
Transcript: House Speaker Mike Johnson on 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,' May 25, 2025
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Hey, good morning, and I wish a blessed Memorial Day weekend to everybody.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed. Well, you got this massive tax and border bill through, just barely, one vote margin. You pulled an all-nighter. Among other things, it will eliminate taxes on tips and overtime. Put about $50 billion towards the border wall and hiring Border Patrol agents, keep in place existing individual tax rates, create savings accounts for kids with a one-time deposit of $1,000, increase the child tax credit by about 500 bucks. The- the bill on this is estimated to be between four and $5 trillion over the next decade. How much do you think this is all going to cost?
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, that's about the right estimate. But at the same time, we have historic savings for the American people. Cuts to government to make it more efficient and effective and- and work better for the people. That was a big campaign promise of President Trump and a big promise of ours, and we're going to achieve that. So in the calculation here, there's more than $1.5 trillion in savings, Margaret, for the people. And that's- that's the largest amount- biggest cut in government, really, in at least 30 years and if you adjust for inflation, probably the largest in the history of government. So we're proud of what we produced here. We've checked all the boxes, where all the things that you mentioned in existence- in addition to American energy dominance, investing in our military industrial base, which is appropriate for us to talk about this weekend and so many other priorities and that's why we call it the 'One Big Beautiful Bill. I think arguably, it's the most consequential legislation that Congress will pass in many generations, and it's a long time coming.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, just this morning, we did hear from some of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate, where this heads next, that they can't support the bill as it is written. I think you know this. Senator Rand Paul said the cuts are 'wimpy and anemic,' 'the math doesn't add up,' it will 'explode the debt.' In addition to that political criticism, you've already seen–
SPEAKER JOHNSON: –Yeah, Senator Paul and I are–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Moody's credit rating agency downgrade American credit and Goldman Sachs says that this bill will not offset the damage from the President's tariffs. Isn't this an economic gamble?
SPEAKER JOHNSON: No, it's not an economic gamble. It's a big investment. And look, this- what this bill is going to do is be jet fuel to the U.S. economy. It is going to foster a pro growth economy. What do we mean by that? Because we're reducing taxes, we're reducing regulations, we're going to increase and incentivize American manufacturing again. And what will- the effect this will have in the economy is that entrepreneurs and risk takers and job creators will have an easier time in doing that. They will allow for more jobs and more opportunity for more people, and wages will increase. Now, Margaret, this is not a theoretical exercise. We did this already in the first Trump administration. After just the first two years, we brought about the greatest economy in the history of the world, not just the U.S. because we did it- followed a very simple formula, we cut taxes and we cut regulations. This time–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You didn't do it in the middle of a tariff war.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: –we're doing that on steroids.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In the first administration, there was sequencing–
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, no.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You got tax reform- the Republicans got tax reform through and held off the tariff war. Goldman Sachs says, 'the hit to growth from tariffs will more than offset the boost to growth from the fiscal package.' That's Goldman Sachs.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well- well, I know. I respect Goldman Sachs, but I think what they're discounting here is the growth that will be spurred on by this legislation, and the fact that the so-called tariff war is beginning to subside already. You've got over 75 countries that are negotiating new, more fair trade agreements for the U.S. right now because of the President's insistence that that be done and it was decades overdue. That is going to benefit every American, it's going to benefit the consumers. You know, they howled when the first tariffs- reciprocal tariffs policy was announced, and they said that prices would skyrocket. That simply hasn't happened. Many of those early estimates were far off, and that's being proven now. So what I think will happen is the tariffs, you know, contest will subside. This legislation will pass and get the economy going again and people will feel that. They'll see it in their own pocketbooks, in their own opportunity and every American household is going to benefit by these policies.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You know Walmart has already said that it will have to raise prices. It's not theoretical. And the President on Friday was talking about even more tariffs, this time on Apple and others. But back- back to your end of the- of the deal here, for this tax relief, you talked about the cuts to pay for it all. You are eliminating subsidized federal student loans so the government will no longer cover the interest on debt while borrowers' in school. You're eliminating 500 billion in clean energy subsidies and you're terminating early tax breaks for electric vehicles. Alongside that, you're carrying out about a trillion in reductions to Medicaid and food stamps. We looked at your home state, and the projection is that nearly 200,000 Louisianans will lose their Medicaid coverage because of this. How do you defend that to your constituents?
SPEAKER JOHNSON: We have not cut Medicaid, and we have not cut SNAP. What we're doing, Margaret, is working on fraud, waste and abuse, and everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that that's a responsibility of Congress. Just in- in Medicaid, for example, you've got 1.4 million illegal aliens receiving those benefits. That is not what Medicaid is intended for. It's intended for vulnerable populations, for young, single, pregnant women and the elderly and the disabled and people who desperately need those resources. Right now, they're being drained by fraud, waste and abuse. You've got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system. If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You're cheating the system. And no one in the country believes that that's right. So there's a- there's a moral component to what we're doing. And when you make young men work, it's good for them, it's good for their dignity, it's good for their self worth, and it's good for the community that they live in.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, but in- first of all, just undocumented immigrants, you know, are not eligible for food stamps or Medicaid. Some–
SPEAKER JOHNSON: And yet they're receiving them that's the problem–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –lawfully present immigrants are. So the 190,000 Louisianans that are projected by KFF as losing their Medicaid. Your position is they were just lazy, not working? That they were undocumented? What about them? How do you defend that they will be losing their benefits?
SPEAKER JOHNSON: No. What we're talking about again, is able-bodied workers, many of whom are refusing to work because they're gaming the system. And when we make them work, it'll be better for everybody, a win-win-win for all. By the way, the work requirements, Margaret, is not some onerous, burdensome thing. It's a minimum of 20 hours a week. You could either be working or be in a job program, a job training program, or volunteering in your community. This is not some, some onerous thing ,this is common sense. And when the American people understand what we are doing here, they applaud it. This is a wildly popular thing, because we have to preserve the programs. What we're doing is strengthening Medicaid and SNAP so that they can exist, so that they'll be there for the people that desperately need it the most, and it's not being taken advantage of. And this is something that everybody in Congress, Republicans and Democrats should agree to.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, one of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate has been very vocal about his concern in regard to what you're doing to Medicaid. Josh Hawley has been arguing it is 'morally wrong and politically suicidal' to slash health insurance for the working poor. He said the cost sharing language will force people at or just over the federal poverty level to pay as much as $35 for a medical visit, which means working people will pay more. How do you defend that? Because you know, in the Senate, they are going to make changes to this.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: My friend Josh Hawley is a fiscal conservative as I am. We don't want to slash benefits. And again, I make this very clear. We are not cutting Medicaid. We are not cutting SNAP. We're working in the elements of fraud, waste and abuse. SNAP, for example, listen to the statistics, in 2024 over $11 billion in SNAP payments were- were erroneous. I mean, that's- that's a number that everyone acknowledges is real. It may be much higher than that–
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Louisiana is like–
SPEAKER JOHNSON: But here's the problem, the states–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — the second largest recipient of food stamps in the country, sir.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Let me explain it, Margaret. Let me explain it. The states- the states are not properly administering this because they don't have enough skin in the game. So what we've done in the bill is add some- just a modest state sharing component, so that they'll pay attention to that, so that we can reduce fraud. Why? Again, so that it is preserved for the people that need it the most. This is common sense, Margaret. It's good government, and everybody on both sides of the aisle should agree to that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Senator Hawley objects to that cost sharing language. He is the one leveraging that criticism. This is going to change, you know that, when it goes to the Senate. How do you- how do you put Republicans up to have to defend these things when they are facing an election in 17 months?
SPEAKER JOHNSON: We got almost every vote in the House because we worked on it for more than a year in finding the exact balance of reforms to the program so that we can save them and secure them. I think- I think Senator Hawley will see that when he looks into the details of what we passed on Thursday. This is a big thing, it's an historic thing, once in a generation legislation. We call it the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' because it's going to do so much and the America first agenda will be delivered for the people just as we promised. And look, I had lunch with my Senate Republican colleagues on Tuesday, their weekly luncheon, and I encouraged them to remember that we are one team. It's the Senate and the House Republicans together that will deliver this- this ball over the goal line, so to speak. And I encouraged them to make as few modifications as possible, remembering that I have a very delicate balance on our very diverse Republican caucus over in the House.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, well, you- you have five to six Republicans from high tax states who are not going to want to see that change in the state and local tax deductions and there's not a commitment to that in the Senate. Can you still get this through the house without SALT?
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Look, we- there's got to be a modification to SALT, and as I've explained to my Senate colleagues many times, you know, they don't have SALT caucus in the Senate because they're all from red states, but in the House, we do have a number of members who are elected in places like New York and California and New Jersey, and they have to provide some relief to their constituents. Those are what we call our majority makers. Those are the people who are elected in the toughest districts and help us have the numbers to keep the majority in the House, and so, this is political reality. We'd love to cut more costs. We'd love to do even more, but we have to deal within the realm of possibility. And I think this is a huge leap forward for fiscal responsibility, for a government that's effective and accountable to the people and real relief for hard working Americans, and they well deserve it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well before I let you go, I want to ask you about another provision that was tucked into this bill. Democrats say it is weakening separation of powers and punishing the courts. It's a specific provision that would restrict a federal court's power to enforce injunctions with contempt, unless there was a bond attached to it. Sounds really weedy, but it's causing a lot of outcry. If this might get stripped out in the Senate anyway, why did you bother to stick it in?
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, we bothered to stick it in because that's our responsibility in Congress. It is about separation of powers, and right now you have activist judges, a handful of them around the country, who are abusing that power. They're issuing these nationwide injunctions. They're- they're engaging in political acts from the bench, and that is not what our system is intended for. And people have lost their- their- their faith in our system of justice. We have to restore it and bringing about a simple reform like that is something that I think everybody should applaud.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily News Egypt
5 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
Government pushes mining sector reforms to attract global investment: Petroleum Minister
Egypt's Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Karim Badawi, affirmed that transforming the Egyptian Mineral Resources Authority (EMRA) into an economic authority will provide it with the necessary tools and capabilities for sectoral development. The transformation, he said, will also facilitate key geological and seismic studies to attract investment by highlighting the country's mining potential. He noted that several ongoing projects are currently focused on conducting aerial and seismic surveys to map mineral resources across Egypt. These efforts form part of a broader national strategy to drive a qualitative shift in the mining sector. Badawi made these remarks during a meeting with members of the American Chamber of Commerce's Mining Committee in Egypt. The meeting was attended by Deputy Minister Moataz Atef, representatives from the Ministry's technical office, and the official spokesperson. The AmCham delegation included Hoda Mansour, Vice President of AngloGold Ashanti; Sherif Barakat, Co-Chair of the Mining Committee and General Manager of Aton Mining; Mostafa El Gebaly, Co-Chair of the Committee and Managing Director of Abu Zaabal Fertilizers and Chemicals; Silvia Menassa, CEO of AmCham Egypt; Dina Nawar, Chief Operating Officer at AmCham; Heba Raslan, Partner at Sharkawy & Sarhan Law Firm; Omar Shawky, Managing Partner at Forvis Mazars Mostafa Shawki; and Nouran El Gohary, Committee Coordinator at AmCham. The Minister emphasised the growing global importance of the mining industry and reaffirmed the Egyptian government's commitment to developing this promising sector. He stressed the country's aim to attract leading international mining firms and position Egypt as a key player in the global mining landscape. The Ministry, he added, is working to expand mining activities and maximise value-added outputs to deliver stronger economic returns to the state. Badawi also praised the longstanding strategic partnership between Egypt's petroleum sector and the American Chamber of Commerce, commending the Chamber's role in encouraging US investment in Egypt. He asserted that this is the ideal time for foreign companies to invest in the country's mining sector. For their part, the AmCham delegation welcomed the government's continued support for mining sector development, particularly the reform of mining agreements and EMRA's restructuring. These steps, they said, are enhancing investor confidence and making Egypt more attractive to global mining companies. The delegation also referenced their recent visit to Washington, D.C., where they observed considerable interest from the US administration in Egypt's mining reforms. They noted a growing push to encourage American companies to explore opportunities in Egypt, especially in critical and rare earth minerals and strategic mining projects.


Daily News Egypt
5 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
Gold slips on diminished rate-cut hopes, rising trade tensions: iSagha
Gold prices edged lower during Tuesday's trading session, weighed down by a stronger US dollar and waning expectations of an imminent interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve. The decline also reflects growing investor unease over escalating global trade tensions, particularly in light of recent comments by US President Donald Trump, according to a report by iSagha, the online gold and jewellery trading platform. Said Embaby, CEO of iSagha, said that gold prices in Egypt fell by approximately EGP 10 compared to Monday's close. The price of 21-karat gold dropped to EGP 4,635 per gram, while the international ounce price declined by around $12 to reach $3,325. The local market also saw 24k gold priced at EGP 5,297 per gram, 18k at EGP 3,973, and 14k at EGP 3,090. Meanwhile, the price of a gold pound settled at EGP 37,080. On Monday, gold had posted modest gains, rising by around EGP 5. The 21k gram opened at EGP 4,640, fell to EGP 4,610, and closed at EGP 4,645. The ounce traded within a narrow range, opening and closing at $3,337 after dipping briefly to $3,303. Embaby attributed Tuesday's decline in local prices to reduced liquidity in the market and a noticeable uptick in gold resale activity by citizens. Many opted to sell part of their holdings to either capitalise on recent high prices or meet urgent financial needs. 'Gold remains one of the most liquid and widely accepted assets globally,' Embaby noted, highlighting its dual role as both an inflation hedge and a flexible savings instrument. 'Its ability to be quickly converted into cash without cumbersome procedures makes it a preferred option for families facing rising living costs.' He also pointed to external factors, including the strengthening US dollar and renewed aggressive trade rhetoric from Trump. The former president recently proposed a 10% tariff on imports from countries aligned with the BRICS bloc, suggesting August 1 as the implementation date. He also threatened additional tariffs on numerous Asian and African nations, stating there would be no exemptions for states pursuing policies deemed 'anti-American.' Embaby warned that Trump's proposed tariffs could stoke inflationary pressures, prompting the Federal Reserve to maintain elevated interest rates for a longer duration. This, in turn, could reduce gold's attractiveness as a non-yielding asset, thereby exerting further downward pressure on prices. However, he added that intermittent weakness in the US dollar has helped cap some of gold's losses. The greenback has struggled to sustain momentum amid concerns over the US fiscal outlook and uncertainty surrounding the broader economic implications of Trump's proposed trade policies—factors that continue to lend some support to gold as a safe haven. Embaby concluded by noting that investors are closely watching the upcoming release of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting minutes, due Wednesday. The minutes are expected to offer clearer signals on the Fed's monetary policy path for the remainder of the year.


Daily News Egypt
5 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
From Harvard to Berkeley: The Federal War on American Universities
The past year has laid bare a growing and dangerous campaign against American universities — one that threatens to undermine academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the right to dissent. What began with pro-Palestinian demonstrations in late 2023 has escalated into a calculated effort by the Trump administration to police campus discourse, punish ideological nonconformity, and suppress political protest. Behind the rhetoric of combating antisemitism lies a far more ambitious project: transforming America's independent centres of scholarship into compliant instruments of state power. The first major flashpoint came at Harvard, where over thirty student groups issued a statement in October 2023 holding Israel responsible for escalating violence in Gaza. The backlash was swift. Prominent donors, conservative commentators, and federal officials demanded punitive action. Though Harvard's administration initially distanced itself from the protests, its response was neither swift nor severe enough to appease critics. By early 2024, the Trump administration had frozen $2.3bn in federal research grants to Harvard, accusing the university of tolerating antisemitic expression — despite the absence of formal findings to that effect. The message was unmistakable: universities that fail to suppress pro-Palestinian activism will face financial ruin. This retaliation set a precedent. At Yale University, a student group protesting an Israeli official's lecture in late 2024 was branded antisemitic, prompting the university to revoke the group's recognition and sparking campus unrest. Yet even that concession was not enough to prevent federal reprisal. In April 2025, the administration threatened Yale's accreditation, signalling that institutions would now be punished not only for what they say, but for what they allow others to say. The University of California, Berkeley faced its own reckoning in May 2025, when it rejected federal demands to monitor international students' social media accounts for alleged 'anti-American' or 'antisemitic' content. The response was immediate: Berkeley lost $100m in federal research funding. A faculty-led strike followed, with professors warning that such intrusions violated the most basic principles of academic freedom and would devastate American research. Berkeley's defiance made clear that this was not an isolated clash over campus culture, but part of a systematic campaign to bring universities to heel. The consequences are dire. Harvard's Alan Garber noted that the frozen grants threaten vital research on gene editing and GLP-1 drugs — work central to treating genetic disorders and obesity. Steven Pinker warned that the US risks ceding its scientific leadership to nations like China, where research may face ideological limits but not this kind of self-inflicted sabotage. This campaign is not only about silencing dissent; it is about disabling the innovation that has long defined American higher education. Equally alarming is the erosion of academic freedom. Through ideological audits, pressure to dismantle DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, and threats to accreditation, the administration has created an environment in which both faculty and students are discouraged from engaging with politically sensitive topics. The chilling effect is unmistakable. Universities that once prided themselves on fearless inquiry now weigh the cost of financial or political backlash for permitting protest or controversial scholarship. This climate of coercion has fuelled unrest across already polarised campuses. Yale's suppression of student groups and Columbia's heightened policing of protests have sparked further demonstrations. The risk of a nationwide student movement, reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, grows. Yet unlike past waves of protest, today's confrontations stem not from universities defying authority, but from institutions struggling to survive under relentless external attack. Perhaps most insidious is the threat to institutional autonomy. By wielding funding freezes, accreditation threats, and tax status reviews, the administration bypasses due process and replaces independent governance with political fiat. It transforms universities from self-governing scholarly communities into state-dependent contractors — a tactic common in authoritarian regimes, but newly and openly deployed in the American context. The damage also reverberates globally. Visa restrictions and demands for surveillance of international students have already deterred global talent, undermining the diversity and international collaboration that fuel scientific and cultural progress. If the US ceases to be a destination for the world's brightest minds, it will forfeit the intellectual prestige it has long enjoyed. Though comparisons to Hungary's Viktor Orbán or China's Xi Jinping are often made, the Trump administration's tactics are more brazen. Freezing billions in funding without legislative oversight and demanding student surveillance are not the slow, bureaucratic tools of autocracies — they are ideological purges executed with speed and force, bypassing both law and tradition. To be clear, universities must protect all students and ensure civil, inclusive discourse. Antisemitism must be confronted wherever it exists. But using that imperative to justify the suppression of political protest is dishonest and deeply damaging. Harvard's legal challenge to its funding freeze — backed by a coalition of 400 college presidents — is a crucial first step. Yet only sustained resistance by faculty, students, alumni, and the broader public can defend higher education's essential role in a free society. The Trump administration's vendetta against American universities, sparked by pro-Palestinian protests, threatens to dismantle the very principles that have made US higher education a global model. The assault on dissent, the coercion of scholars, and the policing of speech must be recognised for what they are: an attack not only on universities, but on democracy itself. The survival of both now rests on whether those under siege choose silence — or resistance. Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy – Academic and Writer