Shownotes Transcript
You may get a little excited when you shop at Burlington. Burlington saves you up to 60% off other retailers' prices every day. Will it be the low prices or the great brands? Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow. I told you so. Styles and selections vary by store. She's made up her mind.
She's got to get right out of her life.
Boring money moves make kind of lame songs, but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet. BNC Bank, brilliantly boring since 1865. I'm Stuart Vonney. I'm Harris Faulkner. I'm Brian Kilmeade, and this is the Fox News Rundown. Friday, May 30th, 2025. I'm Jessica Rosenthal.
Doge may slow down a bit. Republicans want to investigate the last president's staffers and doctor. And the courts strike down most of the president's tariffs. There's a recognition that there were billions of dollars being brought into the federal coffers by this, even just in the first month of doing this. So the administration feels like it's a winning argument. But so far, the court says no. We talk about it all with Fox News Sunday anchor Shannon Breen.
I'm Chris Foster. Going fishing. More nuclear power plants sooner is something President Trump's trying to get done. The data is very clear. Nuclear is, if not the safest among the very safest sources of energy there is that we have. Period. And I'm David Marcus. I've got the final word on the Fox News Rundown. ♪
This week, the Court of International Trade blocked President Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The panel of three judges, including one appointed by President Trump himself, agreed the act did not confer such unbounded tariff authority. White House spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt reacted Thursday. The president's rationale for imposing these powerful tariffs was legally sound and grounded in common sense.
President Trump correctly believes that America cannot function safely long term if we are unable to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity, have our own secure critical supply chains, and our defense industrial base is dependent on foreign adversaries.
Aside from appealing this decision, Levitt added, The president has other legal authorities he can use to implement tariffs, and the administration is willing to use those. As you know, we already have applied Section 232 tariffs on specific industries. The tariffs that apply here include some of those enacted against Canada, Mexico, and China, as well as the 10% baseline and reciprocal tariffs.
The president's order said at the time that border security, the fentanyl crisis, and trade imbalances created the emergency conditions for these tariffs. That is why the president's director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, told Fox News the administration will win, he thinks, on appeal. First, we're going to see what happens on appeal, and we're very confident in our success there because, after all,
Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans have died because of mostly Chinese fentanyl and Chinese fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada. And the idea that having more people die from fentanyl than died in the Vietnam War and that that's not an emergency, that we need to use every power that we have to try to address is ludicrous to me. Another federal judge, Rudolph Contreras, issued a similar ruling Thursday, citing power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Now, Fox Business anchor Jerry Willis noted that while the markets initially acted positively to the first ruling, the Dow turned negative Thursday before closing up, but not by much. If this were true, this headline that this little court was going to stop all of the tariffs,
Well, the Dow would be up more than a thousand points. But this doesn't impact all of the tariffs, including imports on steel and aluminum, as well as auto parts. And the appeals court did rule Thursday that the tariffs can remain in effect pending the appeal. The president does have other levers that he can use. But for these really big, some people would call them over the top,
big number, big dollar tariffs. This court said you can't use the emergency powers for that. It's not constitutional. It's not the way this is supposed to work. Shannon Bream is the anchor and host of Fox News Sunday. We'll see where this goes on appeal. But, you know, they there's a recognition that there were billions of dollars being brought into the federal coffers by this, even just in the first month of doing this. So the administration feels like it's a winning argument.
But so far, the court says no. Shannon, what is this International Trade Court? Despite its name, it is not an international body. These are judges appointed by our U.S. presidents. Exactly. It's a federal court and it's sort of the first level for these disputes. So like I said, then it goes to this federal circuit court, which is
People, if they're familiar with our court system, may think of, oh, the First Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Twelfth Circuit. This is just a different circuit. It's the federal circuit for specialized cases like these trade and tariff issues. But that feeds then directly to the Supreme Court. So, yeah, these are federal judges who are appointed, confirmed by the Senate, like all of our federal courts. And it's just part of that system.
Fascinating. So let's move on. Elon Musk is out of the Trump administration. He says Doge will live on. But, you know, upon further reflection, he did not come close to finding the amount of money that he said he had wanted to cut. How significant is him leaving or is it more significant that we didn't end up after less than 130 days with what we were told we would get out of this process?
Yeah, he's got a longer time frame. I mean, we're told that he's still going to continue in some fashion with some of this work with Doge, that it's been set into motion and that they may eventually get to those $1, $2 trillion in cuts that they had hoped for. But there was always a limited shelf life on Elon Musk being this special status government employee. So we always knew that was going to wind down pretty quickly. So I feel like some of the headlines are a little overblown
like, oh no, he's out and he's crashing and burning. And we always knew that there was a time limit on this. So that's part of it. But I do think he's disappointed and he's voiced that very clearly. I think when I look at Elon Musk in 2025, he's having the experience that Donald Trump had in 2018 as he was coming in as a newly elected president, a businessman who was vowing to drain the swamp and then found out just how swampy it is here.
just the layers and level of bureaucracy and federal spending and waste. And I think Elon Musk came in with good intentions. This is something that D's and R's have talked about for decades. We got to cut the government overspending and the waste and the fraud and abuse. But when you get here and start trying to touch people's actual programs and lives and employment and all of that, I think that Elon had the same experience President Trump did in term one.
Well, and Shannon, on top of that, he leaves after like a day after expressing some pretty deep disappointment with the big, beautiful bill that the president is, of course, as we all know, is demanding it pass. But there are a few Republicans who are not on board with this, mostly because of the debt. That was the whole point of Doge. So what what do we, I guess, talk about now moving forward if Doge
if the big beautiful bill is on the table and it's supposed to get all the support and the president is really, really pushing it, but we still have this 36 trillion in debt. And so I hear from these senators who they're very openly, they'll tell you even more privately, but openly,
And so we all know the very tight, tenuous, fragile balance and deals that the speaker had to make to get this thing through the House. And some of those things may be on the chopping block in the Senate.
But it's going to have to get House approval again. So how in the world do they hold this whole thing together? I ran Paul on last Sunday and he said, if there's a debt ceiling in here, I'm a no. Maybe they get me to a yes if they get that debt ceiling hike out of it. Republicans will argue, listen, we get it done in this bill, the ones who support it.
we get it done in this bill and then it takes that off the table. There's no leverage for Democrats to fight that fight with us down the line where the debt ceiling is hanging in the balance. And we're about to blow that out and hurt the good faith and credit of the United States. But others have different objections. I mean, you've heard senators, Ron Johnson. He is also saying, listen, we're stealing from our kids and our grandkids. There's no way I'm voting for that. You have others who are very worried about cuts to Medicaid and snap and what they mean in reality. So, um,
there's a big task ahead there for Senate Majority Leader John Thune. But what we keep hearing from him and from the speaker on the other side of Capitol Hill is we are working hand in glove. That is the phrase you will see over and over. It's clearly the talking point. But can they actually cobble together a coalition in the Senate to get it past there, the GOP, and still have everything intact enough for House Republicans with their teeny tiny majority to actually say yes for a second time?
Well, what are we hearing, though, Shannon, from the actual administration about this, about the debt? Because we see the president going to the Hill and pushing for the bill. And now we see Doge kind of shifting. It sounds like we have some Republican lawmakers worried about the debt. Maybe not enough to blow up the big, beautiful bill. We'll see. But what is the administration saying? Like Treasury Secretary Bessent was saying the
The way out of this is to grow our way out. The president says, look, I'm bringing back investments from the Middle East. Is that their argument? Yeah, that's a big part of their argument. You're actually spot on there. And part of that is the extension of those 2017 tax cuts that they say that actually unleashes spending and unleashes investment. It gives people more money in their own pockets instead of to the federal government. And
and that that encourages spending that generates a buzz and a boon to the economy. So that's definitely a big part of the argument that they're making. But remember, we gotta remind people, President Trump is somebody who has operated with debt
as a businessman for decades, very comfortable with it says, Hey, it's there for a reason you leverage it, you use it to move things forward. So he is very comfortable with this idea of operating with debt and has done that. Um, you know, people can argue about whether it was successfully or not. I mean, you build Trump industries, you've done something that has worked in the ledgers and on your spreadsheets. And so he's somebody who's not, uh,
uncomfortable with the debt. Lawmakers, many of them have a very different feel for this. They're like, this is not our money. This is taxpayer money. We're going to pay for it if we squander it. And the American people think that we are irresponsible. And as like I said, I think Ron Johnson is one of the perfect examples who's like, I don't care if I get voted out. I'm not scared of the president or anyone else. I'm not doing this to my kids and grandkids. They have real conviction about the debt. Let me ask you before I let you go, Shannon, about these investigations.
Into President Biden's staff, his former aides, I know House oversight looks pretty keen on moving forward with an investigation, especially as all these books come out. It does seem like things are escalating and this is getting more serious in terms of, I guess, where the House Republicans might go here. Yeah. And remember, they had already started these investigations under the Biden years when they controlled the House. Yeah.
but they couldn't get anybody to comply or show up or anything else. And there was, I think, in many of these cases, an assertion of executive privilege that these White House and executive branch employees could not and would not testify. Well, obviously, things have changed a little bit. You have somebody different in the White House now. So James Comer is picking up where they sort of hit a dead end before, has reached out to these people who are named in Original Sin, this book that's hit number one.
that has all the inside scoop on what was happening in the Biden administration. They referred to this inner circle as the Politburo, that they were running things. Well, Conrad wants to talk to the Politburo. He wants to know exactly what was going on. I got to tell you from reading this book,
You know, I knew things were not what the White House was presenting them to be, but the level of admissions from people on the inside is really shocking. And I can see where that would, you know, politically, obviously, it fires at the base for Republicans and for the Oversight Committee to do this.
But when you have people admitting to the authors, we just thought all we got to do is get him elected. Then he can hide for four years. And, you know, OK, well, what does that mean about who's going to be running the country? There's some shocking stuff in there. And they actually talk about his physician, Kevin O'Connor, as well, who's come under a lot of scrutiny recently because of this cancer diagnosis situation.
Why wasn't it made earlier? Why wasn't he being screened more aggressively as the leader of the free world? And in the book, they talk about the feeling that somehow that Kevin O'Connor, the doctor, was just way too close to President Biden to be objective about his physical or mental health. He's one of the ones that Comer, Chairman Comer, has tried to get information from. And so we'll see, because my understanding is if they don't get voluntary cooperation, they move to subpoenas pretty quickly.
Wow. Okay, finally, one more finally before I really do let you go. Russia, Ukraine, the president went from, obviously, I will end this war before I'm in office.
To, hey, this is not my war. This is Zelensky's war and Biden's war and Putin's war. Now he's saying that Putin's playing with fire. He's asking, like, what happened to him that he thought he knew the guy? This has taken a pretty dramatic turn, it seems. And he's giving him like another two weeks, it sounds like this week, he said.
Yeah. And people wonder how many two weeks there are because, you know, he's gotten very frustrated publicly and I'm sure privately with Putin. There is over sitting in the Senate a huge package of Russian sanctions. More than 80 senators apparently signing on to that. More than 80 senators, you know, sign on to very few things.
So, you know, I think that there's a sense that Senate Majority Leader Thune is kind of looking to the White House. Like, do we move forward with this? What's your take on us moving this bill? And President Trump is starting to we've seen him frustrated with both Zelensky and Putin now. And you're right. He said early on, I'm going to get this thing over with. I'm the only one who can get this thing done. And Putin is not going along with the program. He's continuing to bomb drone strikes and missile strikes and all these things that are taking lives.
as President Trump is publicly saying to him, cut it out. He's not listening. So, you know, for the critics out there who say President Trump was way too easy on Putin to this point, they're kind of taking glee in the fact that Putin is doing his own thing.
But the U.S. has a lot of levers when it comes to sanctions and cracking down on those who violate the sanctions with Russia. It's not just them, but these other countries who enable. So we'll see where they go next. But clearly, the White House, it's palpable of how angry this president is with Putin. Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream. Thank you so much for your time. Jessica, always great to be with you.
Feeling a little stalled in the bedroom? Through HIMSS, you can get some gas back in the tank with personalized ED treatment options that are accessible without ever stepping foot into a doctor's office. With hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers, HIMSS can help you find the ED option that works for you.
Hymns provides access to a range of doctor-trusted ED treatments like chewable tablets, Viagra and Cialis, and their generics for up to 95% less. No insurance is needed, and one low price covers everything from treatments to ongoing care. Just fill out an intake form on their site, and a medical provider will determine the right treatment option. If prescribed, your medication ships directly to you for free. Start with your free online prescription.
visit today at HIMSS.com slash rundown. That's H-I-M-S dot com slash rundown for your personalized ED treatment options. HIMSS.com slash rundown. The featured products include compounded products which are not approved nor verified for safety, effectiveness, or quality by the FDA. Prescription required. See website for details, restrictions, and important safety information. Price varies based on product and subscription plan.
This is David Marcus with your Fox News commentary coming up.
President Trump wants a lot more nuclear power production in the United States, signing four executive orders a week ago, collectively aimed at quadrupling capacity within 25 years. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum at the signing ceremony. This is a time when capital and competition has finally come to this industry. We've got venture capital, we've got startups coming into all aspects of small modular nuclear.
And we've also got an EO that's talking about the importance of us having a secure supply chain of being able to get that fuel load here in the United States as opposed from foreign sources.
Nuclear power is, for some people, associated mostly with high-profile disasters. Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and the Fukushima meltdown in Japan in 2011. Advocates say it's cleaner and safer, though, than fossil fuels and that the technology is advancing and improving. And that's one of the cool things, is these technologies that are now ready to actually be deployed have this huge...
huge history of development that go back. Jacob DeWitt was at that executive order signing. He's co-founder and CEO of Oklo, an advanced nuclear technology company based in California. Um, that the U S government and, uh,
our national laboratories that were sort of born out of the Manhattan Project and then continued their missions in a lot of different spaces, but continued to develop really since the 50s, which was looking at, hey, there are all these ways you can frankly design a nuclear reactor. And some of them just have these incredible features to them, including these characteristics to be what's known as or referred to as being inherently and passively safe. It's a little jargony speak. Basically, it's a physics safe reactor. Yeah.
What that means is you're putting the fundamental forces of the universe on your side to keep the reactor in a safe configuration. And what that looks like is you're relying on natural phenomena like thermal expansion of materials like fuel or steel or coolant to cause the reactor to naturally shut down if it heats up or overheats. And if you're relying on natural phenomena to make sure they're controlled and cooled, that's a huge feature set for safety, but also actually for economics, because now you don't have to
design, procure, install, manage, maintain all of these systems to do those things for you. So it allows for significant design simplification.
So nothing's risk-free. What do you tell people who say, nope, no way, I don't care, I don't want a nuclear plant anywhere near me? Yeah. Well, I think that's the thing is we live in a world of risk and it's how people think and understand about risk. And I think there's two major things here that are rather interesting. First, the data is very clear. Nuclear is, if not the safest among the very safest sources of energy there is that we have, period. And a metric that
is a little crude, but is, you know, captures that is the number of deaths per megawatt hour and nuclear is, you know, got the fewest or is basically tied right down there with the fewest with solar. It's incredibly safe technology.
And these new technologies actually make it even better. And so I think as people understand that, because that part, there's a little bit of, I would call it like risk misperception. As people understand that fact better and better and better, they get more and more comfortable with it. And actually, I think that's one of the huge drivers of public sentiment evolution and change in the last decade.
10 to 15 years. And what I just described about these inherent passive safety characteristics and features, it's not just like paper studies or calculations or simulations. They've actually built real power producing reactors that did these things. Where are we compared to other countries, you know, advancement and use of nuclear power? Who's been most successful at it?
Yeah, I think the United States has been one of the, you know, has been the innovative leader in the space since the beginning. The French obviously have a wonderful story about how you can rapidly, you know, transition your energy infrastructure to be nuclear. And they continue to reap massive rewards. But then I think we've seen
the ascendancy of China and of Russia very clearly. They see the value of nuclear technology. I think they see the ascendancy of it. I think they've long seen that, you know, they couldn't keep up with the U.S. And right now, you know, China's building the most nuclear power plants in the world. And it's clear that they view this as also a significant opportunity to export and build long-term, like long-lasting geopolitical and strategic relationships with countries.
Well, we could do the same thing and we need to do the same thing in the U.S. And so I think like it's a very interesting time where I think people are starting to wake up to that and now wanting to fix that inside the U.S. and reassert our leadership and reestablish it. And actually, the executive orders just signed build on a kind of a succession of policy evolution and changes over the last couple of presidential administrations. This being one of the most significant that we've ever seen. That's going to help us do that. Yeah, I was going to ask about Congress just last year passed the Advance Act.
Um, they love their acronyms over there. Um, accelerating deployment or versatile advanced nuclear for clean energy. Um, do these orders build on that or run parallel to that or what? Yes. Uh, these executive orders build on that and accelerate and amplify that the advanced act was a significant, I think piece of legislation and policy to continue to modernize and push the regulatory environment forward, the regulator specifically. And, uh, the executive orders accelerate that. Um,
by sort of doubling down, setting more aggressive targets, building on top of the areas where the ADVANCE Act targeted and seeing that there are other areas to sort of continue to also focus on and kind of target for improvement. Also opening the aperture, though, beyond just the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but also opportunities that the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy with kind of their unique capabilities and needs can afford. And so that opens up different pathways for getting plants built.
The regulatory bottlenecks are hard to overstate the negative effects they've had on nuclear development and deployment. So modernizing the ecosystem there is very important. And a lot of that's just because the regulatory ecosystem has been stuck in thinking about things and doing things that are significantly out of date and not necessarily well matched and suited for the significant benefits of these next generation technologies. So pretty significant, all-encompassing sort of whole government approach to really kickstart things.
I mean, there's always a fine line with regulation. Obviously, you're somebody who's going to want to push back against the NRC. What do you say to people who might be concerned that these orders neuter it to the point where plants compromise safety? I think that's the key thing here is what they do is they actually are focusing on enabling better processes to actually enable better technologies that are safer to come forward. It's not changing the regulations. The regulatory requirements are what they are.
what it's doing is saying, how do you actually do the analysis to support that you're complying with the regulations? And I could spend many, many, many more hours than we have time here going through examples of just silly bureaucratic inefficiencies that frustrate the regulator, that frustrate the staff, that are holdovers from a period of time where the regulator was actually weaponized against nuclear power. Like,
These are all factors that we now have to sort of unwind. So I understand when people are like, well, okay, regulatory modernization, what does that actually mean? Are we kind of changing the regs? Is it going to become like, is there other risks associated with it? My contention is, and what we see here is actually, no, we're allowing the regulator to do the job more efficiently and effectively so that we can focus on the things that actually matter. Well, the president wants a bunch of small modular reactors. Explain what those are, if you can briefly, and is that a realistic goal?
Yeah, I think so. Small. I think it's a really exciting kind of thing that small reactors can enable. So when we think about nuclear power plants, the ones that we have today, which are phenomenal things that we have phenomenal assets in this country, they're mostly all pretty big, about 1000 megawatts or one gigawatt in power production today.
Smaller reactors kind of come in in this range of sizes from maybe as little as like 10 megawatts all the way up to like 300 megawatts. They're inherently and physically smaller, of course. But that opens the door for different things about how you think about deployment, how you think about building them, designing them, all these kinds of things. But also, I think one of the most unheralded but significant benefits is
is it allows us to learn how to build these things a lot more quickly and affordably. What I mean by that is the cost to learn becomes a lot less when you're spending much smaller modicums of capital to build each plant. If it costs you...
seven to $10 billion to build one big plan, that means each learning cycle is going to cost that much and take that many years to do so. A smaller plant can be done for a fraction of that, maybe on the order even as low as a few hundreds of millions of dollars. That becomes something then you can apply the lessons learned and drive through deploying more of these plants more quickly and drive costs down considerably. And especially as we see this AI race going, there is
a massive need of power. It does talk about gigawatt scales of power, but the reality about these data centers and how they're built, they're getting built out in chunks of sort of, you know, basically modules, if you will, that are using 50 to 100 megawatts per module. So actually matching a reactor with that is a pretty good way to meet their demand and grow with them more organically. One of the environmental concerns about this is or was nuclear waste. Explain what that even is and how it's dealt with.
Yeah, it's one of my favorite things to talk about. So, you know, nuclear waste is something that a lot of people kind of envision as being this green, glowing, oozing sludge, and it's scary and it's dangerous and it's toxic.
The reality is what nuclear waste is, is really fuel that was in a reactor, produced a lot of power, used some of the fuel in there, and then taken out. It's very radioactive. It's contained. It's controlled. It's typically kept in pools or in casks. The radioactivity does go away. It does decay, but it takes a really long time. But it's stuff that we know how to manage really, really well. It's actually the only energy source that we manage the waste fully in, right? Like,
When we burn gas or coal, we just dump all that waste in the atmosphere. Okay. It kind of sucks. And then when you look at renewables, man, if you go to some of these like sites where they take old wind turbines or solar blades, it will mess with your mind because it looks like some post-apocalyptic future. When you go to what nuclear waste is and see it, it's actually kind of, I mean, it's just elegant. It's simple. It's compact. You see how incredibly dense this technology is in terms of, you know, well, how energy dense it is. Yeah.
And why I like to point that out is nuclear is inherently millions of times more energy dense than other sources of energy. And that's part of the beauty of getting into at the sort of nerdy nuclear physics level, the strong nuclear force of the nucleus. It's that energy that you're liberating with nuclear technology.
As a result, you have millions of times less waste. So it's all contained. But the kicker to me, that waste is only about 5% waste. It's actually really like 95% unused fuel. And that's just because in a nuclear reactor, you have to have a minimum amount of fuel for it to run. And you load in a little more fuel so it'll run until it hits that minimum. And that typically is about 5% of the fuel consumption. That means that 95% of waste is actually fuel that can be reused again and recycled. Right.
And that's something you can and has been done. And we actually do in different ways around the world. And that's a totally different paradigm. So what's next jumping off these executive orders? It's an unbelievably exciting time. It's created a lot more work for us. And that's awesome because we have the chance to think a lot more about how can we actually be creative in taking advantage of what now is clearly the policy of the government and looking at the all government approach to enabling and accelerating nuclear deployment and shedding some of the shackles of sort of
outdated legacy things of the past. So it's pretty, pretty neat. So what that translates to is, you know, we're doing what we can to sort of accelerate our plans and timelines for deployment. We're already really well positioned with having a site, having fuel. So really we're doing everything we can to accelerate getting that first plant and then the plants after that built. So, you know, it's cool to build one plant, but it's a lot cooler to build hundreds of thousands, you know, so that's what we're kind of aiming for.
Jacob DeWitt is a co-founder and CEO of Oklo. They design and hope to be deploying lots of nuclear power plants. Thanks, Jacob. Thank you. Thank you.
Craftsman days are here at Lowe's with big savings on the tools you need. Save $100 on the Craftsman V26 Tool Power Tool Combo Kit, now at $199. No matter what the project is, Craftsman's high-quality, high-performance products empower you to build on. Stop by your nearest Lowe's store and check out the full line of Craftsman tools today. Valid through 618 while supplies last. Selection varies by location.
It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz. Fox. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.
Subscribe to this podcast at Fox News Podcasts dot com. It's time for your Fox News commentary. David Marcus. What's on your mind? It was Mark Twain who quipped that the great works are books that everyone wants to have read, but nobody wants to read.
We could easily say the same thing about the U.S. national debt. It's something everyone wants to have cut, but nobody wants to cut. As the House Republicans' big, beautiful bill moseys over to the Senate for potential passage, there's growing concern among many on the right that the spending cuts are insufficient and that the bill puts the country on the road to much greater debt.
Senators Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, and Rand Paul have all promised opposition to what they see as the big bloated bill. And Doge architect Elon Musk has expressed disappointment that the alarm he's raising about the debt and his cost-cutting recommendations are being ignored. As
As usual, this attempt to stand a thwart massive spending while yelling stop is an uphill battle. Here are five reasons why deficit reduction has been the hardest of political nuts to crack and how these reasons might be addressed.
One, the deficit is too abstract. To put it bluntly, very few American voters have a real working understanding of how the national debt actually works. Sometimes it feels like very few members of Congress do either, but it's a big part of why cutting debt is not a political winner. Two, voters like pork. People like free stuff, even when it's not actually free. Even those who support cutting the deficit can get a bit testy when you threaten their slice of the pie or the money flowing into their communities. Three,
Like climate change, there's deficit fatigue. There are two issues in American politics that voters have been warned for 40 years must be addressed immediately or all hell will break loose by next Tuesday. They are climate change and the deficit. And Tuesday never really seems to come. This is not to say that our staggering national debt hasn't done great harm to our country. It absolutely has, far more than climate change.
But that harm is not felt in an obvious and catastrophic way, so it does not light a fire under voters.
Four, our superpower status. There's a sense among many Americans, and not entirely without cause, that our country's status as the world's foremost superpower protects us from being hurt by our foreign creditors. We have nukes, after all. What are they going to do? Robocall the White House during dinner? This is, of course, a facile understanding, but it underscores that even though people are concerned about the debt or say they are, they don't feel it as an existential threat.
Five, neither party will commit to deficit cuts. The final reason why Americans have a hard time getting excited about efforts to cut the debt is that both parties always swear they will do it while they are out of power and never do it when they are in power. They can make the reservation to cut the deficit, but they never show up. This has led many Americans to just assume it's never going to happen.
Make no mistake, these are significant headwinds that have stalled out almost every effort to cut the debt for decades. But it doesn't mean they cannot be overcome. The fiscal hawks need to talk less about doom and gloom and talk more about how lowering the debt can open doors to things like better credit, homeownership, financial security, and better yet, get a few of those cost-cutting measures past the goalie.
The American people will not be threatened into supporting cost-cutting measures to slash the debt, but they can be convinced. And nothing could be more convincing than this Congress enacting some serious and responsible cost-cutting actions right now.
I'm David Marcus, Fox News digital columnist and author of Charade, The COVID Lies That Crushed a Nation. You've been listening to the Fox News Rundown. And now, 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.