Why Would I Give A Damn About Harvard?

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

One thing about people who went to Harvard is that they will let you know they went to Harvard. “This is a good sandwich,” says one person. “Yes, it reminds me of these great sandwiches I used to eat when I was going to Harvard,” replies the person in the Harvard shirt. 

OK, maybe that’s a little bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one. And I’m not saying they’re bad people, or all bad people, I’m just saying that their alma mater is now a stain more than a point of pride on their records. 

Harvard wasn’t overtaken as much as it had collapsed. They hired a President based on DEI standards, mostly so they could congratulate themselves for “celebrating diversity.” It turned out that she not only wasn’t remotely qualified for the gig, she was a serial plagiarist who, were it not for the left-wing box-checking of her existence, would have been run out of town in disgrace. As it stands, she’s still a “professor” at Harvard, collecting nearly a million dollars per year, even though she’s no longer President. Good work, if you can get it.

When people used to think of Harvard – and watch any 1980s movie – that it was THE place, the most impressive and important place to get an education, simply having attended Harvard would open doors for those who did. Now it closes doors, as businesses adopt a philosophy of not hiring anyone who it would be a lawsuit to get rid of, and you get the sense that Harvard graduates have a higher likelihood of suing over being asked to do “too much” or anything else that would cause stress, let alone firing them.

And I haven’t even touched on the idea that the campus, as are so many “elite” campuses across the country, is overrun with terrorist sympathizing anti-Semites who also hate America. 

Be honest, that’s likely what you think of first when you hear Harvard – spoiled brats who protest Israel and America, who take over buildings to defend terrorists, hate white people, and Asians. Why would I care if the institution that helped burp people like that out into society is having a rough time financially? 

Harvard has more money than it knows what to do with sitting in accounts as part of its endowment. They can dip into it to cover their bills; they don’t need our money. And, thanks to their discriminatory policies, they don’t deserve our money.

Naturally, Harvard is suing to ensure that the federal gravy train keeps rolling in their direction. They do not have a Constitutional right to our tax dollars, so the idea that they’d sue to keep them flowing is hilarious and a demonstration of a sense of entitlement rarely seen on Earth. 

A bunch of leftists dependent upon government “grants” to do their “research” can suck up to left-wing billionaires to fund their lifestyles and leave the American people alone. If Daddy Sorosbucks won’t pony up the cash and they lose their protected, tenured positions and have to actually work for a living, why the hell would I care?

If Harvard has to raise tuition, why would I care? If Harvard can’t pad its pockets with tuition money from hostile foreign countries, why should I care? If Harvard, and all these cesspools of progressive poison, have to close and kill various fields of study because they have to budget in a way normal people do every single day, great. The world will be a better place without more gender studies and ethnic grievance studies graduates clogging up unemployment offices or joining the Starbucks barista union.

Harvard used to matter; it was something people would aspire to, and even if they didn’t reach it, the attempt elevated them to other heights they wouldn’t have reached otherwise. Now it’s a cautionary tale of what happens when you have unchecked and unchallenged progressivism and all the poison that goes along with that. You can now stream stupidity and hatred from a campus without having to cough up the $100,000 a year to experience and smell the left-wing activists firsthand. 

Let the whole thing collapse. It will not be missed, and we’ll all be better off without it. 

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- June 2nd

 

Israel and the West Need to Get Serious About Defeating Our Enemies

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

What we’re seeing happening in Israel is the manifestation of a deadly weakness infecting modern Western civilization. We have forgotten how to defeat the barbarians. Not make peace with them. Not come to a compromise with them. Not live with them, at least until they build up their strength to go on yet another mass murder and rape spree. To defeat them. To crush them. To break the will of our enemies such that they can no longer be our enemies. This is a huge problem with the modern Western mindset, and it’s mind-boggling that we haven’t learned this lesson yet.

The war in Gaza is still dragging on and, entirely predictably, Israel is losing the support of the West. That’s because the West, as feminized and stupid as it has become, has lost the capacity to actually defeat its enemies. On October 7, 2023, Hamas, with the eager support of the degraded Palestinian people, launched an invasion of Israel that ended up murdering, maiming, and raping well over 1000 people and taking many hostages. It was the result of a delusion, including the delusion that people who tell you nothing but that they want you dead are lying to you. Do not overlook the fact that the victims living next to Gaza were largely leftists who lived the fantasy that the Palestinians were normal people just waiting to be friends, and if Israel would only be nicer, there would be flowers and sunshine. Instead, the monsters the leftists anthropomorphized tortured, abused, and butchered the very people offering them hugs and friendship. Naturally, leftists around the world learned nothing; in the face of such monstrous evil, sometimes you have to desperately hold onto your illusions or you have nothing left.

On October 8th, Israel should have annihilated Hamas. That’s the only proper response to barbarism. Israel should’ve written off the hostages; failing to do so only ensured more hostage-taking in the future. It should have initiated a siege of Gaza, a real siege, not the game of footsie where they left the power and the water on and handed over food for the people of Gaza, food that was, of course, stolen by Hamas and used to fund its operations. If the West was serious, and Israel is part of the West, the siege would have been an actual siege. It should have been followed by a ruthless, relentless campaign to seek and destroy every single member of Hamas. 

Winning the war stops the debate. You can’t question total victory. They did that to Hezbollah, and nobody talks about it anymore. It’s done, much like the Hezbollah fighters. But Israel didn’t pursue total victory in Gaza. They employed half-measures to put off making the harsh choice between total victory and defeat, one that would have left most hostages, many IDF soldiers, and a lot of Palestinians dead. In the subsequent year and a half of dithering, the fifth columnists in the West have been able to mobilize in support of their barbarian buddies. The Israelis themselves are exhausted, and their American allies, after over 600 days, would prefer to get the war off the front burner so they can focus on domestic problems.

That didn’t have to happen. Israel could have chosen to win. The West could have chosen victory. But we don’t have the guts for that today in the West. Yes, Israel has some internal political dynamics that create constraints that those of us who aren’t deep in the weeds of Israeli politics can’t fully understand. I’m still baffled by the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu – a decorated special forces officer whose personal and family sacrifices can’t be questioned – is still in office after allowing October 7th to happen, but I’m not an Israeli citizen. I just know that Israel hasn’t won this war, and now it’s in danger of losing this war because it’s losing the support of the dhimmi caucus in the West. These are people who actually feel sorry for the Palestinian people who did this – it was brothers, sons, and fathers who did the murdering and raping, and the civilians cheered them on. For some reason, people in the West feel compelled to care more about the Palestinians than the Palestinians themselves do. This is why we lose.

The West once knew how to win. Our Roman ancestors knew exactly how to deal with barbarians. You do it harshly, you do it relentlessly, and you finish it. If you’re going to go to war, you must fight to win. If you don’t intend to win, you shouldn’t fight. But the West has generally embraced half-measures in order not to appear mean since World War II. Since then, we have decisively won a single war – the Gulf War, which we won by finding the enemy and killing him until he begged to surrender. I know. I was there. And I have to tell you, victory beats a long, dragged-out defeat any day of the week.

We should have won Vietnam, not by getting into gunfights with guerrillas in the jungle but by flattening Hanoi, invading the North, and breaking the communists’ will. I had the opportunity to interview Admiral James Stockdale, perhaps the most impressive human being I’ve ever been in the presence of. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his courage as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He beat his face to a pulp with a wooden stool so they couldn’t use him in a propaganda show. The fighter pilot told me that in 1972 when Richard Nixon got tired of the communist stall tactics, he and his fellow prisoners in the Hanoi Hilton heard the B-52s above them and felt the explosions from the Christmas bombing. After that, the Vietnamese stopped torturing them and started getting ready to send them home. You beat the enemy by beating him, not by letting him live to kill you another day.

The only substitute for victory is defeat.

Israel should have won this war when it could. Ask yourself, “WWJCD?” – What would Julius Caesar do? Gaza should have been Alesia II: This Time It’s Personal. Instead, they’re going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The weak and chestless West will continue to put pressure on it to give up and give in where it should double down and wipe out its enemies. No food. No water. No quarter. They want war? This is war. General William Tecumseh Sherman had the right idea; during the Civil War, he marched through Georgia ripping the guts out of the Confederacy and breaking its will to fight. He hated war and he hated doing what he had to do, but he had the moral strength to do it. He ended the killing.

Stupid people will read this column and think I am a warmonger. They will think that this is a plea for barbarism by our side. It’s the opposite. If you want to stop a war, you have to stop the enemy. The absence of shooting is not peace; when the enemy survives, it’s just a pause between spasms of butchery. We have peace with Japan because we nuked it. We have peace with Germany because we killed Germans until they threw down their guns and fell on their bellies. That’s real peace, not a mere pause.

The kindness and mercy that the West has shown its enemies and that Israel is currently showing the Palestinians will be repaid a thousandfold with the blood of Western citizens. The West is serious only about preserving aesthetic deniability. Our enemies, and we really do have enemies, sincerely believe that their holy duty is to enslave and murder us no matter how many centuries it takes. They are deadly serious about winning. Until we in the West get serious about winning again, we will be in serious danger of losing everything.

The Liberal Media Is Having Itself a Night in the Wake of the Boulder Terror Attack

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

The liberal media is having itself a night in the aftermath of the terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, where an Egyptian national, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, who is in the country illegally, attacked a pro-Israel gathering near Pearl Street Mall. Six people were injured in the attack. The suspect yelled, “Free Palestine” during the assault. 

CNN had a meltdown over the FBI calling this incident a targeted terror attack. NBC and CBS News committed acts of anti-journalism by obfuscating and sanitizing headlines to the point where nothing made sense. And MSNBC decided to whitewash the immigration angle concerning Soliman, who entered the country under Joe Biden’s watch. Sarah had more on Soliman’s immigration status:

The Boulder, Colorado, terror suspect, Mohamed Soliman, who allegedly threw Molotov cocktails at pro-Israel demonstrators on Sunday, is reportedly an Egyptian national who was in the United States illegally. According to reports, Soliman entered the country under the Biden administration on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa, arriving in Los Angeles on August 27, 2022. His visa authorized him to stay through February 26, 2023, but he overstayed and never left. He was later granted an extension for "work" through early 2024, but remained in the country beyond that period. 

According to Fox News’s Bill Melugin, three senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials said Soliman filed a claim—possibly for asylum—with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on September 29, 2022. On March 29, 2023, USCIS under the Biden administration granted him work authorization, which expired on March 28, 2024. 

MSNBC has opted to go the ‘we don’t know when he entered the country’ route. Guys, we have the documents from immigration services. There’s no doubt when Soliman entered the United States. You can’t hate or mock the media enough. The sad thing is there are enough idiots who will believe the spin and take a ‘wait and see’ approach on a crime that’s clearly an act of antisemitic terrorism: 

It also wasn't the first MSNBC trip-up:

These are your people, liberal media. You coddled them. Enabled them. Allowed their propaganda to disseminate under your bylines. You own this.

The FBI's Take on the Boulder Terror Attack Did Not Sit Well With CNN

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

There was a pro-Israel event in Boulder, Colorado, that got firebombed. It’s not an exaggeration. It’s a fact. An elderly woman was burned in the assault. The suspect, Mohamad Soliman, crashed the event, screaming, “This will end when Palestine is free,” and began hurling incendiary devices everywhere. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation under Kash Patel rightly called this a targeted terror attack. The bureau is no longer under the confines of woke nonsense, running interference for Democrats, or going after the political enemies of Joe Biden. Those days are over, and the media and the political class are unhappy about it. CNN had a total meltdown over this declaration, with, and you cannot make this up, disgraced former deputy director Andrew McCabe emerging from his darkened lair to pile on why a man burning Jews and declaring ‘it won’t stop until Palestine is free’ shouldn’t be considered a terror attack outright.

When someone yells, "End zionists," and then sets them on fire, maybe that's a terrorist attack. I don't know. McCabe has lied so many times that he doesn't know the truth anymore. Also, check out how NBC and CBS News framed this terror attack. Guy framed it perfectly: it's "anti-journalism."

WATCH: CNN's Juliette Kayem joins disgraced FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in criticizing @FBIDirectorKash and @FBIDDBongino for the agency's calling an act of terror an act of terror. pic.twitter.com/dYfPkokk23

— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 1, 2025

The liberal media is about to have their own hell week. Democrats had it over Joe Biden's declining health and the subsequent cover-up. Now, the media is going to twist itself into pretzels explaining how throwing Molotov cocktails at Jews isn't an act of terrorism.

Eyewitness explains how Boulder has changed:

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Learn This: Secretary Scott Bessent Outlines Status of U.S-China Trade Conflict

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on CBS News to counter the false information being spread by Margaret Brennan on behalf of Wall Street corporations.  The topics of interest surround China and tariffs.

Let me clarify for the audience that does not follow closely.  Tariffs are paid by the importer based on the wholesale price of the product as delivered by the exporting country depending on the exporters’ tariff rate.  Tariffs are NOT LEVIED/PAID based on the retail price of the product as sold to the consumer.

Example:  A pair of Denim Jeans made in China for Guess Brand.  The Chinese manufacturer sells the jeans to Guess Brand for $10 a pair manufactured.  Guess sells the jeans at retail in the USA for $100 (a $90 gross profit).

A 50% tariff on China means the jeans cost Guess Brand $15 instead of $10 (an $85 gross profit).  A 50% tariff on Guess brand jeans, that retail for $100, changes the cost to the retail brand by $5.

Multinational corporations who have off shored their production and manufacturing to China are the ones screaming about tariffs.  Ultimately in the final analysis, President Trump is exposing corporatism, multinational corporate vultures; he is not necessarily just exposing China.

In the example above the company makes $85 gross profit as opposed to $90 gross profit on the pair of jeans if they do not raise the retail price.  They don’t raise the price because their profit margins are already ridiculous, and that’s why consumer prices do not go up. A 50% direct tariff on Chinese goods only marginally hits the multinational corporation.  American consumers need to understand this dynamic better.    WATCH: 

[TRANSCRIPT] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning and welcome to ‘Face the Nation.’ We begin today with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Good morning and thank you for being here.

SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There’s so much to get to. I want to start with China, because the Defense Secretary just said there’s an imminent military threat from China to Taiwan. Days earlier, Secretary Rubio said he’d aggressively revoked Chinese student visas. On top of that, you have curbing exports to China. Trade talks you said with Beijing are stalled, and President Trump just accused China of violating an agreement, and now says no more, ‘Mr. Nice Guy.’ Are you intentionally escalating this standoff with Beijing?

SEC. BESSENT: Well, I don’t think it’s intentional. I- I think that what Secretary Hegseth did was remind everyone that during COVID, China was an unreliable partner, and what we are trying to do is to de-risk. We do not want to decouple Margaret, but we do need to de-risk, as we saw during COVID, whether it was with semiconductors, medicines, the other products we are in the process of de-risking.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Making the United States less reliant on China, but at the same–

SEC. BESSENT: –Well, and the whole world. The whole world, because what China is doing is they are holding back products that are essential for the industrial supply chains of India, of Europe, and that is not what a reliable partner does.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So is that like- what specifically is President Trump saying when he says they are violating an agreement? Because it was the one you negotiated in Geneva earlier this month. And what’s the consequence for that?

SEC. BESSENT: Well, we will see what the consequences are. I am confident that when President Trump and party Chairman Xi have a call, that this will be ironed out. So- but the fact that they are withholding some of the products that they agreed to release during our agreement- maybe it’s a glitch in the Chinese system, maybe it’s intentional. We’ll see after the President speaks with party chairman.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s critical minerals, rare earths. Is that what you’re talking about?

SEC. BESSENT: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the President has said a few times that he was going to speak to President Xi, but he hasn’t since before the inauguration. Beijing keeps denying that there was any contact. Do you have anything scheduled?

SEC. BESSENT: I believe we’ll see something very soon, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have a conversation with your counterpart or Lutnick with his counterpart at the commerce level?

SEC. BESSENT: Well, I think we’re going to let the two principles have a conversation, and then everything will stem from that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: JP Morgan CEO, Jamie Dimon, spoke this week at an economic forum, and he gave this read on Beijing.

[SOT]

JAMIE DIMON: I just got back from China last week. They’re not scared, folks. This notion they’re gonna come bow to America. I wouldn’t count on that. And when they have a problem, they put 100,000 engineers on it, and they’ve been preparing for this for years.

[END SOT]

MARGARET BRENNAN: Have you underestimated the Chinese state’s backbone here?

SEC. BESSENT: Again, Margaret, I hope it doesn’t come to that. And Jamie is a great banker. I know him well, but I would vociferously disagree with that assessment, that the laws of economics and gravity apply to the Chinese economy and the Chinese system, just like everyone else.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But when you were last here in March, we were trying to gauge what the impact of the standoff with China and with the tariffs on the rest of the world would do for American consumers here at home. At that time, you told us you were going to appoint an affordability czar and council to figure out five, you said, or eight areas where there will be some pain for working class Americans. Where are you anticipating price increases?

SEC. BESSENT: Well, thus far- we wanted to make sure that there aren’t price increases, Margaret. And thus far there have been no price increases. Everything has been alarmist, that the inflation numbers are actually dropping. We saw the first drop of inflation in four years. The inflation numbers last week, they were very- the- pro-consumer. We’ve–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, but you listen to earnings calls just like we do. You know what Walmart’s saying, what Best Buy’s saying and what Target are saying of what’s coming–

SEC. BESSENT: But Margaret, I also know what Home Depot and Amazon are saying. I know what the South China Morning Post wrote within the past 24 hours that 65%- 65%- the- of the tariffs will likely be eaten by the Chinese producers.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So are there five or eight areas that you have identified, as you said back in March, where American consumers will be able to have lower prices, or should be warned of higher prices?

SEC. BESSENT: Well, a lot of it’s already working its way through the system. So we’ve seen a substantial decrease in gasoline and energy prices. So that’s down 20% year over year. We’ve seen the food prices go down, these notorious egg prices. Through the good work of President Trump and Secretary Rollins, egg prices have collapsed. So we’re seeing more and more. And what we want to do- the- is even that out across the all sections of the economy. So inflation has been very tame. Consumer earnings were up 0.8% last month, which is a gigantic increase for one month. So real earnings minus low inflation is great for the American people, and that’s what we’re seeing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you know, because when you met with the Chinese earlier this month and you went down from the 145% tariff down to about- it’s like 30%. 30%’s not nothing, that tax on goods coming in here. Retailers are warning of price hikes–

SEC. BESSENT: Well, so–

MARGARET BRENNAN: When you go back to school shopping, things are going to cost more.

SEC. BESSENT: But Margaret, some are and some aren’t. Home Depot and Amazon said they’re not.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Home Depot and Amazon aren’t where you go for your back school shopping, when you buy your jeans, when you buy your crayons, and you buy all those things that parents–

SEC. BESSENT: I don’t know about you, but I do it online at Amazon. This isn’t an advertisement for Amazon. And guess where most of the Halloween costumes in America get bought? At Home Depot. So that’s just not right. There’s a wide aperture here. Different companies are doing different things. They are making decisions based on their customers, what they think they’re able to pass along to their customers, what they want to do to keep their customers. And I was in the investment business for 35 years, Margaret, and I will tell you earnings calls- they have to give the worst case scenario, because if it- if they haven’t and something bad happens, then they’ll be sued.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s not always the worst case. It’s the most probable case–

SEC. BESSENT: –No, no, no–

MARGARET BRENNAN: as well–

SEC. BESSENT: –No, no, no. No, they have to give the worst case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So Walmart- there was just a piece published with the conservative strategist Karl Rove. I’m not asking about politics, because he is a political strategist, but he went in on the math here. And he points out that Walmart has a profit margin of less than 3%. He says, ‘If it does what Mr. Trump says, eat the tariffs, it can’t break even. It can’t absorb the cost of an imported pair of kids jeans with a 46% tariff on Vietnam, a 37% tariff for Bangladesh, or 32% tariff on sneakers from Indonesia. Other companies are in the same pickle.’ So should companies cut back on the amount of goods they have on their shelves or just on their profitability?

SEC. BESSENT: That- that’s a decision company by- by company, Margaret. And I had a long discussion with Doug McMillon, the CEO of Walmart, and they’re going to do what’s right for them.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But for consumers, the reality is there will either be less inventory or things at higher prices, or both.

SEC. BESSENT: Margaret, when we were here in March, you said there was going to be big inflation. There hasn’t been any inflation. Actually, the inflation numbers are the best in four years. So why don’t we stop trying to say this could happen, and wait and see what does happen.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Just trying to gauge for people planning ahead here, one of the things the President said on Friday is that he’s going to double the tariffs on steel and aluminum up to 50%, effective June 4. How much will that impact the construction industry?

SEC. BESSENT: Well, I think- I was with the president at the U.S. Steel Plant in Pittsburgh on Friday, and I will tell you that the President has the- reignited the steel industry here in America. And back to the earlier statements on national security. There are national security priorities here for having a strong steel industry.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you have a prediction on how much it’s going to impact the construction industry, for example?

SEC. BESSENT: Well, I have a prediction on how much it’s going to impact the steel industry, and you know, again, we- we’ll see there are a lot of elasticities that- you know this is a very complicated ecosystem. So is it going to impact the construction industry, maybe. But it’s going to impact the steel industry, the- in a great way. The steel workers, again, were left on the side of the road after the China shock, and now they’re back that the- they are Trump supporters. And when I tell you that it was magic in the arena, or it was actually at the steel plant that night, that these hard working Americans know their jobs are secure, there’s going to be capital investment, and the number of jobs is going to be grown around the country, whether it’s in Pittsburgh, whether it’s in Arkansas, whether it’s in Alabama.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about this big tax bill that worked through the House, is going to the Senate next. In it is increase or suspension to the debt limit that you need delivered on by mid-July. How close of a brush with default could this be, given how massive some of the Senate changes are expected to be to the other parts of the bill?

SEC. BESSENT: Well, first of all, Margaret, I will say the United States of America is never going to default. That is never going to happen. That- we are on the warning track and we will never hit the wall.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You have more wiggle room if they don’t deliver this by mid-July? I mean, how hard of a date is this?

SEC. BESSENT: That- we don’t give out the X date because we use that to move the bill forward.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Sometimes deadlines help force action, as you know, particularly in this town, sir, that’s why I’m asking. The President did say he- he expects pretty significant changes to this bill, though, so that affects the timing of it moving. What would you like Republican lawmakers to keep? What would you like them to alter?

SEC. BESSENT: Again, that’s going to be the Senate’s decision. Leader Thune, who I’ve worked closely with during this process, has been doing a fantastic job. And Margaret, I’ll point out, everyone said that Speaker Johnson would not be able to get this bill out of the house with his slim majority. He got it out Leader Thune has a bigger majority, and this is with President Trump’s leadership. So–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –There’s no red lines for you in there of just don’t touch this you can, you know, tinker with that.

SEC. BESSENT: Well, I- I think that they’re not necessarily my red lines. The President has the- his campaign promises that he wants to fulfill for working Americans. So no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, deductibility of auto loans for American made automobiles.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So those have to stay in.

SEC. BESSENT: Those have to stay in.

MARGARET BRENNAN: JP Morgan’s Dimon also predicted a debt market crisis. ‘Cracks in the bond market’ was what he said. You are considering easing some regulations, you’ve said, for the big banks. How do you avoid that bond market crisis he’s predicting, spreading and really causing concern, particularly with all of the worries about American debt right now?

SEC. BESSENT: So again, I’ve known Jamie a long time and for his entire career he’s made predictions like this. Fortunately, none of them have come true. That’s why he’s a banker- a great banker. He tries to look around the corner. One of the reasons I’m sitting here talking to you today and not at home watching your show is that I was concerned about the level of debt. So the deficit this year is going to be lower than the deficit last year, and in two years it will be lower again. We are going to bring the deficit down slowly. We didn’t get here in one year. We didn’t get here in one year, and this has been a long process. So the goal is to bring it down over the next four years, leave the country in great shape in 2028.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You know that the Speaker of the House estimates this is going to add four to five trillion dollars over the next 10 years, and there’s that debt limit increase.

SEC. BESSENT: Well again, Margaret, that’s CBO scoring.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s the Speaker of the House.

SEC. BESSENT: No, no, no.

MARGARET BRENNAN: He said it last Sunday on this program.

SEC. BESSENT: The- he said that’s the CBO scoring. Let me–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –No, he said that sounds right.

SEC. BESSENT: Let me tell you what’s not included in there, what can’t be scored. So we’re taking in substantial tariff income right now, so that there are estimates that that could be another 2 trillion that we are the- pushing through savings. So you know my estimate is that could be up to another 100 billion a year. So over the 10 year window, that could be a trillion. President has a prescription drug plan with the pharmaceutical companies that could substantially push down costs for prescription drugs, and that could be another trillion. So there’s the four.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Treasury Secretary Bessent, we’ll be watching closely what happens next. ‘Face the Nation’ will be back in a minute, so stay with us.

[END TRANSCRIPT]