From Washington: Are Republicans Ready to Prove Their Commitment to Major Cuts?
34:05 Share

You may get a little excited when you shop at Burlington. Burlington saves you up to 60% off other retailers prices

You can Venmo this or you can Venmo that. Yeah!

The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank, and a pursuant to license by MasterCard International Incorporated. Card may be used everywhere MasterCard is accepted. Venmo purchase restrictions apply. Sunday, June 8th, 2025. I'm Ryan Schmelz. Republicans push forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, despite a full-on offensive from Elon Musk. Tim Burchett put it best a few days ago. He said congressional Republicans have to decide.

who they're going to side with. They have Elon Musk on one side and President Trump on the other. And heretofore, the Republicans, they have really always sided with President Trump. And Elon Musk might be out of the White House, but Republicans are pushing forward with making his doge cuts permanent. Let's take back as much of the wasteful spending as we can so then we have the ability to go in with that scalpel and send those resources exactly where they need to go. This is the Fox News Rundown from Washington.

House Speaker Mike Johnson brought his chief of staff's baby to his first press gaggle following the very public blowup between President Trump and Elon Musk. All of you are very concerned about tweets, but I think the American people are concerned about things that really matter, and that is...

Making their taxes low, making their economy work, making the border secure, making energy dominance a big thing again. And that's what our bill is going to do. And that's what I'm focused on and the really important things in life. Like the president, Speaker Johnson has felt the wrath of Elon Musk, who's accusing him of compromising his conservative values with the one big, beautiful bill.

arguing it will add trillions to the national debt. Republicans, though, are pushing forward. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise bashing and dismissing the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. It's very valid to raise these concerns that CBO has missed the problems that come with making false estimates.

Economic growth has been their Achilles heel. We got tremendous economic growth when we cut taxes in 2017. Any economist who will look you in the eye and if you said, "What will happen if there's a $4 trillion tax increase? Will it be good or bad for the economy?"

If they tell you they think it'll be good, they should be fired. Will last week's big, ugly blow up have an impact on the big, beautiful bill? Yeah, this was quite a week here. I mean, you had this thermonuclear dispute between President Trump and Elon Musk. Fox's senior congressional correspondent, Chad Pergram. Which was just staggering in terms of him starting, meaning Musk.

throwing the big beautiful bill under the bus and then that echoing here on Capitol Hill as they're trying to get this through the Senate, Elon Musk demanded a new bill. There was an effort by House Speaker Mike Johnson to talk with Musk. He didn't return his calls. They texted.

I asked Johnson at one point if it would be productive to have the president speak with Elon Musk, and he said, yes, I think it would. And then, you know, Trump has now said, I don't intend to call Elon Musk. I mean, and then the flip side of this is, does this actually worry congressional Republicans?

Now, Mike Johnson says it does not, says there's no consternation there. But I said, you know, surely this does not help, you know, people and their headaches and their stomach aches about the big, beautiful bill. And he said, no, it certainly does not help in that sense.

And this is where Democrats have kind of seized on this, realizing that they only need a couple of votes here to maybe tank the big, beautiful bill in the Senate. Rand Paul, the Republican from Kentucky, is no. And he said many of the things that Elon Musk is expressing about the bill is why he's a no. He says there's too much spending in it. Democrats find themselves in this weird spot where suddenly they're semi-quasi weirdos.

Weirdly embracing Elon Musk here. You know, I mean, Chuck Schumer probably put it best when he talked about Elon Musk saying he's not my cup of tea. But he said that he said even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And then John Fetterman, the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, I talked to him about this as well. And he thought it was a little bit weird where, you know, Democrats and radical activists were going out and trashing Teslas and parking lots and Tesla dealerships. And now we're coming around to Elon Musk. But as they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Even though the pushback is that Elon Musk is wanting the bill to be more conservative than it is and cut more spending and address the deficit in a more extreme way. Because, you know, each time, you know, one of these Democrats was using Elon Musk, you know, they would get a follow up question from a reporter and the reporter would be like, well, wait, he dislikes the bill for different reasons than what you do. And sometimes you see these Democrats get like stumped by that.

Yeah. And what's interesting, Chad, I had a source kind of say in many ways Democrats lost the boogeyman they thought they had. So this has become a very interesting dynamic, to say the least. You definitely need a foil in politics. And I think you're right on the spot there because it seems as though they were starting to pivot to Musk. If you go back and look at some of the very inflammatory things there.

that many Democrats said about Elon Musk, you know, back early in January, February. He's been their number one target this whole Congress. Absolutely. And some of their polling was revealing that. And so I think that that pivot by the Democrats is important. Now, it's not like they don't have a proper foil in President Trump, that's for sure. But Elon Musk, you know, he was proving to be a little bit less popular. And maybe if the Democratic idea was to undercut Musk, which they were certainly attacking him, maybe they've succeeded in that sense.

And what stands out to me is obviously Elon Musk has done a full on assault of the one big, beautiful bill. But, you know, the White House and leadership in both chambers, they've done a full on defensive and, you know,

Speaker Johnson probably did one of the most aggressive things he's done in defending himself since he's been speaker, which is he had a very impassioned statement responding to Elon Musk and Elon Musk questioning his level of conservatism. What happened to the 2023 Mike Johnson was what he was kind of saying. And then Speaker Johnson proceeded to bring a baby to a press gaggle after that.

Yeah. In fact, I think the last time we saw a baby being walked around the halls of Congress was by George Santos, the former congressman who was expelled. Not to make any equivalencies there, but you get the idea. But in any event, you're right that that's where I think that, you know, Republicans realize they had to fight back a little bit.

It's probably good to have the speaker doing this. But you had others, you know, you know, slugging back as well. I mean, you know, Chip Roy, the Republican from Texas, he said that there was a line that was crossed here by Elon Musk kind of crossing the Rubicon. You had Troy Nell's another conservative from Texas saying, you know, he wants Elon Musk to come and run against him in the primary. He said, I'll even pay for the filing fee. I think Musk could probably afford that. And said he was out of his damn mind.

Exactly. So, again, you know, Tim Burchett put it best a few days ago. He said congressional Republicans have to decide who they're going to side with. They have Elon Musk on one side and President Trump on the other. And heretofore, the Republicans, they have really always sided with President Trump. It's one of the reasons they believe they have control of the House and Senate. It's the reason the president's in the White House. And so they know where their wagon is hitched.

And so can we kind of go and take a look at how this impacts the one big beautiful bill's future and kind of the timeline we're looking at right now? They still want to get this done before the 4th of July deadline, but there's still some roadblocks standing in the way. Right. Well, the biggest roadblock is the United States Senate. But before that, to get that on the Senate floor, probably the week after next, maybe in about a week and a half or so, is the parliamentarian, Elizabeth McDonough.

And what is going on right now is something called the birdbath, named after Robert Byrd, the late legendary former majority leader from West Virginia, where they literally go through the bill and find out which sections don't comply with budget rules because they deal with policy and not numbers. And so if it's policy, it can't be in the bill.

And you also have Republicans being very concerned about some of these Medicaid cuts or reductions or changes or however you want to frame them. You have Josh Hawley, Republican from Missouri, who's very concerned about that. Cynthia Lummis, the Republican from Wyoming, she indicated that that was going to be probably the hardest thing, you know, to get to 51 votes, depending on what the Medicaid portion of this took shape and how that how that worked.

And there was even talks, I believe, of Medicare being brought up briefly. Thune didn't shoot it down that that's off the table or anything like that. But you've had a number of others, Josh Hawley, like you just mentioned, say that's a crazy idea for them to even get into Medicare. But if you don't get into some of these other entitlements, getting that deficit number down without touching the tax cuts or the military aspect of this can be very hard.

Yeah. And you cannot get into some of these deep cuts unless you touch those entitlements. And Republicans, specifically President Trump, has said that generally those are off the table, even though there are cuts and changes to the Medicaid programs here. You can't get to a number that low without doing that. And then you have people like Ron Johnson, the Republican senator from Wisconsin, who went to the White House meeting with the president the other day.

who said, you know, surely, you know, this is a problem that these cuts and these spending cuts aren't deep enough. I want these pre-pandemic levels of spending, which is what he said repeatedly, going back to, say, 2019 or so. Getting to that number when you get to some of these individual programs, that's really hard. And whatever they arrive at is something that'll get 51 votes.

Now, the question is, if you've changed the bill significantly in the Senate, can it pass the House? You have New York Republicans, others from high tax states who have to work something out there. You know, Mike Johnson basically, you know, signed his name in blood to try to get some of those those New York Republicans on board because then he wouldn't have enough votes right there. You did have conservatives in the House who wanted less spending.

in this bill. And this is where when you talk to Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massey of Kentucky, the two Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted no on the bill, Davidson said, yeah, you know, again, he's expressing some of the same concerns that conservatives had. And Thomas Massey was more blunt, which he usually is. He said this is precisely why Elon Musk kind of learned dealing with the leadership the hard way. He said, you know, he put a lot of trust in them and they didn't exactly pay it back to him.

And Chad, if we can move on to a topic I know you're very excited to talk about. We've got the congressional baseball game coming up. Can you get into that a little bit for us? Well, they've done this since 1909.

Most years they've even played at, you know, historically they went back and played at the old ballpark, which was the field where the old Washington senators played. They played at Griffith Stadium. They played in Baltimore when there wasn't a team here. They played at old Memorial Stadium. But they will suit up the Democrats and the Republicans at Nats Park on Wednesday night.

I will be on the call. I've done this for several years now that we carry it on FS1. Kevin Cork, our colleague, he will do play by play. Republicans hold the lead in this overall contest. Eighty one games to sixty five. Sometimes they've played.

two games and in the quote modern era because there's always a modern era in sports right ryan uh since 1962 uh 37 to 23 in favor of the republicans and the republicans have won several of the last few games and i pointed out to hakeem jeffries who used to play uh since he's been the minority leader that republicans have given them an absolute drubbing the past couple of seasons a collective score of 47 to 17.

And I said, you know, since you've been, you know, the Democratic leader in the House, what do you have to say? He said, well, we were nine and one when I played. I'm not so sure if that's because of Hakeem Jeffries. It was probably because of Cedric Richmond, the former representative from Louisiana, who pitched at Morehouse and had, I mean, he threw about 85-90. And if you're an amateur or less player, which I would regard that most members of Congress are, trying to hit that is really, really hard.

The Democrats just don't have some of the horses right now. The Republicans have some tremendous hitters. Greg Stubbe, Republican of Florida. Eric Schmidt, Republican of Missouri, the senator there. And so, you know, this kind of waxes and wanes. August Pfluger played baseball at the Air Force Academy, right? Yes, he did. But Republicans

Republicans have a little bit of a problem this year. Blake Moore, a Republican of Utah, who's the vice chair of the Republican conference, he typically plays center field. He won the high school Heisman Trophy, and he might be the best overall athlete that they have.

In the congressional soccer game, yes, there is such a thing, he was playing goalie and injured his shoulder. And when he injured his shoulder, he can't play. So they're having to move some people in. Marlon Stutzman, who had been a member some years before, has come back to Congress. He is going to go and play in right field. And Jake Elsey, who played in right field last year, a Republican from Texas, will be in center. The other thing they're going to have here is an 18-second clock.

You know, for the pitchers and the batters, they're going to try to move this game along. It took almost four hours last year. That is a long time for a baseball game. And much like in Major League Baseball, they're trying to do that. Here's the here's the other thing, though. There is no penalty for a disengagement. If you don't pitch the ball by that time, they might just say, OK, look, guys, you know, speed it up here. They don't call a ball or a strike or a balk or anything like that. There's nothing.

Along those lines. And I got to tell you, calling the game the number one biggest challenge I have is figuring out who is where, because the Republicans, to their credit now, and they've just done this the past couple of years, they all wear the same uniform. They didn't do that before. They wear different caps of their favorite MLB team or high school team or minor league team or something like that.

But then if you look in the program, they get to pick whatever number they want to wear. So you might have six number fours, you know, so that doesn't make any sense. And then the Democrats now this year for batting practice, they're going to have uniforms, but then they will wear any team that they want. And you see the Houston Astros and the Pittsburgh Pirates and you see, you know, other schools around high schools that you've never heard of, etc. It's really kind of fun to see that. But trying to figure out who is who is a challenge.

And a couple of fun facts before we say goodbye, Chad. Number one, I don't know if you knew this about me, but I was a professional wrestling ring announcer and commentator before I came to Fox. And I can tell you that doing commentary, which you have done and you do spectacular at, is incredibly hard. And people do not realize how hard it is until they actually do it. And number two, Blake Moore was actually my high school football coach's teammate at Utah State.

Oh, really? Wow. You see, that tells you a lot. But you're absolutely right. You know, Pete Rose used to say that the easiest place to hit was the major leagues. Now, that sounds counterintuitive because, OK, what are you talking about? Well, the pitching is better. Pitchers aren't as wild. You're not down in some single A park where they light the stadium with foot candles. The lighting is better and the umpiring is better.

The problem with doing this game and the challenge with doing this game is that there is no statistician to provide you with all this stuff. That's my wife, frankly, who, you know, bless her, you know, helps me put together this gigantic booklet each year of notes and things. It's really hard to put this game together. It really is. But it's a lot of fun. Well, Chad, we're going to be rooting for you and we will all be watching on Fox. So thank you so much and we'll have a great week. Play ball.

When you're on the go and it's time to refresh your energy, grab an ice cold Celsius where zero sugar, seven essential vitamins and proven ingredients meet pure refreshment. Unlike traditional energy drinks, each sip of Celsius is a perfect balance of flavor and function. So whether you're hitting the gym, the office or your next adventure, grab a Celsius at your local retailer or visit Celsius.com to learn more.

Even the staunchest GOP loyalists to President Trump have a similar line before they weigh in on last week's war of words with Elon Musk. They appreciate the work he did at the Department of Government Efficiency. House Republicans are set to vote on the first rescissions package from the White House. A rescissions package allows for spending cuts that can pass with a simple majority in both chambers.

Next week's package includes over $9 billion in foreign aid programs and public broadcasting. Some consider this a trial run for cuts in the future. Iowa Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee that dictates how the government is funded, joined the Fox News Rundown this week to discuss the future of codifying the Doge cuts.

I have done town halls as long as I've been in Congress. I think public town halls are an important part of doing this job. And I had pledged to continue to hold those. And obviously, last week, I did two of those in my district in Decorah and Elkater. Unfortunately, what we're seeing happen is that we have these indivisible groups

that are very, very motivated and are going out and flooding a lot of our town halls with people who just want to boo and jeer and don't really care what I have to say. I will continue to do them because there are people in the district who do want to come out and hear what's actually going on with, let's say, the big beautiful bill, which we had just passed and

I think it is a it's a great thing to be able to go out and actually communicate what's in these bills and go out. And I will, whenever I can, go out and defend President Trump's agenda and what we're trying to get done in Congress to protect taxpayers and make our country more safe. And so I was able to dispel a lot of the myths and fear mongering that's out there. And I think that was the most important part of doing those public town halls.

Now, did you feel that this was a case where there are people who are coming there trying to be instigators? Or did you feel that some of the concerns people had was based off of information that they received on their own? I think it's a little bit of both. I think there is definitely some concern out there because of the fear mongering. I know I had people who were legitimately concerned about, for instance, their Medicaid benefits. And I heard from one woman, her name was Nicole, and she was very concerned. She's disabled and has a lot of health problems. And

You know, what I did was reassure her, and we have very carefully crafted this bill to make sure that if you need these benefits, you will continue to receive them. What we've tried to do, again, is tell people, hey, if you are able-bodied and you're not caring for someone who's a dependent or dependent,

Or disabled, then you should be trying to get a job if you're taking government benefits. So I think someone like her had a legitimate question and concern. And then there were other people who were clearly reading a script off a question that who knows where they got it from. And they, you know, just wanted to to yell and instigate. And some of that started about 20 to 30 seconds into my remarks. So they didn't really care what I necessarily had to say.

And how do you win this messaging campaign on this? Because, you know, there is a lot of different information out there and there's a lot of different sides to the story of how people are viewing this bill. Some view it as a deep cut to Medicaid. Democrats are calling it the one big ugly bill. And then there's others who are pushing back on that and saying that, look, work requirements are popular amongst Republicans. We're going to keep pushing this. Right.

How do you explain it? What's kind of your pitch to people saying this is not a Medicaid gutting bill, this is a savings bill? Right. So I say if you want efficiency for taxpayers to make sure these programs will continue to exist, these changes need to be made. Changes like kicking 1.4 million illegal immigrants off of Medicaid, making sure Medicaid isn't paying for transgender surgeries, making sure that we are not paying for people to be enrolled in Medicaid in two states.

Those are all common sense things that I think Iowans certainly support on the whole. And I think Americans do too. And so, um, again, the reason why I do these town halls is because, um, we need to be able to get out there and tell the story of why we're making these changes. And I think once we explain those to people, um, and get rid of the fear again, that's being stoked by some on the left, um,

we can say, hey, these are responsible changes that have needed to happen for a very, very long time. And I think riding the ship takes some time, but I think it's up to us to go out and use our megaphone to make sure we're clearing things up for people. And now I think there is this other side to it also, though, because we hear from a lot of groups, whether it's the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, other watchdog agencies that kind of look at the national debt and what's the biggest contributor. A lot of time, I think there is a consensus that

You have three ways of getting through this. It's either taxes or you have to address spending when it comes to the military or entitlements because they eat up so much of the budget. Now, some might say this bill does not do enough to reform some of the entitlement programs without having any type of offsets or pay-fors. What do you say to that, that this bill might not be enough of a reform of certain entitlement programs and mandatory spending in order to truly tackle the national debt? Yeah.

Well, first of all, there are certain things that we are restricted to doing in reconciliation, number one. And so I think this bill is a start on, for instance, the Medicaid reforms that we've talked about and some of the asylum changes and fees and those kinds of changes that are made to help secure our border and make sure our country is safe. Those are things that we can do through reconciliation.

I do think we need to have bigger conversations long term about some of these other programs and their sustainability. And the way we do that is by proving to the American people that the fear mongering is not true, right? The world's the sky is not going to fall. We're going to take these first steps to make significant cuts to spending and then significant efforts through this bill and good policy changes that will help, you know, really reignite economic growth in this country.

You see the numbers coming out about even the first two quarters, I think, of this year. We've seen incredible growth in the economy, a rate about, I think, 4% is what I last saw. CBO is only estimating a growth rate of like 1.8%. So we will be able to incite amazing economic growth through these certain policies, the tax policies, if we're giving businesses certainty.

They're willing to make those investments in our country, in rural America, in districts like mine. They just need to know that the government's going to have their back and return as many of those dollars as possible to the taxpayer. So that's what I would say to everyone who's looking at this bill and saying, oh, you can go further. Yes, we can. But I think this is a great start to send the message to people that, hey, we are serious about reversing the curse of the debt and deficit spending and trying to really reform the way Washington does business. I say we need to make Washington, D.C. run a lot more like Iowa.

And as it heads over to the Senate, what are you watching for? Are there any areas of concern that you're going to have your eyes on with what the Senate could do to the bill that could be a problem in the House?

Well, certainly, you know, when we have the conversations about how narrow our House majority is, I think that's been very, very much so communicated to Leader Thune and to our senators. I know Senator Grassley went on record today saying, hey, we understand the dynamics of what we're dealing with with the House and the narrow majority. So I hope they make minimal changes because of the work that we've done in the House to flush this bill out and get it to a point where it could pass. And again, to the conservatives who want to pass even further cuts,

hey, I wish we could go further too, but we have to build a consensus. And to get to 218 votes, we need to have people who won districts that President Biden won by 10 points. And so to get their vote, you have to figure out what that magic –

point is. And I think we got really we got to a good spot in the House. So that's my message to the Senate is, you know, let's be cautious about proceeding and doing more that's drastically going to sink this bill, because ultimately, this is about making sure we're getting President Trump's agenda done, the agenda that the American people voted for. And I think if we are able to get this done by July 4th and send that signal, the American people will reward Republicans with

for years to come because they'll understand we're securing a future for the country and we're truly making America great again. And that's what we want to do alongside President Trump. And you were big on the IRA tax credits, correct?

Yeah, I support some of them. I mean, I think when I look at Iowa, we have certainly done a lot in the area of renewable fuels and sustainable aviation fuel. And that's a place where I think that Iowa, it's a win-win. It's good energy policy, and it also supports Iowa agriculture. And so those are tax credits that I think really – I've supported 45Z, for example, because it will help –

with economic development as well. When you look at the ROI on a tax credit like that, it actually is a net benefit for the federal government. It brings money in. So I try to use that as my basic threshold. Is it going to incite economic growth? And is that enough of a return for the taxpayer to make it worth the while? So that's why I support a tax credit like that. So you would highly caution the Senate not to touch that if

it gets brought up because it is one of the things that we've heard them kind of mumbling about it potentially changing here. Yes, because I think ultimately I'm trying to look at the bigger picture. When I look at our economy and igniting economies in states like mine, we are still a very rural economy. We export a lot of corn, a lot of soybeans, but we need markets for those products to go to and

Right now, we are seeing a lot of competition from places like Brazil. They're trying to undercut our ability to have access to markets. If we're going to maintain competitive edge on the global stage, we need a credit like this to help our producers know that they have that certainty in that market.

But also, I think it's good policy, too. So I think it's a win-win from the sustainability point, because I do care about that. I think when you hear the green new scam provisions, I think when we're forcing decisions on people, that's a completely different, like EV mandates. I think that's where people get really, really frustrated.

But when I look at ethanol and biofuels and the potential there of a green renewable resource that can help us be in all of the above and all of the below energy producer, that's a policy that I think is good for Iowa and it's good for the country. And are there specific recisions you are eyeing specifically?

for the White House to send over as soon as we get past the first round, which we're expected to see this week? Well, I give some of those examples, right, of some of the wasteful grant dollars. I want to claw back as much of that as possible because when I look at where we should be spending the money that taxpayers send us on appropriations, it should be going to projects in our districts that actually make a difference and we as representatives have a say over. That's where Congress's role should be. It should be, you know, I have to go before voters every two years

to defend what I've asked for and what I've worked on in appropriations. And so I think that's an incredibly important part of this process. Let's take back as much of the wasteful spending as we can so then we have the ability to go in with that scalpel and send those resources exactly where they need to go. And this is a two-part conversation because it's about the rescissions, number one, coming back

the taxpayer money we're able to claw back. But it's also about making sure our committees are doing their jobs in authorizing these agencies. And I think it's forced kind of the new look at some of these departments that have not been authorized and have not had the level of oversight that I think they need. I mean, heck, the State Department maybe not being authorized but still being funded, we definitely don't want to –

you know, completely cut off the State Department and their ability to do their job around the world. But we do need to make sure that we're taking a look at what programs they're administering and are they effective for the taxpayer. And you also have a bill that would address improper payments, correct? And this is one of the executive orders that President Trump has put in place.

pushed and this would codify that, right? Right. So when you look at how much money goes out in improper payments, I think there's an estimate that it's over half a trillion dollars a year. I mean, that's just completely unacceptable and should never be allowed to happen. And so the bill would basically codify the president's executive order for America's bank account, right? We need to protect against the waste, fraud and abuse there and in

proving the federal government's ability to screen for improper payments and to, at the very beginning,

basic minimum track and verify transactions. You'd think that they should have been doing that and having codes associated with these transactions, but they have not. And Secretary Bessent was in a couple of weeks ago, and he was also just as incredulous, I think, that this was happening as I was. And so to put this into code and make sure that we are reforming our processes for the long term will save taxpayers literally trillions of dollars. And is this something that could get some bipartisan buy-in and has a future in the Senate right now that you see?

I believe so. I think everybody understands that we should not be sending out half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that we have no idea where it's going and it's improperly paid out. No matter who the president is, and thank God President Trump's the first person to really take this seriously and make an effort to put it in a code. But we absolutely need to do this and it shouldn't be a partisan issue. And is the strategy going to be pass conservative partisan appropriations bills and then try to negotiate with the Senate and use that as leverage?

I hope so. I hope we're able to get our bills done. And certainly Chairman Cole has approached this as a very aggressive markup schedule in the next couple of weeks. We're going to be very busy in committee marking up these bills. And I hope we're able to get them passed off the House floor so that we can start that negotiating process early so that we don't end up again. Here it is, September 29th, the midnight, you know, 1159. Here we are. And we're going through the motions again. So I think Chairman Cole certainly is working with Congress

Chairwoman Collins over in the Senate to make sure that that doesn't happen. Congresswoman Ashley Henson from the great state of Iowa, thank you for joining us on the Fox News Rundown Evening Edition. Thanks for having me. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment.

Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

That will do it for this edition of the Fox News Rundown from Washington. This week, we speak with Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders on her state's efforts to bring down drug prices and if their new law can be a model for more states to follow. For now, I'm Ryan Schmelz. Thank you for joining us on the Fox News Rundown from Washington.

Stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts Plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon Music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com.

Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy, host of the Trey Gowdy Podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com.