariffs that we're needed to bring other. countries uh into line and to create an. economic incentive to onshore for some. industries and some supply chains. Well, so there there's tariffs. Then I think. there are three other things we can do. which are the centerpiece of the. administration. We can have the low and. predictable taxes. We can substantially.

uh slash regulations because regulations. are the equivalent of that'll drive. investment dollars, private investment. dollars and predictability in. regulations. Uh and then uh cheap. energy, right? And sorry, what what is. the relationship between the tax cuts. and um the getting to 3% three and a. half% deficit as a percent of GDP, especially because the CR unfortunately.

gave folks a get out of jail free card. because we kept the you know $2 trillion. cap for the next alone. Uh yes. Uh, but. you got to have we we I I I been in this. building. I think this is my seventh. week. President Trump been back at the. White House for eight weeks. So, you. actually do need time. Yeah. So, what a. lot of people who weren't happy about. the CR, but shutting down the government. wouldn't have been productive either.

politically or economically. So, sorry. Does does um tax cuts get made up with. tariffs or does tax cuts get made up. with cutting government spending? Well, tax cuts will so tax cuts and. deregulation will uh change the growth. traje. uh if trend line has been 1.8 eight. If. you can move the growth to three or. above, right, then you really change. their trajectory and if you can um keep.

expenses flat or do the unthinkable and. cut expenses, then you can really So. this is important. So sorry, government. revenue as a percent of GDP can go lower. if you have lower expenses and a faster. growing economy. Yes, I think that's. like really important for folks to. understand that relationship. And so in. isolation, tax cuts might reduce. revenue, but when done with reduced. government spending and deregulation and. a reordered international trade model,

you theoretically will accelerate. economic growth in this country, increase government revenue overall, even with a lower tax rate. That's kind. of a theory, right? And and you know, I'll I'll tell you, shame on me. I I was. in the investment business 35 years. I I. talk very confidently that CBO scoring. says this and it turns out I I didn't. know you know what about CBO scoring. Like when you're on this side of the. wall, you realize how crazy it is. It's. crazy. So So just quite a gameable. system. It's a Yeah, it it's very. gameable. And one of the most gameable.

parts of it is in normal CBO scoring. that so we we're calling we're saying. that we want to renew the tax cuts, right? We're actually just renewing the current. tax regime, right? That but somehow a. after they. expire then they go back to the old. rate. Spending never changes like. spending never has to get renewed. And I. think when when I look and think about a.

mental model and how does systems work, how do they break down? One of the. things that has caused this spending. bulge is this idea that you never had to. rescore spending. Oh, it's nuts. And the. incentive model is when you have a. constituency that you represent as an. elected representative that's earning. from that spending, they're telling you, "If you want to get reelected, make sure. my earnings stay and get me more." And. then every year you've got a set of. elected representatives whose, you know,

primary objective in a democratic system. is to go in and get more money for their. constituents. How do we solve that. fundamental problem? How do you think. about that? Well, you got to deal with a. second. Do you actually think that. that's true? Do you think that most. politicians are here to just get money. for their Good question. Yeah. Yeah. I. mean, it's it's OPM. It's other people's. money, but they Danny DeVito had that. movie. Yeah. But but you you would. regard that as being a good politician. Like you brought home the bacon for for. your district. Yeah. That because.

the the CR a lot of people didn't like. it. But one of the things that a lot of. people didn't like there were no. earmarks in it. Like how dare they? Totally. The Christmas tree bill that. kind of shows up at the 11th hour where. everyone gets a little bit. Yeah. Can. you talk about So we talked about this. deregulation as this one very important. lever, right? So how do we add 50 100. basis points of growth back in? We're. going to do it through. deregulation. How do you undo the. financial corset as you said? What are.

the what are the sort of three or four. big ideas that you'd like to affect? Yep. So um we are. reexamining all all the bank regulations. and why why are they there? Why why do. banks have to I can't remember it's five. or 7% to hold treasury bills. What are. the regulations? Why do I I had a whole. group of community bankers or small. banks here last week? And why do they. have to hold the same amount of capital.

that JP Morgan and Wells Fargo and City. hold when they don't have the. complexity? They don't have why do the. regulators one one of these small. bankers said, "Well, you know, Bank. America does it this way." Well, Bank. America has a trillion dollars in. deposits. Yeah, this was. $183 million. Yeah, but when you look at. the regulatory overhang of some of these. things, Basel 1, Basel 2, you have all. of these frameworks and then as a.

result, all these organizations that are. running around trying to help you. administer this complexity, all it does. is just lower economic activity in the. end. Well, and and but it's I know you. all talk about incentives a lot. Back to. incentives. What's a regul regulator's. incentive just to keep like keep. tightening the corset? They don't care. about growth. They they don't care about. the uh common sense. Turn off turn off. every risk. It's their job. If you had.

to create a metric then to say, okay, here's how we're going to measure this. undoing of the financial corset. Is it. sort of the lending velocity by private. lenders so that the private releveraging. can occur? Is that a good way to think. about or is rates a way to think about. it? Well, it it doesn't have to be. rates, but if if we do all the things I. was just talking about, if we. deregulate, if we have cheap energy, the. I if we shed excess labor from the. government, if we get government. spending down, then rates inflation.

should come down, rates should come. down. Yeah. Uh but the on the question. of how are we going to measure it? I I. don't have any problem with private. credit. Yeah. Like I I actually think. it's exciting the dynamic. It's dynamic. It meets the business where it is. Yeah. I agree. And the the strength of the US. financial system is the depth and now. the breadth. But you you could see that. what's. happened that so much lending is being.

pushed outside the regulated banking. system. That tells you it's. overregulated. Yeah. Right. So now um once we so one test will be. how has bank lending especially small. regional small banks community banks. that come undone and you these small. banks the small banks and community. banks they're 70% of a loans they're 40%. of small business loans and that that's.

one of the reasons Main Street's been. stifled. So can you talk about then how. you will work with the Fed in sort. of the change of all of this financial. you need to and do you need to work with. Congress too to make these changes and. also just generally maybe your thoughts. on just the Fed in this process of. helper foe like where where do they. stand? Well the the. Fed I 100% support the Fed's autonomy in. monetary policy. Yeah. I don't agree.

with it all the time, but right that. how it is. It's how it is. It's how it. is. And um so and and I've said I won't. comment on perspective policy. I can. talk about their mistakes in the past. which have been numerous. But I I think. like like with with with any system as. as it expands beyond sort of the core uh. I I actually think that some of the.

things they've done in regulation some. of the things they've done kind of. climate and DEI some of the things may. maybe even non-standard monetary policy. uh threatens their independence and I. want them to stay strong robust and. independent on monetary policy on. regulation. I I think that they have. they have been much too harsh on. especially the smaller smaller banks, medium banks. U so there are three main.

bank regulators. There's the Fed off. office of control of the currency OC and. the. FDIC and then there other regulators the. SEC CFTC but the banking regulators at. the federal level are those three. here. at Treasury, we have something called. FSOC and financial stability oversight. council and um I chair that and via that.

the president's working group uh which. is another convening mechanism that I I. plan to just keep pushing for you know. safe sound and smart deregulation like. why are we doing this why are we doing. that and you again that there's a. capital charge to banks for buying. treasury bills. Totally. So I I actually. think there's a chance that if we take. it's it's called the supplementary. leverage ratio. If we take that away,

it's it becomes a binding constraint on. banks. We might actually pull Treasury. bill yields down by 30 to 70 basis. points. Every basis point is a billion dollars a. year. Can we talk about that for a. second? So. I think and I' I've said this for a year. probably, but the one of the biggest. mistakes that I think Janet Yellen. affected was this continued issuance of.

money on the short end of the curve to. finance these deficits which gives you. you inherit an incredibly difficult. challenge. I think over the next nine. months I think there's like nine or 10. trillion that has to get refinanced. Do. you want to talk about that? Yeah. Look, I I I thought that it that. when rates were low, you're supposed to. term out rates. Exactly. And in instead. the the Treasury for the past few years. has pulled rates in. And I think part of.

that was to keep rates lower that they. they changed the issuance schedule when. rates move back up towards 5%. I I um. have maintained that policy, but I'm. maintaining it because let's go back to. David's. question of when when are you going when. are we going to see the results from. this the getting the government spending. under control and I don't think the.

markets recognize it yet. Yeah. Like. like you know again if we do they don't. they're not sure what to believe. I. mean, we hear this commentary a lot like. what do you really what we people. there's just a lot of uncertainty. There's a big spectrum of opinions. there. Yeah. Like like the the central. value tendency, you're right. The. central value tendency like what's the. center of it because the the range of. outcomes is so so broad and you know. like we know we know there's a problem.

there. We know there's waste, fraud, and. abuse. Quantify it. Quantify it. So I I. think as we are more able to quantify. it, we will get credit for it. So let me. go back. So outside of waste, fraud and. abuse as it's termed, I want to go back. to the question I asked earlier. How. much do does this administration need. Congress to act to get to 3 to 3 12%. deficit to GDP? And how what's your read. on the Congress and how willing and able.

they are to take the action that's. needed here? Yeah, I I I think there are. a lot of headlines especially after the. CR about the Democrats being in disarray. and media like media likes to write. about disarray. I I think the under or untold story here. is Republicans have for a change. actually been very disciplined that and. I think a lot of. that President Trump is kind of. shephering the party, shephering the.

movement because imagine he said, "Oh, that Mike Johnson will never get. reconciliation instructions out of he's. got such a slim majority." Well, he did. it. He did it. Yeah. That he'll never be. able to pass a clean CR. He did it. He. did it. So, let's see what happens with. the budget. So, we need Congress to be. our partners on the budget. They're very. engaged, the House and the Senate, that.

everybody recognizes that if we don't. get this done, it's going to be the. biggest, it's past fail. It's the. biggest tax hike in history. Where does. Doge come in? Well, Doge, that's the the cost cutting and. it's the first time we've really ever. had business people looking at it. The. this Clinton Gore Commission that we. hear a lot of like or hear a lot about. I I think it was a bunch of business. school professors and but here you've.

got real CEOs. You got Lutnik, you got. Bergam, you got Elon. I mean, this. cabinet is stock full of experienced. operators that can go in and identify. where there's an opportunity for saving. the taxpayers money and still getting. the results. Well, it's that and we we. had this crypto council meeting the. other day and I was sitting as looking. it was myself, Secretary Lutnik, and. Kelly Laughler. Everybody was a market. person. like forget business like we and. but with Doge.

that I am. completely aligned with what Elon's. doing and everyone says, "Well, do you. have to do it so fast? You have to do. it." I I like I said, I've only been in. in this business for 7 weeks. I've only. been in DC for 8 weeks. But the thing I. can tell you is if you don't move fast, the vested interest will weigh you down. like the the the quicksand will come up. or the claws get the claw. Yeah.

Everybody's got lobbyists. Everybody's. got I mean, think about it. Within a 10. 10 mile radius of here, 25% of the GDP. of the US pulsates through here. Pulsates every day. Yeah. And everybody. wants to just skim a little. I I said to. uh e Elon and we were in a meeting and I. said, "You know, people are mad at you. cuz you're moving their cheese." And he. goes, "It's not their cheese. It's the.

American people's cheese." 100%. Every. dollar spent goes into someone's pocket. and that person's going to fight tooth. and nail to get that dollar to keep. flowing into their pocket. And it's a. it's a it's a very like there is no. winning in Elon's role. There's every. single time he takes action there are. people that are going to come after him. that are going to come after the. administration. There's no situ and and. obviously gets recast reclassified in. the media as being something different. but there's nothing but downside as you.

make these changes to individual. organizations that participate and then. it takes a while for the flow of that. money to find its way or those. individuals to find their way back into. the productive private economy. That's. where I think there's a big gap and a. big challenge in the perception of the. actions that are going on with the. changes right now is everyone sees the. cuts, but they don't see the benefits. And that's nine months, 12 months, 15. months down the road. And that's a. really hard thing to reconcile for most. Yeah. And I I'd say there are a couple. of things, too, is one like everyone's.

hearing cuts and they think they're. government services. That's right. That's right. And they're not. I I keep. saying it's the Department of Government. efficiency, not government extinction, not government elimination. And can we. make it run much better with fewer. people with fewer costs? And you I don't. want to demonize any of these federal. employees cuz I tell you in this. building, I've been so impressed with. the quality of the the people. I I would.

have hired them in my private firm. They. are great public servants. I need you to. stay for the weekend. and I need a. 25page memo in 72 hours that super high. quality. I I actually think what when. when all this is done. there there will have been two big. savings. One will been on these. contractors. Sure. Which totally we were. just talking about this. We were with. Elon just now with an incredible stat. He said I'm not going to name the firm. so that I don't want to but he said this.

one organization gets 98% of their. revenue from it was in the newspaper so. we can say it. It's booze Allen. We were talking about this and then but. then we were going through the numbers. on the other firms and it's just the. whole thing. What kind of risk. management is that by the way? Yeah. Yeah, but but it tells you. that that they didn't manage the risk. That's right. Tells you how entrenched. they believe they were and how good it. is for them. And how good it is. You're. absolutely right. And and the way the. way the grift works, you can only have.

six-month contracts, but there are. people who have had 40 six-month. contracts. Incredible. Like they've been. in situ for 20 years. Incredible. And. it's this whole I'm so happy there is. transparency and visibility into this. If for nothing else the administration. providing this level of insight and data. I think is so important for taxpayers. and individuals in this country to see. to recognize and importantly to. understand just how much of this grift.

is going on. It's frightening and I'm. glad that it's like being addressed and. and the American people can see if they. want it. So this is what I was going to. ask you. Let's just say that some. somehow the Borg slows this whole thing. down. You know what people say is that. the conventionalism well then the only. place to look will be things like. entitlements. Good question. Yeah. Do you do you think. that that's true? Well, I I. I think that now that the cat's out of.

the bag that the American people are are. not going to stay with this is that you. may maybe again here may maybe in the. Northeast Corridor um there's some push. back, but when I've seen the polling. data and the rest of the country does. not want this to stop and this. administration's not gonna stop. Yeah. the courts, they're trying to throw sand. in the gears with the courts and how. some judge can say, "Oh, all these.

workers have to come back in." And but I. I also think we've moved really quickly. now. I think when we start putting out. some of the ane anecdotes and the the. messages and talk about what's. happening, like I I'll talk about it. I. I'll be talking about it soon, but there. there's one very large department that. everybody deals with on April 15th that. their help desk is fully staffed 24/7,

365 days a year. They have the same. number of people on Christmas Eve as. they have on April 14th. Wow. This is. this this, by the way, is something that. I've seen being a lightning rod. Theoretically, every dollar you spend on. the IRS, you get $3 back or whatever it. is. That's not necessarily true. Like I. just want to be clear that there's you. can still get all your tax revenue at. the federal level, but you don't need to. waste. Well, look, I I mean I'd be the. ultimate chump if I said, "Oh, we're.

going to cut spending." Yeah. But I also. cut revenues with with the IRS, which. Treasury controls. My my three goals are. very simple. Revenue enhancement, privacy, and customer service. Totally. You know, there's a there's a body of. knowledge that says if we just fed in, and by the way, four or five of these. companies can do this. Now, if we just. fed in this entire federal tax code into. these AI models, what you can give to. Americans is a very guaranteed, resolute.

ability to file taxes with the assurance. that there is no waste, fraud, and. abuse. And now all of a sudden, you take. this incredible weight off of people's. shoulders. Um you know sometimes it is. said that you get audited for almost. political reasons. It seems like you. know uh people that not almost we have a. big we we we had a big announcement on. Tuesday and we brought in the 200 Biden. whistleblowers who they uh have a lot to.

say about who gets audited, who doesn't. They're going to be sitting in this. building working on IRS the matters and. understanding exactly how these audits. get triggered, how these political witch. hunts happen and trying to the change. the ethos of the building. And again, 99% of the people at the IRS are good. people. It's just like all these other.

agencies where they're they're bad. folks. But to your point, this is where. technology can create um very reliable. guard rails for the American citizen. where it's like, okay, well, if this. model says I owe $1,000 in tax, this is. it. I'm not trying to change anything. I've fed it all the software first and. you just know. Let me go back to. entitlements. Um I talked last week on our podcast. about social security. Mhm. Social. Security has a $2.7 trillion balance,

which is just a basically a Treasury. bond that's owed that they can't trade. out of. Should Social Security have. invested in the S&P or invested in. equities? And why don't we turn Social. Security into a sovereign wealth fund. and invest it for the benefit of all. Americans going forward? Yeah, I I I. think there there's the optimal, then. there's the. possible. George W. Bush tried to. privatize social security and you I I.

saw your your numbers listened to your. numbers going way back 1971 1971 and. with 15 16 trillion that we'd have I I. don't know what the numbers are since W. tried it. Yeah, they'd be substantial. We we wouldn't be thinking about a. problem in a few years. But I think now. you got to play the hand you're dealt. I. think we are dealt the social security. uh hand. And I think maybe we could. re-engineer it if we could create the.

sovereign wealth fund and have that on. the other side. There are a lot of. philanthropists who are looking at baby. bonds. So if you can create a some kind. of an investment account for newborns. then that would run on a parallel track. to social security. So that would be. compounding. The other thing would be a. safety net. Yeah. But it's still sitting. in treasuries on the other side. Y and.

that's where there's an opportunity not. just to drive up returns but participate. in the American economy and give all. Americans today the ability to know that. they have some participation in the. American economy rather than having. their retirement funds being sitting as. a loan to the federal government for. spending which I think could be a big. dramatic change. I don't know if they. need to be independent but I I I would I. think it's a it's a real opportunity for. us. Are you are you excited by the idea. of the sovereign wealth fund? I I am and. I'm excited by the idea like this is.

pres President Trump. Everything he does. isn't in a straight line, but I. guarantee he has a destination in mind. And the idea that he's going to be the. first president in generations who is. going to he wants to create assets for. the American people, not just debt. Yeah. Yeah. So he wants to take the debt. down. And then this idea of assets, there was a lot of talk about this.

economic deal we're going to do with. Ukraine. That would have gone in the. sovereign wealth fund, right? Yeah. Government has big stake. in Fanny May and Freddy Mack. Yeah. When. it comes out of conservatorship, where. does that go? Where where does that go? As you mentioned, Doug Doug. Bergam did great work when he was. governor of North Dakota. North Dakota. has the equivalent of two state. sovereign wealth funds and for I don't.

know are they 7 8 900,000 people. I. think they had $25 billion, right? And. Alaska permanent the Alaska permanent. but all all that's from the natural. resource money going in. So to the. extent we. start the other day when the sovereign. wealth fund was announced, President. Trump surprised me in the oval and said, "Could you make a few remarks?" And I. said, "Well, we're we're going to we're. going to mo we're going to mobilize the. asset side of the balance sheet." And. all the gold books said he's going to re. he's going to revalue the gold. I I can.

say today we're not revaling the gold, but what we are going to do is Doug. Bergam at Interior, every other. department head is looking for the. assets that we can mobilize. So if if we. have energy leases, federal government. own back to the housing shortage. Federal government owns a lot of land in. downtown urban areas. Can we or in. suburban adjacent things in in Nevada. and Utah, can we use that land? Yeah. Do.

you see a wave of privatizations as a. way to sort of both pay down the. deficits and debts and also just to. that? That's important to me. Like why. put in a sovereign wealth fund versus. pay down the debt? Help help kind of do. the finance math for us on Oh, could you. think you get a higher return, right? Well, anything anything that beats our. current return, our current interest. rate. Yeah. I mean, not not that I'm. keeping score, not that I watch it. closely, but the 10-year Treasury today. is 428. 428. Yeah. So, um, it's.

responding well. Can can we can can we. do better Yeah. than four can we do. better than 428? And I think with this. group and this cabinet and if we can put. in right right now, we're working on the. the study group for the sovereign wealth. fund and we want to do best practices. We're talking to people around the. world. We're talking to investment. people. Uh we're talking to uh a lot of. the other big sovereign uh funds and. we're going to do best practices and we.

want this to be a legacy event. Totally. Dan Lo made this comment that the. Australian superanuation they've got 30. managers and they have as much in their. on their balance sheet today in their. fund than Social Security does about $3. trillion and they have 7% of our. population. Yeah. No, it's incredible. It's incredible. It's incredible. And I. was with one of the Middle Eastern funds. and you know, I said something about oil. revenue. We haven't had an an injection.

into the fund in 20 years. Why was this. such a miss for America? What happened. in the United States? Was that we took. every excess dollar we had and we. invested it in the future? We bought in. we built infrastructure. What happened. that kept us out of this model where. others were so successful and clearly. have now gotten ahead of us and their. their people have a greater kind of. safety net than we do. Yeah. I I I think. it it was just this idea of it it was. supposed to be a safety net, not some.

kind of prosperity ramp. The old age and survivors disability. insurance fund. That's what it's called, right? Under social security. you uh. you've mentioned cheap energy as a. critical part of this holistic program I. think three times now. Where do we make. mistakes in that path where energy gets. out of control? What what do we need to. do to make sure that energy actually the. the incremental cost of the electron. basically goes to zero? Well, I I think. the biggest challenge we're having right.

now is trying to get private sector to. lock in for some things that might not. have a payoff for 5 10 years and how do. we avoid student body left, student body. right with administrations coming and. going. So we're we're trying we're we're. working on well this is an incredibly. nuanced and I think an important point. because we have this very vibrant as you. know tax equity and transferability. market that allows a lot of these.

organizations to make these five and 10. year investment cases and you know for. all the issues with the IRA of which. there are many I think the one narrow. aspect that it did was um it calmed the. markets about the future of those. specific ITC credits and transferability. and And it's a critical thing because. there was a report, you probably saw it, but you know, FK said 90 plus% of our. incremental electrons as of. December were from sources that were. leveraging these ITC credits and that.

transferability. So to your point, we. have this very delicate balancing act of. making sure we but but there there's the. the tax side, but then the regulatory. side with with fossil, it's tougher. because it crosses a lot of state lines. There's a lot more permitting, right? a lot less permitting for solar farms, for wind, for geothermal. Yeah. Yeah. And nuclear. Uh nuclear is going to be a. big part of it, but it it's not going to. happen tomorrow. We got to fix the.

supply chain and the regulatory. Well, we got to fix the supply chain. We got. to fix the regulatory. Um I we've got to decide which model are. we going to go with. And you know, I I'm. told that you you two probably know more. about nuclear than I do, but he loves. it. I hate it. Okay. Well, no, I don't. hate it. I mean, I I like I like. nuclear. I just think it's 10 years. away. He's a loser. Don't listen to him. Yeah. He doesn't really It's just not an. investable thing for the. next but it's important because the.

question is when it becomes one, that's. when we know we've fixed the problem. But but but to to the point that it's. not investable, that's where the. government needs to step. Absolutely. I. 100% agree with you like we that's where. we have to bridge to to the technology. we have to do the time arbitrage and. also I'm told especially with the. smaller plants that you that you need to. cluster them and you got to find. somebody who wants to cluster them and.

all that. And um let me ask you one more. question as we kind of get to the end, but uh what's been the most surprising. thing for you in this role since you've. um since you've been in office? Uh the. national security aspect that I I would. say 40 50% of my day. uh Treasury does a. lot of national security work whe. whether it's cifhious in terms of uh. foreigners who want to buy US assets. whether it's sanctions whether it's OFAC.

anti-money laundering we we've just. designated the Mexican cartels as. foreign terrorist. organizations we President Trump over. the weekend launched a very aggressive. strike on missile strike on the Houthi. assets. Well, underneath that, we had. already been working for several weeks. on their bank accounts. I see. So, or. anyone who is adjacent to them, the.

Iranians supply the Houthis. with the their. ecosystem. Previous to my getting here, uh, Treasury had disrupted the ecosystem. so much that, uh, the Iranians used to. hand them cash. Now they're just handing. them here, take take this oil tanker and. try to sell it, right? So like there. there is the ability to to break that. down. When you go home and you're. talking to your kids, you're talking to.

your husband and you're. like, "This was so cool." There must be. these moments where you're like, "This. was so cool. Do you have any anecdotes. that you you're comfortable sharing. where you're just like this is like I. can't believe I'm doing this job? Uh. well uh there have been several but a a. good example my family was actually. there because after the inauguration I I. asked President Trump may I bring my. family in say hello get a photo and. we're we're sitting in the oval. So,

it's myself, my 11year-old daughter, uh. my spouse, 15-year-old son, and the. President Trump's having a great. conversation with them. And and then he. said, "Oh, Scott, while you're here, let. me call in these other two people and we. need to discuss this." So, they actually. got to see government being done live. So, you there there's that. Um, I I you.

know, I I have to say I I think the the. moment with um President Trump, Vice. President Vance, President Zalinski was. kind of a once in a-lifetime thing in. the Oval Office. I hope it's once in a. lifetime. And they um but you know, I I. was sitting there kind of in the front. row of history. I I vice president, Secretary Rubio, myself on the sofa and. watching President. Zullinsky do what I thought was the the.

biggest diplomatic own goal in history. Yeah. Yeah. I think you said it very. well in in TV afterwards. It really. really was based on and you you said. because you were there, you tried to. negotiate with him in Kev. It was a very. escalated I think you use the word. escalated or high high decibel. conversation. High decel. Yes. Yeah. So, but it kind. of my my job for 35 years was to be. outside the room, try to put my ear to.

the door, maybe lift myself over the. transom, figure out what the leaders. needed to do, were going to do, and then. how it would affect the markets. And now. it. it's fantastic and amazing and. stimulating and a little scary being the. person in the room who has. to what should we do? What can we do? How's it going to affect the markets? How's it going to affect the real. economy that what what's it going to do.

to working people in America? So, how do. we fix affordability? um we're just going to have to go. through and where where's the problem? What's the. solution in terms of like are are the. insurance markets broken, right? What. can we do there? There's been no in I. I've been involved in the house building. business. There's been no technological. change in house building in 50 years,

maybe 60. Some of the building codes go. all the way back to the Chicago fire, right? So, what can we do that the way. we categorize housing, it's stickuilt or. modular? Mhm. Is there something in the. middle prefab? Because the more that. comes out of a factory, the more that is. standardized that neighborhoods from DC, from DC to Bethesda to PTOAC to like you.

could be in contiguous neighborhoods and. if they're different municipalities, they'd all have different building. codes. Not zoning, building. Yeah. And. why is that? Like it they're adjacent. Why do the houses have to be? So, is. there some kind of window guidance that. the federal government can give in terms. of the more that comes out of the. factory, the cheaper it'll be, the. faster we can make it, things like that. Is there pressure that you could apply.

or influence you can apply? One of the. things you mentioned earlier was just, you know, take San Francisco. There's an. artificial constraint that's created by. the zoning paradigm and it's not clear. how you unlock that. you know, maybe is. it up to private citizens to sort of. like have regime change at the local. level? Um, but how do we sort of unclog. that part of it to marry up with this. kind of stuff? Because it would be great. if you could just build up in many. places. Yeah. Well, I I I think there. are a lot of things where you can look. around and.

find what's. interesting that some what's something. that's interesting that's being done. somewhere. So, I I lived in Greenwich, Connecticut for a while. may maybe the. richest suburb in America. There's a ton. of multifamily there. Very expensive, very nice multifamily. There's some. affordable housing, but Greenwich is not. all 10 acres and a horse farm. The state of Connecticut has put in a I.

guess it's a law that every municipality. has to allocate 10% of vacant land to. multifamily. And if the zoning board. won't give you a hearing, you as a. developer, you as a nonprofit for. housing can go over the top and go to. Hartford and then Hartford will give you. the authority. Well, no, no town wants.

the state doing on their behalf. So now. the towns negotiate. Yeah. So, like I I. think that there are a lot of things. that that can be done again on on. insurance. Is there something that I. I've been thinking about is there. something the federal government could. do for California where we come in. everyone's paying homeowners insurance. then there's reinsurance on top of that. Then I think the California reinsurance.

companies called Fair. Yeah. On top of. that. So it's a well it's a separate. plan but yeah yeah but but it it's it's. a you're stack you're stacking it. So is. there something we could do where you. put another layer of private money in. there and then the federal government is. the fifth risk trunch right? But if the. federal government comes in can we. mandate down here proper hygiene changes. in the building code? Well, changes in.

the building code, changes in brush. cutting, right? And material choices. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. Makes sense. Great. So, I I think there's a lot if we. And obviously energy I mean just getting. back to affordability, right? Energy. costs come down. I took the words out of. my mouth. No, no, no, no. But I mean. energy costs are energy costs, but then. there's also the for food, the. transportation cost of getting it to the. to the grocery store, everything that. that's made out of petroleum products.

So I I think we we can do that. And um. you know, I think there's a lot to do. Yeah. And it shouldn't be too hard. So. we're actually we should probably be. announcing it in about 10 days. We're. going to have an affordabil. affordability zar, but it's going to be. someone with a lot of experience in. supply chains figuring out what are a. lot of the quick fixes we can do because. back to the question,

what really has people. anxious, inflation for now is. actually pretty quiet in. And. um but the affordability has gotten so. away from everyone that how can we bring. that down? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good. For. all our friends at home who talk a lot. about the conversation about climate. change and carbon-f free. I think one of.

the things that I always point out to. people is the cheapest way of driving. energy production in this country is. that there's a low carbon or carbon-f. free alternative that's out there that's. actually cheaper than standing up new. new plants. Um, and there's an. acceleration. I don't know how much this. administration thinks about that. relationship. But it seems to me like if. we can unlock energy production, costs. come down and this economy transitions. Well, it transitions and I think it's. also not being dogmatic. Like I I I saw what the Biden.

administration did with EVs. I I have an. EV. I can't wait for it to come off. lease and but also have a hybrid and I. think I fill it up maybe three times a. year. Totally. But this administration. had a jihad on hybrids because there it. it they didn't pass the purity test. So. they were picking winners and losers in. a way that a lot of us were left. scratching our heads. Yeah. Yep. And. cheap I think cheap energy solves a lot. of problems. I I I think it'll a and uh.

cheap. energy is energy security too 100%. Cuz. that that's why Europe's kind of over a. barrel literally. And it's a it's why. the Russian war machine hasn't again. literally run out of gas. And to the. extent that we believe we're in an. existential arms race for technical. supremacy, it's really on one dimension, which is AI. And that. is so needy of energy. So if we don't.

pull all of these issues together and. realize that we need to basically take. the incremental cost to zero, whatever. we do, we need to create the incentives. and package it all together. I mean, we. can't we can't compete manufacturing as. without energy without we certainly. can't compete without energy. Yep. Yeah. I mean, we're we're we're not going to. crush labor like China and some other. countries have done. So, we got to crush. the energy price. Right. Exactly. Right. And when you're in the Oval, what are. the truths and misconceptions of the. president? Meaning on the outside and. what people know or don't know. Oh, how.

about this? I we we had a lot of um. foreign leaders come in and I I knew. someone in in the in one of their. entouragees. I won't tell you which one, but afterwards he comes up to me, he. goes, "Holy crap." He goes, "He's really. smart. President Trump has perfect. recollection because he was talking. about something that had happened in. that country 30 years ago and he said. and he really So the President Trump.

listens. He is judicious. He is just. taking it all in. He likes to see how. people react. Um it it's just incredible executive. skills. Uh yeah, and the other thing too. that he he's tough, but I went in and I. showed him, we were talking about. something the other day and I said, "Well, you know, this is going to cause. some layoffs." He goes, "Well, let let's. try to fix it." Yeah. Yeah, let's try to.

fix it. So, I I always say he really. regards himself as the mayor of America, right? 330 million people. He wants to. be personable to everyone and he cares. deeply about all of them and he doesn't. care whether you're Elon Musk or the the. guy cutting the rose garden, but you're. his constituent. Great. Well, Scott, thank you so much. for taking the time. This has been a. wonderful a pleasure and we really. appreciate the insight. Yeah. And thanks.

for the service and thanks for doing the. role. Good. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thanks. [Music]. Thanks. I'm going all in.