Transcription: Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, on

The next is the transcription of an interview with Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, which was issued in “Fac The Nation with Margaret Brennan” on July 6, 2025.

Weija Jiang: We now go to Kevin Hassett. He is the director of the National Economic Council and one of President Trump’s main advisors. It is also very popular in that entrance path where I am generally with a dozen reporters. So, Kevin, thank you very much for your time this morning. I want to start with commerce, because on Wednesday a great deadline is approaching. As you know, that 90 -day pause in the reciprocal rates that the president announced in April will end. Until now, the United States has announced some offers; The United Kingdom, Vietnam, and you are getting closer to a final agreement with China. Do you expect more offers with the largest commercial partners in the United States for Wednesday?

Kevin Hassett: Yes. First, I have to pause and share their thoughts and prayers with the people of Texas. It is an incredible and heartbreaking story, and Kristi Noem and the president have ordered the federal government to throw everything they have to help survivors and help clean that place. So, anyway, today I am really disconsolate to see these stories, and I want you to know that in the White House, everyone is putting everything possible to help Texas people today. In commerce, there will be a lot of news this week. And, I think, the head of the news is that there will be ends ending. There is an entire number that Jameson Greer has negotiated with foreign governments, and then they will be letters that are sent to countries that say: This is how we believe it should go, because offers are not advanced enough. And the owner will be that countries agree worldwide to open their markets to our products and allow us to put some type of tariff on their products when they arrive in the United States. In exactly what the numbers will be, they will be things that you will discover in the news this week.

Weija Jiang: Kevin, you said there will be offers. For those really important business partners, if there is no agreement for Wednesday, will the president extend this pause?

Kevin Hasset: You know, the United States is always willing to talk to all about everything that is happening in the world. And there are deadlines, and there are things that are close, so perhaps things go back to the deadline, or maybe they want, in the end, the president will make that trial.

Weija Jiang: And you also mentioned those letters that will begin to leave tomorrow, according to President Trump. He said that between 10 and 12 countries they will receive them. Can you tell us who is going to get one and what do they say?

Kevin Hasett: Because, because, again, the part of the letter that could be happening well is that we are close to a deal, we are not really satisfied with the progress we are doing in the deal, and so we are saying, it is fine, well, we are going to send a letter, but perhaps you also reach an agreement in the last minute. Until we see everything that takes place, I think we need to keep our fire and observe the news this week.

Weija Jiang: Is it fair to say that these notices will go to our smallest commercial partners, while negotiating with our biggest?

Kevin Hasset: I think it could be both. But also, do not forget that when we have large commercial offers, our smallest commercial partners could become much larger commercial partners. And I think that is one of the reasons why countries are running to establish agreements before the deadline.

Weija Jiang: I have to ask about the deadlines, Kevin, to make these offers, because you just mentioned that you are always open. The president said there really is not flexibility between now and Wednesday. Less than two weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Scott Besent said the agreements would be involved for Labor Day. So, I wonder, you know, yes, how can companies plan if objectives continue to move? How can countries negotiate if they don’t even know how long they have left?

Kevin Hasset: correct. Well, the approximate contours of the agreements are becoming clear to all, because we have some offers such as the United Kingdom, and the Vietnam Agreement that begins to be, you know, I suppose that the guidelines of what could happen. But, one of the things we are seeing that it is really interesting for me, is that people are only in the production of the United States at a record rate. As we have had a creation of record, record of record capital, and this is even ahead of the great and beautiful bill. So, I think what is happening is that people are responding to President Trump, you know, potential threats to have high rates in countries by moving their activity here to the United States, which is creating jobs, more than 2 million jobs, since he assumed the position and increased wages. You know, salary growth is directed towards the really high pinnacles we saw in 2017. And so, I think there is a race at this time to obtain activity in the United States. And, in part, that race has been started by President Trump.

Weija Jiang: I remember that after these reciprocal rates were announced, you told me that there were about 15 agreements that the countries brought to the president. How close, if you could give us any number, what number are we going to see this week?

Kevin Hasett: Yes, you’ll have, you will have to get that from Jameson and the president. I think, you know, we have seen many offers that have been completed by our negotiators, and then the president finds things that could improve them. And so, it is, I am not going to advance the president in the number of offers.

Weija Jiang: Well, thanks, Kevin. We will be for that. I want to move to the only and beautiful bill that, of course, the President signed the Law on Independence Day. You have it, and now you have to pay it. And there is a consensus that this bill greatly adds to the deficit. I know you are so familiar with these numbers. Yale’s Budget Laboratory estimates will add $ 3 billion to debt. The Fiscal Foundation says that this tax part of the invoice could also add $ 3 billion to the deficit. The committee of a responsible federal budget, which takes into account interest on debt, says it could add $ 5 billion in the next decade. And in this same program, even the speaker Johnson responded affirmatively when asked if this bill would add more than $ 4 billion to the deficit. I know the administration says that the bill will really reduce the deficit by $ 1.5 billion. Help me understand why there is such a drastic difference between your number and all those others.

Kevin Hassett: Well, well, first of all, remember that science is not democracy. The truth is not democracy. Our estimates are based on the modeling that we used last time, when I was president of the Council of Economic Advisors to say what would happen if we had a bill, how much growth we would get. And we said, and we were deeply criticized, which we would get a growth of 3%. And we even had really technical macroeconomic models that said we would get a 3%growth. We execute the same models through this tax bill, it is even better. And what we are seeing is that if you get a growth of 3% again, then there are $ 4 billion in income than the CBO and these other agencies give us credit. They have been wrong in the past and are being wrong again, in our belief. But, what disappoints me is that if I get a model and say, hey, this is what will happen, we will obtain a growth of 3%. And then it turns out that it is a growth of 1.5%, then, as an academic economist, as a scientist, then it is my duty to say, what was wrong? What lost my model? These people are not doing that. And that is what seems disappointing, because we put academic things reviewed by pairs on the table, he said that we are going to obtain that growth of 3%, and then we achieve it the last time, and we believe that we will do it well this time. But, if you believe that 1.8% growth is what will happen in the next 10 years, then you should agree with the CBO number. But, there is another part of the CBO number that you should worry about. And that is that if we do not approve the bill, it is the greatest increase in taxes in history. And with that large tax increase, which, of course, we would have a recession. The CEA says we would have a 4% drop in GDP and lose 9 million jobs. If we had a 4% drop in GDP and lost 9 million jobs, what would happen to the deficit? And so, I don’t think the CBO has a very strong record. I don’t think these places have a very strong record. And what they need to do is return to the basic concepts of looking at macroeconomic models. There is a really famous macroeconomist in Harvard named Jim Stock. They should return and read everything Jim Stock has written during the last 15 years, and bend them in their models, and then we could talk.

Weija Jiang: I also want to speak, Kevin, about another number with which I know that you and the president do not agree, but that the Democrats and many Republicans are worried, and that is the projection of the CBO that up to 12 million Americans could lose the medical coverage due to this law. What is the Estimation of the NEC for how many people could lose coverage?

Kevin Hassett: Well, well, yes. Let’s deactivate that a little. Because, first, in CBO’s coverage, so what are we doing? So, what we are doing is asking for a work requirement. But, the work requirement is that you should look for work, or even do voluntary work, and you don’t need to do it until your children are 14 years old or more. And so, the idea that this will cause massive bleeding in the availability of insurance, does not make much sense to us. And then, if you look at the CBO numbers, if you look at the large numbers, they say that people will lose safe. Around 5 million of them are people who have another insurance. They are people who have two types of insurance. And so, therefore, if they lose one, they are still insured. And so, CBO numbers on that side make no sense for us at all. But, on the other hand, he returned to 2017 when we had work requirements for Obamacare, they said we lose around 4 million insured between 2017 and 2019, and approximately double in the next 10 years. And, in fact, the number of insured rose. It rose a lot, in more than 10 million during those two years, because the conclusion is that the best way to get insurance is to get a job. And we have a large and beautiful invoice that will create a lot of job creation and a lot of sure, and the CBO is simply not counting that. And again, they must return and look at all the things that went wrong. You realize that they are underestimating Medicaid spending by 20%. They must look back in all things that went wrong and explain what they are going to do to do it well in the future and do a better job. And if they do that, we will take them more seriously. But at this time, I don’t think any serious thinker can take them seriously, because they have done it wrong and bad for so long. Even back: if he returns to when President Obama approved Obamacare, each number was wrong about how many people would get private insurance and how few people would obtain Medicaid, and so on. And so, your record in this modeling space is as bad as possible. In fact, it could, more or less, roll the roulette wheel and find a better set of numbers, best histori a, record that cbo.

Weija Jiang: Kevin, what about improved subsidies? Is that number too bad? That ACA allows around $ 705 for people to help pay their health insurance. That does not sound like waste, fraud and abuse that I know that you and the president have talked about elimination. That sounds like people who cannot pay coverage, and now it will be even more with missing subsidies.

Kevin Hasset: correct. Well, if you are, if you are looking at the change in supplier tax, which is something that has been a key conversation point for Democrats, they say that will close rural hospitals. What has happened is that, instead of letting the states, the states have this game in which they give them a dollar to a hospital and then the federal government coincides with the dollar, and then the state gravels apart from the dollar. In other words, we have an agreement with the states that they will coincide, but then they have this, they have this trick where they tax the hospitals after giving them the money, so it really is that the federal government gives them the money. And that is why we have been spending Medicaid too much at 20% since this trick began to happen. And so, what we have done is that we have put a haircut on that. But we have also put $ 50 billion in a trustee to ensure that rural hospitals are there to treat the sick. So, I think this is a prudent form. It is a good budget policy. And I think nobody will lose their insurance.

Weija Jiang: Kevin Hasett, we’ll see how that ages. Thank you so much. I really appreciate –

Kevin Hasset: And if I’m wrong, we’ll verify, and we’ll talk about why I was wrong. I promise.

Weija Jiang: Thank you. We will have you back. Thank you very much, Kevin.

• International Atomic Energy Agency