Latest news with #JOHNSON
08-06-2025
- Politics
'This Week' Transcript 6-8-25: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy & Speaker of the House Rep. Mike Johnson
A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, June 8, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive. KARL: And I'm joined now in the studio here by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. Welcome to "This Week". REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: So glad to be with you. Thanks for having me. KARL: Let me start with the news overnight in Los Angeles. The president sends the National Guard troops in. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, said that this was purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions, that they're not needed, that they have the situation under control. Do you have any problem or any concerns about the president sending in the National Guard to a place where local authorities say that they're not needed and could be harmful? JOHNSON: I have no concern about that at all. I think the president did exactly what he needed to do. These are federal laws. We have to maintain the rule of law, and that is not what is happening. And Gavin Newsom has shown an inability or an unwillingness to do what is necessary there. So, the president stepped in. That's real leadership. And he has the authority and the responsibility to do it. KARL: Secretary Hegseth said that active duty Marines there at Camp Pendleton, there by San Diego, are on high alert and could be mobilized. Could we really see active duty Marines on the streets of Los Angeles? JOHNSON: You know, one of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that on foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don't think that's heavy-handed. I think that's an important signal -- (CROSSTALK) KARL: You don't think sending Marines into the streets of an American city is heavy-handed? JOHNSON: We have to be prepared to do what is necessary, and I think the notice that that might happen might have the deterring effect. KARL: Okay. Let's turn to the big story this week, the Elon Musk blowup. I know you had been texting him, trying to get hold of him. Had you actually had a phone conversation with him since this happened yet? JOHNSON: Not since Monday of last week. The president used the word 'disappointing', and I think that's right. We were disappointed and surprised. I've had a lot of great interaction and discussion with him about the One Big, Beautiful Bill to make sure he had accurate information because I was concerned that the people were telling him things that just simply weren't true. And, look, I -- Elon's number one responsibility is to save his company. The president and I have the responsibility of saving the country. And that's what this bill does. And we're really excited and proud of this product, and we're going to get it delivered. KARL: What do you make of not even calling you, though? I mean, this is -- I mean -- JOHNSON: He's got a lot going on, all right? And I do as well. But we exchange text messages back and forth. He was concerned. KARL: What did he say in those text messages? JOHNSON: Well, one of his chief concerns is about spending. And I said, Elon, the spending categories in this bill are in two limited areas. It's border, which we promised the American people that we would do, and it's defense. And he knows very well how important those investments are right now. Everything else in the bill is about historic savings and tax cuts for the people and ensuring American energy dominance by regulatory reform and maintaining peace through strength. Shoring up these safety net programs that people rely upon. So, this is really -- (CROSSTALK) KARL: So, he's not buying it. He's not buying it. And he's gone on X and he's urged -- and these are texts -- these are posts that he has not deleted saying, "Kill the bill." Have you seen a reaction -- he's actually asked people to call their Congress members. Is that happening? JOHNSON: It's not happening, and we checked with colleagues. KARL: He's got 220 million followers. JOHNSON: Yeah, and I don't think people are taking that directive. We've got almost no calls to the offices, any Republican member of Congress. And I think that indicates people are taking a wait-and-see attitude, some who may be convinced by some of his arguments. But the rest understand this is a very exciting piece of legislation. I'm going to say this -- look, I didn't go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world. What we're trying to do is help hard-working Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet. Those are the people that are going to be excited about what this legislation produces. This is going to jet fuel the U.S. economy. And I tell you what, all wages are going to rise. There's going to be more jobs and economic opportunity for more people. We cannot wait to deliver that, and the sooner the better. KARL: Well, he -- the president suggested he could cut Musk's contracts. Obviously, Musk's companies rely heavily on government contracts. Can he do that? Is that something he should consider? JOHNSON: Look, I'm not going to get into the strategy of what happens with all of that. I mean, I -- what I'm trying to do is make sure that all of this gets resolved quickly. That we get the One Big, Beautiful Bill done, and that hopefully, these two titans can reconcile. I think the president's head is in the right place, and he said a couple days ago he's moving on because he must. He has a huge number of responsibilities on his plate, and he can't get caught up in a Twitter war. KARL: Yeah. JOHNSON: The tweets are something that people get -- KARL: Whatever we call them now, X -- (CROSSTALK) JOHNSON: I know, I get lost on all that. KARL: Yeah. But he -- you know, these were incredibly personal, I mean -- and suggesting that Trump should be impeached and replaced, removed from office, replaced by J.D. Vance. I mean, he crossed a line here, didn't he? I mean, this is not just being disappointed. JOHNSON: Well, look, my way, and what I encourage my colleagues on Capitol Hill all the time to remember is that policy disputes are not personal. It shouldn't be. It can't be. I mean, if we took everything personal, we'd never get anything done. So, I think all of this would resolve. I think there's a lot of emotion involved in it. But it's in the interests of the country for everybody to work together, and I'm going to continue to try to be a peacemaker in all of this. KARL: By the way, what -- do you know what he's talking about with the Epstein files? I mean what -- what -- what is -- and -- and -- and -- and why haven't those files been released? Have you -- JOHNSON: I don't know. KARL: I mean, some of your members have said they -- they've got to be released. JOHNSON: As -- as Kash said in the vignette (ph) earlier, he's FBI. I'm -- KARL: You'll stay out of it? JOHNSON: That's not my lane. I don't know. I can tell you that -- I don't think -- we have no concern about President Trump or his involvement or any of that. That stuff's nonsense. KARL: And -- and -- and in terms of the threat to -- to go after Republicans that vote for the bill, I mean, are you worried about that? Musk does have a lot of money. If he starts getting involved in Republican primaries. How -- will that be a problem for you? JOHNSON: Well, I think it would be a big mistake. I think Elon knows, at the end of the day, the reason he got involved to help President Trump win and to help Republicans win the majority in the House and the Senate is because he understands that our policies are better for human flourishing, they're better for the U.S. economy, they're better for everything that he's involved in with his innovation and job creation and -- and entrepreneurship. The other team's policies are not good for those things. And -- and he knows that at the end of the day. And I think when the emotion settles down, I think he'll recognize we have no choice. We have to hold the House majority in the 2026 mid-term election, and we will because we've got to allow President Trump four full years, not just two. If -- if the Democrats took over control of the House, I guarantee you that they would try to impeach President Trump in the first week of that new Congress in January '27, and that would be a disaster for the country, for our public policy, for the economy, and everything else. So, we have to keep this leadership team in place, and we will. And we're going to deliver for the people and they're going to reward him. KARL: So, on the bill, there -- there's this provision that limits the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence for ten years. Marjorie Taylor Greene said that she didn't even know that was in the bill when she voted for it. It's a long bill and there wasn't a long time to go over it. And that if it stays in, she would vote against it. Do you see that provision coming out? JOHNSON: Well, the Senate's in the process of modifying that provision somewhat. But I can tell you, I've talked to Marjorie about it. She's a dear friend. The -- the -- the rationale behind this is that you can't have a patchwork of 50 different states hyper-regulating or smothering it with red tape because, frankly, we would lose our edge. AI is a very important thing for the future and for national defense. And we're in a race with China and other countries on this. If we smother this thing with regulation and stop the innovation, it could do real harm for the national security interests of the country. And that's the -- the -- the thought behind this. KARL: But -- but a larger question is that, she's not the only member who said that they didn't know that something was in the bill when they voted on it. JOHNSON: Well, look, I'll -- I'll just say this. This bill was developed over 14 months of work, endless hours of conversation -- debate and conversation. Every single member of the House Republican Conference was involved in it at some level. The legislation was -- was passed in phases. So, we had 11 different committees push their products out over a series of weeks. And there was plenty of time to review the bill. I mean the -- to the -- to the extent that -- KARL: The final version, there wasn't that much time (INAUDIBLE). JOHNSON: Well, no, but the final version -- KARL: Right. JOHNSON: Was literally taking the 11 components -- KARL: The pieces. JOHNSON: And -- and stitching them together. KARL: Yes. JOHNSON: There was a manager's amendment at the end that had minor modifications. But everyone was well aware of what was in the bill. KARL: So, let me ask you about a couple of other specific provisions that -- that caught my eye. One, there's a provision that eliminates attacks on gun silencers. Now this is a tax that has been on the books for about 100 years. Why -- why are you cutting a tax on silencers? JOHNSON: Well, there was a -- there's a lot of thought and deliberation that went into that as well. The Second Amendment is a critical freedom in the Constitution. And there's no real rationale for -- for adding taxes on -- on these pieces of equipment. And we had the votes to do it. I think it was a long time overdue. I think we have to protect the fundamental freedoms of the American people. And there's -- there's no rationale. The government should not be making money on something that you have a fundamental, inalienable right to. KARL: What -- what about tanning beds? It eliminates a 10 percent tax on tanning beds. I mean, how did -- how did that become a priority for -- JOHNSON: Well, that -- look, I think that was an unfair thing that the Biden administration put on an industry because they decided to target -- KARL: It was actually -- it goes back to 2010. It's been around for 15 years. JOHNSON: Yes, but the Biden administration enhanced it. And I -- I -- there will be modifications probably to that in the final package as well. But -- but we'll see how it comes out. KARL: OK, let me -- let me ask you finally about this question of the debt ceiling. This bill adds another $4 trillion to the debt ceiling. Donald Trump came out this week, I'm sure you saw, again, it's not the first time you said this, to just eliminate the debt -- debt ceiling. JOHNSON: Yes. KARL: Agreeing with Elizabeth Warren on this question. What do you think of that? JOHNSON: Well, he regards this as an arbitrary kind of thing that puts pressure on Congress and the White House. It comes up every few years where we have to extend the debt ceiling. What's really important about President Trump and his difference in this with Elizabeth Warren and everybody else is, he has no intention whatsoever of spending higher levels of money. In fact, we're in the process of cutting. The one big, beautiful bill -- KARL: Well, this is adding a lot to the debt -- to the national debt. JOHNSON: No, it's not. No, it's not. No. No, it's not. KARL: I mean, it is. I mean, it's -- JOHNSON: No, it's not. The CBO is arguing that if we extend and make permanent existing tax cuts -- KARL: Yes. JOHNSON: -- that's going to add to the deficit. What we're doing in this bill is cutting $1.6 trillion of spending, that is government spending that creates the deficits. We're going to reduce the deficit. KARL: Debt is going to be higher at the end of this even at this price. JOHNSON: Not with our pro-growth policies. We can argue that on another day. KARL: All right. Thank you very much, Speaker Johnson. JOHNSON: You got it.
Wakala News
26-05-2025
- Business
- Wakala News
Transcript: House Speaker Mike Johnson on 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,' May 25, 2025
MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin with the passage of what President Trump is calling his 'Big Beautiful Bill,' and the man who got it through the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, who joins us from Benton, Louisiana. Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker. 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.
