Fox News Host Confronts Trump Adviser on Bill Adding Trillions to US Debt
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Fox News co-anchor Bill Hemmer confronted Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday about concerns that President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" could add trillions of dollars to the nation's debt.
Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. Treasury for comment via email.
Why It Matters
The legislation extended Trump's 2017 tax cuts, reducing taxes for individuals and corporations and adding new exemptions for tipped workers and overtime pay.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, drawing criticism from Democrats and some Republicans who warn the spending cuts included in the bill would be insufficient to pay for the tax cuts and other spending priorities. The potential increase to the country's $36.2 trillion deficit was the primary source of opposition from certain House Republicans.
What to Know
Hemmer pressed Bessent about the CBO's report during an interview on America's Newsroom Friday morning.
"This bill adds trillions to our debt. How is that acceptable to this administration?" Hemmer asked.
Bessent responded: "You're referring to the CBO scoring, I believe, which is 10-year scoring, and it's D.C.-style scoring. So, we think that we can both grow the economy and control the debt. And what's important, Bill, is that the economy grows faster than the debt."
The treasury secretary added: "So, what I would tell your viewers to focus on is what I'm focused on, is what [former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen] was focused on, is what is the total debt to GDP [gross domestic product] because we can grow our way out of this. That if we change the growth trajectory, of the country, of the economy, then we will stabilize our finances and grow our way out of this."
The bill passed the House of Representatives early Thursday morning by a 215-214 vote. Two Republicans, Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, voted against the bill, along with every House Democrat. Both congressmen had raised concerns about the bill's impact on the deficit.
"While I love many things in the bill, promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending. Deficits do matter and this bill grows them now. The only Congress we can control is the one we're in. Consequently, I cannot support this big deficit plan. NO," Davidson wrote in a post to X, formerly Twitter, Thursday morning.
The bill, if signed into law in its current form, could have implications for education, defense and health care.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during a news conference in Geneva on May 12.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during a news conference in Geneva on May 12.
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images
What People Are Saying
Representative Thomas Massie said on the House floor: "I'd love to stand here and tell the American people 'we can cut your taxes and increase spending and everything is going to be fine.' But I can't because I'm here to deliver a dose of reality. This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before? How do you bind a future Congress to these promises? This bill is a debt bomb ticking."
Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, recently told reporters: "I couldn't care less if he's [Trump] upset. I'm concerned about my children, my grandchildren and the fact that we are stealing from them. We are stealing from our children and our grandchildren. $37 trillion in debt and we're going to add to it as Republicans? That is unacceptable."
Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, wrote on X on Friday: "Republicans promised Americans we would rein in wasteful spending and tackle the national debt if they gave us control of all three branches of government. Instead, my colleagues want to tack on more to our national debt instead of making necessary cuts."
President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: "'THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' has PASSED the House of Representatives! This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!"
What Happens Next?
The bill now heads to the Senate, where it may be reworked to pass, as several Republicans have already raised concerns about it.
Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have questioned whether it would cut Medicaid benefits. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has indicated the "goal and aspiration" is to get the bill passed by July 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vs. California
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Under Donald Trump, the federal government is like a bad parent: never there when you need him but eager to stick his nose in your business when you don't want him to. The relationship between Trump and California has always been bad, but the past few days represent a new low. On Friday, CNN reported that the White House was seeking to cut off as much federal funding to the Golden State as possible, especially to state universities. That afternoon, protests broke out in Los Angeles as ICE agents sought to make arrests. By Saturday, Trump had announced that he was federalizing members of the National Guard and deploying them to L.A., over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Americans have seen the National Guard called out to deal with the aftermath of riots in the past, but its involvement over the weekend represents a dramatic escalation. The National Guard was deployed to L.A. in 1992, during riots after the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The scale of the destruction in that instance, compared with scattered violence in L.A. this weekend, helps show why Trump's order was disproportionate. (National Guard troops were also deployed in Minneapolis during protests after the murder of George Floyd, at the request of Governor Tim Walz. Trump has falsely claimed that he deployed the troops when Walz wouldn't.) In all of these recent cases, however, governors have made the call to bring out the National Guard. A president has not done so since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson took control of the Alabama National Guard from the arch-segregationist Governor George Wallace and ordered it to protect civil-rights leaders' third attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery. The situations aren't even closely analogous. Johnson acted only after local leaders had demonstrated that law enforcement would violently attack the peaceful marchers. By contrast, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department have plenty of experience and sufficient man power to deal with protests of the weekend's size, and military forces are a riskier choice because they aren't trained as police. This morning, Newsom said he will sue the administration over the deployment. Elizabeth Goitein, a scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice who has written extensively in The Atlantic about the abuse of presidential emergency powers, told The Washington Post that Trump's order 'is completely unprecedented under any legal authority.' 'The use of the military to quell civil unrest is supposed to be an absolute last resort,' she added. Trump is doing this, as my colleague Tom Nichols writes, because he wants to provoke a confrontation with California. The president sees tough immigration enforcement as a political winner, but he also wants to use the face-off to expand the federal government's power to control states. Trump's vision is federalism as a one-way street: If states need help, they might be on their own, but if states believe that federal intervention is unnecessary or even harmful, too bad. If the president wants to shut off funds to states for nothing more than political retribution or personal animus, he believes that he can do that. (A White House spokesperson told CNN that decisions about potential cuts were not final but said that 'no taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country,' a laughably vague and overheated rationale.) If states have been struck by major disasters, however, they'd better hope they voted for Trump, or that their governors have a good relationship with him. Some of these attempts to strong-arm states are likely illegal, and will be successfully challenged in court. Others are in gray areas, and still others are plainly legal—manifestations of what I call 'total politics,' in which officials wield powers that are legal but improper or unwise. This is a marked shift from the traditional American conservative defense of states' rights. Although that argument has often been deployed to defend racist policies, such as slavery and segregation, the right has also argued for the prerogative of local people to stave off an overweaning federal government. Conservatives also tended to view Lyndon Johnson as a boogeyman, not a role model. Kristi Noem, now the secretary of Homeland Security, bristled at the idea of federalizing the National Guard just last year, when she was serving as governor of South Dakota. But Trump's entire approach is to centralize control. He has pursued Project 2025's plan to seize new powers for the executive branch and to establish right-wing Big Government, flexing the coercive capacity of the federal government over citizens' lives. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, has suggested that he wouldn't hesitate to arrest Newsom, and Trump endorsed the idea today. And Trump allies have proposed all sorts of other ways to force state governments to comply, such as cutting off Justice Department grants or FEMA assistance for states that don't sign up to enforce Trump's immigration policies, an issue where state governments do not traditionally have a role. This duress is not limited to blue states. Just last week, under pressure from the DOJ, Texas agreed to trash a 24-year-old law (signed by then-Governor Rick Perry, who later became Trump's secretary of energy) that gives in-state college tuition to some undocumented immigrants. If nothing else, the Trump era has given progressives a new appreciation for states' rights. Democrat attorneys general have become some of the most effective opponents of the Trump White House, just as Republican ones battled the Obama and Biden administrations. On Friday, Newsom mused about California withholding federal taxes. This is plainly illegal, but you can see where he's coming from: In fiscal year 2022, the state contributed $83 billion dollars more to the federal government than it received. If California is not getting disaster aid but is getting hostile deployments of federal troops, Californians might find it harder to see what's in it for them. No wonder one poll commissioned by an advocacy group earlier this year found that 61 percent of the state's residents thought California would be better off as a separate nation. Secession isn't going to happen: As journalists writing about aspiring red-state secessionists in recent years have noted, leaving the Union is unconstitutional. But the fact that these questions keep coming up is a testament to the fraying relationship between the federal government and the states. Trump's recent actions toward California show why tensions between Washington and the states are likely to get worse as long as he's president. Related: David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: An uproar at the NIH The real problem with the Democrats' ground game Where is Barack Obama? Today's News President Donald Trump's travel ban is in effect, affecting nationals from 19 countries. Israel intercepted a high-profile aid ship en route to Gaza and detained those on board, including the activist Greta Thunberg. They have been brought to the Israeli port of Ashdod, according to Israel's foreign ministry. Officials from America and China met in London for a second round of trade-truce negotiations. Dispatches The Wonder Reader: Summer is heating up. Isabel Fattal compiles stories about an invention that changed the course of human life: the AC unit. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read What's So Shocking About a Man Who Loves His Wife? By Jeremy Gordon The first time that someone called me a 'wife guy,' I wasn't sure how to react. If you are encountering this phrase for the first time and think wife guy surely must mean 'a guy who loves his wife,' you would be dead wrong. The term, which rose to popularity sometime during the first Trump administration, describes someone whose spousal affection is so ostentatious that it becomes inherently untrustworthy. 'The wife guy defines himself,' the critic Amanda Hess has written, 'through a kind of overreaction to being married.' The wife guy posts a photo of his wife to Instagram along with several emojis of a man smiling with hearts in place of his eyes. He will repeat this sort of action so many times that even his closest friends may think, Enough already. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic The Democrats have an authenticity gap. The Wyoming hospital upending the logic of private equity Helen Lewis: The Trump administration's nasty campaign against trans people Culture Break Read. These six books are great reads for anybody interested in the power of saying no. Examine. Money is ruining television, Sophie Gilbert writes. Depictions of extreme wealth are everywhere on the small screen, and, well, it's all quite boring. Play our daily crossword. P.S. My colleague Katherine J. Wu's latest wrenching dispatch from the dismantling of the federal scientific establishment was published today. Katherine writes about a letter from more than 300 National Institutes for Health officials criticizing the NIH's direction in the past few months. One official, who both signed the letter and spoke with Katherine anonymously, told her, 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state.' The official added, 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' That quote struck me because it dovetails directly with the mindset that Trump demonstrates in his dealing with the states: Parts of the federal government are most valuable to him when they can be used not to provide services to citizens, but to serve as a cudgel. — David Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill enacting nation's strictest limits on corporate health care influence signed by Gov. Kotek
A doctor works at a pharmacy. Corporate investors eyeing local health care facilities in Oregon could soon face one of the hardest markets nationwide. () Corporate investors hoping to take over local health care facilities in Oregon could soon face one of the hardest markets nationwide. Senate Bill 951, which was quietly signed into law by Gov. Tina Kotek on Monday, sets the strongest regulations on private and corporate control of medical practices in the nation, according to industry lawyers. A similar effort failed in the Legislature last year amid pushback from Republicans that prevented the bill from meeting key legislative deadlines. The governor told reporters at a news conference Monday that the bill should be a model for other states and for Congress. 'We need to make sure that our health care providers and our delivery system stays local and is controlled locally,' she said. 'That's what that bill is trying to do.' The legislation was opposed by companies such as Amazon and the statewide nonprofit Oregon Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, an industry group, where executives see private investment as vital to their business strategy. 'We universally agree that the way to protect clinics from closure and maintain the broadest patient access to outpatient care is to keep the existing, and multi-ownership models alive and well,' wrote Ryan Grimm on behalf of the association and the Portland Clinic, a private multispecialty medical group, in a March letter to lawmakers. 'In some communities, there is no hospital to swoop in to the rescue, or no hospital in a financial position to save a clinic,' he wrote. The bill does not go into effect immediately and it contains a three-year adjustment period for clinics to comply with the restrictions. Institutions such as hospitals, tribal health facilities, behavioral health programs and crisis lines are exempted. 'We're at an inflection point in this country when it comes to the corporatization of healthcare,' wrote House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, in a statement May 28 following the bill's passage in the Oregon House. 'With the passage of this bill, every Oregonian will know that decisions in exam rooms are being made by doctors, not corporate executives.' The signature from Kotek deals a major victory to local providers and doctors, who sought to wrest back control over their practices in key decisions such as spending, staffing levels, physician ownership stake, and the price of services. The legislation would close what supporters say is a loophole in state law, which mandates that doctors hold at least a 51% stake in most medical practices, but which companies have taken advantage of by employing their own doctors — sometimes from out of state — and putting them down on paper as clinic owners. Then the company itself, or a hired management service, is brought in to handle payroll, accounting and other services, shifting away control and revenues from the clinic to the company, and from what was once a locally operated business. The bill limits the control such companies can have in a clinic's operations and would ban noncompete agreements used by companies to prohibit doctors from taking a job at a different practice. Support for the bill coalesced around the takeover of the Eugene-based Oregon Medical Group by the health care giant Optum, one of the nation's largest employers of physicians. The surrounding area lost dozens of doctors, leaving over 10,000 people without care, according to a Frequently Asked Question's document from Sen. Deb Patterson, D-Salem, after Optum required its doctors to sign non-compete contracts. Optum reversed course after pressure from lawmakers in May 2024. 'This bill is about preventing the kind of takeover that happened at the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene,' wrote state Rep. Lisa Fragala, D-Eugene, in a May statement. 'When we see consolidation in the healthcare market, we see three things happen: higher prices, negative effects on the quality of care and decreased access to care.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congressman Mark Green retiring from U.S. House of Representatives
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Tennessee's 7th District Congressman, Mark Green, will retire from the U.S. House of Representatives, the federal lawmaker announced Monday. In a statement, Rep. Green announced he was retiring from Congressional service due to taking a private sector position that was 'too exciting to pass up.' Per his statement, Green has informed Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) he will resign as soon as the House votes on the reconciliation package. 📧 Have breaking news come to you: → He called his time in Congress 'the honor of a lifetime,' touting 'historic tax cuts,' sweeping border security legislation and pro-life legislation as some of his proudest accomplishments in Washington. Green initially planned to exit public life at the end of his previous term, announcing last February he wouldn't seek a fourth term in office; however, he quickly backtracked just four weeks later. He easily defeated a challenge from former Nashville mayor Megan Barry in the Nov. 5, 2024, general election. Green's full statement reads as follows: It is with a heavy heart that I announce my retirement from Congress. Recently, I was offered an opportunity in the private sector that was took exciting to pass up. As a result, today I notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives that I will resign from Congress as soon as the House votes once again on the reconciliation package. It was the honor of a lifetime to represent the people of Tennessee in congress. They asked me to deliver on the conservative values and principles we all hold dear, and I did my level best to do so. Along the way, we passed historic tax cuts, worked with President Trump to secure the border, and defended innocent life. I am extremely proud of my work as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and want to thank my staff, both in my seventh district office, as well as the professional staff on that committee. I have now served the public for nearly four decades. The Army took me to Iraq and Afghanistan. The people sent me to the Tennessee legislature and the halls of Congress. Along the way, I have often remarked on the strength of the men and women I have served with. I know that the integrity, decency, and faith of the American people are what powered us for the first 250 years, and will power us for another 250 and beyond. I can proudly look back at my time in Congress and the success that we have accomplished on behalf of Tennesseans and the American people. I am grateful to Speaker Johnson and House Leadership for placing their trust in me to chair the Committee on Homeland Security, lead the effort to impeach former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and to pass H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, the strongest border security legislation in history to ever pass the House. However, my time in Congress has come to an end. Though I planned to retire at the end of the previous Congress, I stayed to ensure that President Trump's border security measures and priorities make it through Congress. By overseeing the border security portion of the reconciliation package, I have done that. After that, I will retire, and there will be a special election to replace me. I have no doubt that my colleagues in this Congress will continue to strengthen the cause of freedom. May God bless them, and the United States of America. Rep. Mark Green (TN-07) Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
