Last Thursday afternoon as Tesla shareholders were deciding to give their CEO Elon Musk a package that could be worth 1 trillion dollars, CNN's Kasie Hunt was discussing it on her show, The Arena.  Hunt concluded her interview with Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) by asking, "Do you think Elon Musk should be a trillionaire, is that a thing we should have?" In other words, should we put a limit on how much financial success a U.S. citizen, especially a conservative one, should be allowed to attain? Just when you thought you've heard it all! Khanna answered that he is all for Musk, or anyone, making all the money he can make, so long as they give a chunk of it to the government, on top of the taxes that are already in place. "..I'm all for Elon becoming a trillionaire, as long as we can have a 5 percent trillionaire tax...My problem is not the wealth generation. It's that it hasn't been taxed. Have a wealth tax on all these billionaires and trillionaires." That answer seemed to please Hunt, who then broke the trillion bucks down this way.   HUNT: ..If you spent $40 every second of every day, it would take 289 days to spend a billion dollars. And if you did the same thing with a trillion dollars, it would take you 792 and a half years to go broke. The other option would just be to give the entire population of the United States $3,000 at a go. She then turned to panelist Scott Jennings, who educated Hunt on the 'American Dream'. HUNT: ..But at what point is like this too much, right? JENNINGS: I disagree, and I think you -- I think often when we discuss populism in politics, we ascribe a level of resentment to America's working class. It doesn't exist. They believe in the American dream. They believe in working and working hard and getting ahead. Elon Musk came to America. He created this company. It creates lots of jobs. It's innovative. I mean, he's one of the most important people on planet Earth. And so, if he can have that kind of success and it -- and it lifts up people along the way, the people who work for Tesla, the people who buy their products, this is a good thing. This is the American dream. We shouldn't begrudge someone for having success in America. Amen! Next it was CNN Contributor Lulu Garcia-Navarro, also with the New York Times, as if you can't tell from her reaction. GARCIA-NAVARRO: There's two things about this. First of all, it's obscene. And the split screen of people not getting SNAP benefits and Elon Musk getting $1 trillion is not a great one. The second thing I'll say is that this is actually structured -- they're not just handing him $1 trillion. They're actually trying to give him an incentive to work harder. And so, he might not ever get $1 trillion. We should be clear. Calling the Musk deal "obscene" is actually what's obscene. If we asked if it's fair that Kasie Hunt is making between $1 million and $1.5 million a year to just read other people's wealth stats on CNN while other people work much harder for much less, would she find that offensive? Would she consider it a personal attack? But anyway, whether Musk can satisfy the several requirements to earn the trillion, is far from certain. That was artfully pointed out on CNBC's Power Lunch on Friday by Brian Sullivan: "Before everybody goes bonkers over the one trillion dollar figure, know the details, because the pay package while massive, only happens if Musk and Tesla hit some very heady, maybe impossible targets." Sullivan said they include 20 million vehicle deliveries, 1 million Robo taxis in production, and 1 million humanoid robots delivered.  There is no doubt that Musk and Tesla have their work cut out for them. But so do we. The real scary part of all of this is not the deal, but the left-wing reaction to it, led by socialist-sounding scolds like Hunt. Questioning how much money is too much money for someone to make in America is scary stuff. 

On Saturday's The Weekend, co-host Eugene Daniels fretted over video of an immigration arrest in Massachusetts without informing viewers they were targeting a violent criminal, and then allowed a Democrat congresswoman to call the Homeland Security Department a "domestic terrorism organization." And co-host Jonathan Capehart brought up the case of immigration agents arresting a teacher at a Chicago daycare without informing viewers that she ran to the daycare trying to evade a traffic stop. At 8:30 a.m. Capehart first brought up the Massachusetts arrest and skeptically read only part of DHS's statement: All this comes amid yet more disturbing ICE arrest footage in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. There was video on social media of a man appearing to suffer a seizure while holding a toddler during an arrest. ICE disputes that account, saying the man had, quote, "no legitimate medical episode," and that he allegedly refused treatment. The MSNBC host did not mention that the woman they were trying to arrest had recently attacked a coworker with scissors.     Capehart then brought up the Chicago case: And in Chicago, ICE officers can be seen arresting a daycare teacher in a daycare parking lot, despite designations of schools as sensitive locations. DHS pushed back on reports that agents chased her into the daycare, saying they arrested her inside a vestibule and not in the school. Parents say the incident nonetheless left their children traumatized. It was also not mentioned that, according to DHS, the illegal alien they were targeting had illegally paid to smuggle her children into the country across the border, and ran to the daycare trying to evade a traffic stop. A bit later, while interviewing Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Daniels brought up the Massachusetts case again: I'm sure you saw this video out of Fitchburg, and there's a different shot than what we showed where the man does appear to be having some kind of episode, you know. People there say it was a seizure -- the DHS says it wasn't. At the end of the day, he was still holding a child, and I'm having a hard time understanding how any law enforcement official can be grabbing anybody when they're holding a baby in their arms. He then portrayed immigration agents as callous: And so when you think about the tactics that ICE is using, right, it seems to have -- not have a care for any impact on anyone. They seem singularly focused on just getting the person that they're after, whether that person ends up being a citizen or not, right? We've seen them pick up American citizens. Getting to his question, he admitted that he had cried after watching one of the videos of the encounter: How do you think that changes the community? What are you hearing from folks? Because I just like, to be honest, I -- I -- I was crying when I saw the video yesterday of the father. I wasn't even sure why I started crying -- my husband had to hold me because I was so bothered by it. And it feels like Americans are bothered by it. DHS does not seem bothered by it. What -- how does it -- what are you hearing from the community? The Illinois Democrat delivered the latest incendiary rhetoric against immigration agents as she accused them of perpetrating domestic terrorism: It is indefensible what they're doing. You know what people were telling me on the ground on Chicago -- by the way, so many of us feel already PTSD from the Blackhawk helicopters flying over our homes on a daily basis -- that the Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to protect us from domestic terrorism has become a domestic organization of terror -- a domestic terrorism organization.  Transcript follows: MSNBC's The Weekend November 8, 2025 8:30 a.m. Eastern JONATHAN CAPEHART: All this comes amid yet more disturbing ICE arrest footage in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. There was video on social media of a man appearing to suffer a seizure while holding a toddler during an arrest. ICE disputes that account, saying the man had, quote, "no legitimate medical episode," and that he allegedly refused treatment. And in Chicago, ICE officers can be seen arresting a daycare teacher in a daycare parking lot, despite designations of schools as sensitive locations. DHS pushed back on reports that agents chased her into the daycare, saying they arrested her inside a vestibule and not in the school. Parents say the incident nonetheless left their children traumatized. (...) EUGENE DANIELS: Congresswoman, I'm sure you saw this video out of Fitchburg, and there's a different shot than what we showed where the man does appear to be having some kind of episode, you know. People there say it was a seizure -- the DHS says it wasn't. At the end of the day, he was still holding a child, and I'm having a hard time understanding how any law enforcement official can be grabbing anybody when they're holding a baby in their arms. And so when you think about the tactics that ICE is using, right, it seems to have -- not have a care for any impact on anyone. They seem singularly focused on just getting the person that they're after, whether that person ends up being a citizen or not, right? We've seen them pick up American citizens. How do you think that changes the community? What are you hearing from folks? Because I just like, to be honest, I -- I -- I was crying when I saw the video yesterday of the father. I wasn't even sure why I started crying -- my husband had to hold me because I was so bothered by it. And it feels like Americans are bothered by it. DHS does not seem bothered by it. What -- how does it -- what are you hearing from the community? CONGRESSWOMAN DELIA RAMIREZ (D-IL): President Trump has said that they haven't gone far enough. DANIELS: Yeah. CONGRESSWOMAN RAMIREZ: A man holding his toddler baby having a seizure and the baby practically getting choked out by the seatbelt. I mean, if that doesn't compel you into anger, frustration and fear, I don't know what would be. It is indefensible what they're doing. You know what people were telling me on the ground on Chicago -- by the way, so many of us feel already PTSD from the Blackhawk helicopters flying over our homes on a daily basis -- that the Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to protect us from domestic terrorism has become a domestic organization of terror -- a domestic terrorism organization. 

PBS’s newest Frontline documentary, “The Rise of Germany's New Right” concerns the rise of the AfD in Germany (Alternative for Germany) party and its supposed links to Nazism and Putin's Russia. Director and correspondent Evan Williams has also made the Frontline docs Germany’s Enemy Within (2024) and Germany’s Neo-Nazis & the Far Right (2021). Germany’s migrant problem surged after 2015, when former Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the borders to people (mostly fighting-age males, it seemed) fleeing the Syrian war. Over three million refugees and asylum seekers have entered Germany since, some bringing Islamic-style terrorism with them and causing understandable backlash toward the country's open-border policy. Yet terrorism involving migrants in Germany was barely noticed in the documentary and narrator Williams preferred to smear the AfD for noticing. He dredged up controversial statements and spurious links to Adolf Hitler. All the while, the main anti-Semitism on the ground in Europe today is coming from the pro-Hamas left. A scene featuring Elon Musk talking by video to an AfD rally looked straight out of a movie version of 1984, and the scare-mongering filmmakers made the most of it. Kai Arzheimer, political extremism scholar: This is absolutely unprecedented. A foreign billionaire using this platform that he owns to support a radical, if not extremist party during the election campaign was a first for Germany, and probably first for many European countries.... The hour-and-a-half documentary was filled with “far-right” and Nazi labels and, of course, Hitler references. Williams also noted “the Trump administration's expressions of support for Europe's far right” and lamented JD Vance’s condemnation of the “firewall” that keeps AfD from forming a German government no matter how many votes they get – in the name of “preserving democracy." Williams: In the fall of 2024, I was in Germany as the AFD swept to an election victory in the eastern state of Thuringia. Since the January 6 riots there has been a suspicious amount of love from journalists for intelligence services in the U.S. Frontline used as their main “expert” Stephan Kramer, domestic intelligence chief in the German province of Thuringia. After stating that a party many people voted for would have no voice, Williams saw no contradiction about banning AfD as a threat to democracy. Williams: Opponents of the AFD have long been warning that the party represents a threat to German democracy. Stephan Kramer is the domestic intelligence chief in Thuringia. He's Jewish, and one of the AfD's most vocal adversaries. Talking heads were all stacked with the alarmist view. Kramer played the Nazi card. Stephan Kramer, director domestic intelligence, Thuringia: ....We have a principle in Germany which is called defense of democracy. It comes out of the ideas and experiences that we had with Nazi dictatorship. Remember, Hitler and his Nazi (NSDAP) were elected into power. They didn't do a revolution. People voted for the Nazis to take over the power. Williams made sure the comparison took with viewers. Williams: Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany without ever winning a majority in an election. In 1933, he formed a coalition government, and then legally obtained emergency powers, enabling him to ban all other parties. Is that not what Germany is basically doing to the AfD? Williams couldn’t even mention terrorism when noting the 2015 influx of asylum seekers, skipping ahead to “unintended consequences…..A rise in anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment.” Yet Williams discovered “a wave of far-right terror attacks in 2019 and 2020” which put the AfD under scrutiny. Williams finally addressed migrant knife attacks in Mannheim, Solingen, and Magdeburg, albeit indrectly by archive news clip voiceovers. But even then Williams tried to muddy the waters. Williams: The [Solingen] attacker's motives were confusing. He was a Saudi who'd been granted asylum, had been critical of Islam online, and even expressed support for the AFD. Nevertheless, the AFD seized on it. Williams played coy with statistics (as if “official crime statistics” can’t be stretched in the name of official purposes like not providing talking points to the AfD). Williams: Throughout the campaign, the AFD would argue that immigration had led to exploding crime rates despite the fact that official crime statistics didn't support the claim. Kramer: If you look on the statistic, it's simply not true that the majority of criminal acts have been done by migrants. That's not true. If you look on the federal criminal statistics, it doesn't give that evidence. Per capita, anyone? Even the New York Times had to admit in an aside back in 2019 that “Of all crimes recorded last year, 39 percent overall were committed by non-German citizens, though they account for just 12 percent of Germany’s overall population.” Kramer: But still the AFD is claiming it. And again, when emotionals [sic] are cooking high and when they prove, yes, they have some cases, very brutal where, yes, immigrants have done something, committed something, nobody is interested in the true story and nobody's interested in statistics. Everybody's interested in the blood and who is responsible for it. Whom can we hang? Williams’ rebuttals were suspiciously vague. Williams: German labor statistics show that over time, most Syrians able to work do get jobs but Bernhard and others continue to use the issue as a key talking point. Frontline’s major complaint about deadly attacks by migrants were that they gave the AfD an opportunity to pounce for political advantage. Unidentified voice-over: Things are very fraught here, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this somehow is leapt upon by those who can see a profit in using this for their campaign in the elections. Williams let Kramer have the doc’s last anti-AfD rant. Kramer: There's a very nice phrase which is considered to be Goethe's quote, but Goethe never said it. It's, "If you sleep in a democracy, you wake up in a dictatorship." The sources for this hit piece seemingly have no clue that perhaps people who surveil a popular political party and strenuously attempt to keep them out of government aren’t actually supporting democracy. Perhaps they’re the baddies, after all?

After much controversy over the doctoring of a portion of President Donald Trump’s remarks at The Ellipse on January 6th, 2021, it has been announced today that both the Director General and News CEO of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) have resigned.  Per The New York Post: The director-general of the BBC has resigned Sunday amid scandal after the British state broadcaster shared doctored footage of President Trump speaking on Jan. 6. … His resignation and that of the CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, come after it was revealed that the BBC’s flagship news program, “Panorama,” spliced together two clips of Trump speaking on Jan. 6, 2021, implying that he had directly told his supporters to storm the Capitol. The program, which aired a week before the 2024 presidential election, “completely misled” viewers by showing Trump telling supporters he was going to walk with them to the capital and “fight like hell,” according to an internal whistleblowing memo shared with British newspaper the Telegraph on Monday. Below, is the quote-doctoring in question: very clear-cut and damning. NEW: The Telegraph reports that an internal whistleblower memo claims the BBC “doctored” Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 speech, making it seem as though he encouraged the Capitol riot. pic.twitter.com/GORW82yeVS — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 3, 2025 There is already reaction on this side of the Atlantic. Watch as CNN’s Brian Stelter weighs in, with “broader context”: WATCH: CNN's Brian Stelter reacts to the resignation of the BBC's top brass after getting caught spreading fake news, calling it "very unusual". pic.twitter.com/sLi6SmcmRl — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) November 9, 2025 FREDRICKA WHITFIELD: And now this breaking news just coming in to CNN, a huge media shakeup this hour as two top leaders of Britain's television network, BBC, say they are resigning after allegations the British Broadcasting Corporation made a misleading edit of a speech by President Trump. I want to go straight to CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter. Brian, tell us more about what- what happened? BRIAN STELTER: Yeah, there's both a- there's both a narrow story here about this edit and then a very big story about the state of the British broadcasting system, Fred. It's very notable. Both Tim Davie, who is the chief executive of all of the BBC, as well as Deborah Turness, who is the head of BBC News. They are both stepping down this afternoon- this evening in the uk, and they are both citing this recent controversy, but also the broader climate the BBC operates in. So, about the edit. This row actually started about a week ago after a British newspaper got a hold of an internal memo describing a misleading edit that was made to a documentary that aired last fall, right before the U.S. Election Day. This documentary was about Trump's attempt to return to office, and it spliced together two different parts of Trump's infamous speech at the Ellipse on January 6th, 2021. So the documentary made it sound like Trump was telling his supporters that he was going to walk with them to the Capitol to, quote,” fight like hell.” Trump actually said that day he was going to walk with them to the Capitol to cheer on Republican lawmakers. Of course, Trump never actually made that walk. He did refer repeatedly to fighting that day, but the edit was misleading in this documentary. But here's the thing: the documentary was shown on the BBC last year. Nobody seemed to notice this misleading edit at the time. It was only in the past few days when this internal memo was leaked that there became a big political controversy, both in the UK and here in the U.S., with some of Trump's friends and allies deriding the BBC. Karoline Leavitt, for example, calling the network “fake news.” So within the company, there was pressure on the BBC to apologize, to take action. And now this weekend, we see the two top leaders both stepping down. But there's a broader context here. It's not just about one edit to one documentary. The BBC has been under immense political pressure in the UK for some time. When you're the head of the BBC it feels like you are a punching bag, whether it's over coverage of Israel's war in Gaza, whether it's over dramas or comedies that are airing on the schedule, whether it's over all sorts of different things. And Tim Davie in his resignation memo refers to “the feverish nature of the environment”, saying that he's had a wonderful time for five years running the organization, that the board was still supporting him. But he's decided to start to step down. Still a very dramatic move at the BBC, which is known for everything for dramas like Traitors all the way to the BBC news operation that exists all around the world. Quite unusual to see the two top leaders of that news organization both stepping down under pressure. WHITFIELD: Right. All right. It is, indeed, pretty seismic. All right. Brian Stelter. Thank you so much.   “Quite unusual,” Stelter says. Unfortunately it is quite unusual for news bosses stateside to resign after they’ve been caught spreading any of a litany of hoaxes: Russia, Very Fine People, Drinking Bleach, Elon Nazi Salute, among a legion of others. While it appears that there remains a modicum of British reserve and elegance compelling immediate resignation when caught spreading fake news, such decorum does not exist stateside. Media lie and move on to the next hoax when caught. TRUMP REACTS: .@BBCNews is dying because they are anti-Trump Fake News. Everyone should watch @GBNEWS! pic.twitter.com/bZFFkSATud — Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) November 9, 2025 This is a developing story, we will update as more information comes in.  

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos tried to push Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent with regard to ending the ongoing government shutdown. Instead, he was treated to an uncomfortable history lesson. Watch as Bessent throws Stephanopoulos’ own words on shutdown strategy  against him: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The president continues to post about ending the filibuster. Is that -- is that the best way to end the shutdown right now? Is that what the administration's position is? SCOTT BESSENT: No, George, the best -- the best way to do it -- and look, you were involved in a lot of these in the '90s. And, you know, you basically called the Republicans terrorists and, you know, you said that it is not the responsible party that keeps the government closed. And so, what we need is five brave, moderate Democratic senators to cross the aisle because right now it is 52 to three, 52 to three, five Democrats can cross the aisle and reopen the government. That's the best way to do it, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: I can disagree with you about the history there, but we don't do history lesson right now. BESSENT: No, George -- (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk -- let’s talk about -- let’s talk about -- BESSENT: No, no, no. George, George, George -- (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk -- sir, let's talk about what's happening right now. I asked you a question -- BESSENT: If you want, I've got all your quotes here. I got all your quotes here, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: I am sure -- I am -- I'm sure you do. But let’s talk about the situation right now -- (CROSSTALK) BESSENT: And I went back and read your book. So, you got one -- one purchase on Amazon this week. And that's very much what you said. STEPHANOPOULOS: That's -- it's a mis -- mischaracterization of history. But I do want to talk about right now, is the best way to end the -- to end the shutdown right now to end the filibuster? BESSENT: The best way is for five Democratic senators to come across the aisle. Stephanopoulos KNEW he was cooked when Bessen hit him with the line about the one Amazon purchase for his book. And he pivot-flailed by calling the quote “a mischaracterization of history”, but it is Stephanopoulos who mischaracterized history. Here is the full “terrorists” quote with context, in Stephanopoulos’ own words as told to PBS Frontline. Bessent didn’t mischaracterize anything. Q: In the fall of 1995, the government shutdown is dominating the government at this time. The president is doing some real brinkmanship. What was the strategy with the Republicans in the fall of 1995? STEPHANOPOULOS: Smoke 'em out. There were a few parts. One, nobody knew, and it was perilous, because no one knew who would get blamed more for the shutdown, Democrats or Republicans. But there was more than the shutdown involved. First, there was also this threat that they would not extend the debt limit -- that this was the big hammer that would force the president to accept whatever the Republicans wanted. Our strategy was very simple. We couldn't buckle, and we had to say that they were blackmailing the country to get their way. In order to get their tax cut, they were willing to shut down the government, throw the country into default for the first time in its history and cut Medicare, Social Security, education and the environment just so they could get their way. And we were trying to say that they were basically terrorists, and it worked. All things being equal, what changed between 1995 and today? If anything, the press is now more inclined to carry the Democrats’ water than they were back then. Proof evident of this is the continued framing of the shutdown, casting the Republican Congress as the intransigent party- as opposed to the Democrats who shut the government down. To date, there is virtually no mention of Democrat pressure to end the shutdown. Stories continue to be framed with shutdown victim testimonials, but no onus on Senate Democrats to vote on the clean continuing resolution passed by the House.  As Bessent demonstrates here, the media’s shameless propagandization around the shutdown tends to not resist a basic rebuttal. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, November 9th, 2025: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And we’re joined now by the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent. Mr. Bessent, thank you for joining us this morning. We've just heard about all these impacts from the shutdown -- government shutdown right now. Are we starting to see -- see a permanent impact on the economy? SCOTT BESSENT: Sure, George. And good to be with you. And we've seen an impact on the economy from day one, but it's getting worse and worse. We had a fantastic economy under President Trump the past two quarters. And now there are estimates that the economy, economic growth for this quarter, could be cut by as much as half if the shutdown continues. And what your correspondent didn't talk about there, George, was there's, of course, the human cost, and we're going to have the busiest travel day of the year, the day after Thanksgiving. And, you know, Americans should look to five Democratic senators to come across the aisle to open that. But on the other side, there's also, cargo is being slowed down. So, you know, we could end up with shortages, whether it's in our supply chains, whether it's for the holidays. So, you know, cargo and people are both being slowed down here. And that's for safety's sake, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: The president continues to post about ending the filibuster. Is that -- is that the best way to end the shutdown right now? Is that what the administration's position is? BESSENT: No, George, the best -- the best way to do it -- and look, you were involved in a lot of these in the '90s. And, you know, you basically called the Republicans terrorists and, you know, you said that it is not the responsible party that keeps the government closed. And so, what we need is five brave, moderate Democratic senators to cross the aisle because right now it is 52 to three, 52 to three, five Democrats can cross the aisle and reopen the government. That's the best way to do it, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: I can disagree with you about the history there, but we don't do history lesson right now. BESSENT: No, George -- (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk -- let’s talk about -- let’s talk about -- BESSENT: No, no, no. George, George, George -- (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk -- sir, let's talk about what's happening right now. I asked you a question -- BESSENT: If you want, I've got all your quotes here. I got all your quotes here, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: I am sure -- I am -- I'm sure you do. But let’s talk about the situation right now -- (CROSSTALK) BESSENT: And I went back and read your book. So, you got one -- one purchase on Amazon this week. And that's very much what you said. STEPHANOPOULOS: That's -- it's a mis -- mischaracterization of history. But I do want to talk about right now, is the best way to end the -- to end the shutdown right now to end the filibuster? BESSENT: The best way is for five Democratic senators to come across the aisle. The -- what are we on? Vote 13, 14, 15. Mike Johnson got the reopening out of the House very quickly. And you know what -- what's changed since the spring, George, is -- you know, is Chuck Schumer's poll numbers. He had a clean continuing resolution in the spring. And why are Democrats doing this now, George? Again, you've been involved with this. The -- you know, explain what's changed. You know, Senator Chris Murphy gave the game away this week when he said, "Well, you know, now it's to our advantage to keep the government closed." They have turned the American people into pawns. STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has also come forward with a new proposal overnight saying it's time instead to do away with Obamacare, instead to have the money go directly to the people. Do you have a formal proposal to do that? BESSENT: We don't have a formal proposal, but you know, what I have noticed over time is that the Democrats give all these bills the Orwellian names, the Affordable Care Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and we end up with just the opposite. You know, the Affordable Care Act has become unaffordable, and the Inflation Reduction Act set off the greatest inflation in 50 years. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I'm a little confused because the president's been posting about that overnight and into this morning, but you're not proposing that to the Senate right now? BESSENT: We're not proposing it to the Senate right now. No. STEPHANOPOULOS: Then why is the president posting about it? BESSENT: George, you know, the president's posting about it, but again, we have got to get the government reopen before, you know, we do this. We are not going to negotiate with the Democrats until they reopen the government. It's very simple. Reopen the government, then we can have a discussion. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about affordability and inflation. That was one of the key concerns that voters said was on their minds as they were voting this Tuesday. It appeared to be the driving force in the elections. But President Trump is still insisting that prices are way down even though last month's report showed inflation stuck at about 3 percent. Are Americans worried about inflation just wrong? BESSENT: Well, George, I can tell you, the -- what we're not going to do is what happened the -- under the Biden administration where, you know, the administration and the media gaslit everyone and said, "Oh, you know, there's a vibe session. You don't understand how good you had -- had it." And what happened then was we had the worst inflation, 40 or 50 years -- you know, 22, 23 percent, but the basket of goods and services for working Americans was up more than 30 percent. And what we're seeing is we had to stop the increase first. Now we are starting to see prices level off, come down. You know, gasoline is down, interest rates are down, so mortgages are down. And I think we are making substantial progress on that. And I think over the coming months and the next year, prices are going to come down. STEPHANOPOULOS: The president says, though, he just had posted this morning that there's almost no inflation. The consumer price index is higher than it was in the beginning of the year. Electricity rates are rising, so are prices for coffee, beef, vegetables, televisions. And it's not just me. It's not just economists are saying that. Your own Republican members of Congress are saying that, including Marjorie Taylor Greene. Let's look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I go to the grocery store myself. Grocery prices remain high. Energy prices are high. My electricity bills are higher here in Washington, D.C., at my apartment, and they're also higher at my house in Rome, Georgia. Higher than they were a year ago. So -- so, affordability is a problem. (END VIDEO CLIP) STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to Congresswoman Greene? BESSENT: Well, George, what I -- what I would respond to is electricity prices are a state problem. And you know, I was very interested to see in the earlier clip where the governor -- the governor-elect of New Jersey said, "Well, I'm going to bring down energy prices." Well, it was her predecessor, Phil Murphy, who took them up. So, you know, look, there are things that the federal government can control. Local electricity prices are not one of them. But, you know, energy prices, gasoline prices, are a way down. And, you know, we -- we are doing what we can every day. I think we're on a very good path to bringing prices down. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about tariffs and the Supreme Court. The president is also posting about tariffs this morning. He's saying, “people that are against tariffs are fools. We're taking in trillions of dollars.” Is that true? BESSENT: We have taken -- over the course of the next few years, we could take in trillions of dollars, George. But the real -- the real goal of the tariffs is to re-balance trade and make it more fair. You know, over time, the president's goal is to bring back manufacturing to the U.S. You know, for the past two, three, four decades we have seen our manufacturing sector gutted. So, what would happen over time is we would take insubstantial money, as factories come back to the U.S., as we're seeing now. I was just down in South Carolina at a rare earth magnet plant and a Boeing plant on Friday. And, you know, that's the, I believe, 1,500 total new jobs. Tariff income will be substantial, but then that will rebalance. The goal here, George, is to re-balance trade. So, tariff income will be substantial at the beginning. It will come down. And then domestic tax revenues will climb as corporate taxes go up and all of these high-paying jobs are created. STEPHANOPOULOS: The president's main argument, though, seems to be that we’re -- it's about taking in the revenue. And he also promised this morning a dividend -- BESSENT: No, no, no, George. Stop right -- no. STEPHANOPOULOS: A dividend of at least $2,000 a person, not including high-income people. How is he going to pay that dividend of $2,000 a person? BESSENT: Yes, George, it’s not about taking in the revenue, it's about re-balancing. And the revenue occurs early on. And then as we rebalance and the jobs come home, then it becomes domestic tax revenue. STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you worried that the president's focus on revenue, though, which is what he’s been focusing on in his public statements, is going to hurt your argument in the Supreme Court? BESSENT: Not at all. It's completely consistent that the revenues come in at the beginning, then, as we rebalance, which is the goal of this, bring back high-paid manufacturing jobs to the U.S., then it will then morph into domestic tax revenues. You know, President Trump has consistently fought for the American worker, and we are seeing trillions of investments in the U.S. that would not have occurred without the tariffs. The other thing, too, is, you know, the authority that he uses is called IEEPA. It is an emergency authority. And he used that emergency authority. He got the Chinese to the table to negotiate on stopping the pre-cursors for fentanyl drugs. You know, fentanyl, hundreds of thousands of Americans dying every year is not an emergency, what is? On October 8th, Chinese threatened to put export controls on rare earth materials. He was able to threaten 100 percent tariffs, and we were able to negotiate that away. And then, finally, in terms of the general tariffs, we are doing these trial deals that would not be possible. We were at a tipping point in terms of the economy, in terms of our trade balance, and we are re-balancing successfully. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have a proposal, a formal proposal, to give a $2,000 dividend to every American? BESSENT: I haven't spoken to the president about this yet, but, you know, it could -- the $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways, George. You know, it could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president's agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security. Deductibility of auto loans. So, you know, those are substantial deductions that, you know, are being financed in the tax bill. STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary, thanks for your time this morning.