U.S. Treasury Secretary's Personal Account: What is America's Predicament? What is Trump's Strategy?

In a recent interview, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Basset delved into the economic dilemmas currently facing the United States and elaborated on the response strategies of the Trump administration.

Basset pointed out that one of the most pressing issues currently facing the U.S. is the ever-expanding debt and deficit.

He criticized the Biden administration's fiscal policies, arguing that its unchecked spending has continued even during good economic times and in peacetime, which is unprecedented in history. This policy will ultimately force the government to raise taxes to maintain spending, thereby trapping the U.S. in an economic model similar to that of European social democracies, which would severely limit America's economic vitality and competitiveness.

In addition to the debt and deficit issues, Basset also mentioned inflation and income inequality. He noted that current economic policies have led to rising inflation, particularly affecting the bottom 50% of wage earners the most. This demographic has seen a decline in real purchasing power, while asset owners have benefited from the stock market's rise, exacerbating social inequality.

In light of these challenges, Basset emphasized that cutting government spending is key to addressing the debt and deficit issues. He proposed that the government should gradually reduce spending rather than implementing drastic cuts all at once to avoid triggering an economic recession.

According to his estimates, if the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR) requirement were eliminated, U.S. Treasury yields could fall by 30 to 70 basis points, with each basis point saving approximately $1 billion annually.

Basset believes that energy prices should be lowered to continue to slow inflation; relaxing regulations on the financial system would help unleash the vitality of the private sector and promote economic growth. Adjusting the international trade system and utilizing tariffs could boost domestic manufacturing in the U.S.

Basset also mentioned that the Trump administration is considering establishing a sovereign wealth fund to better manage national assets and create wealth for the public.

Key points are as follows:

The Biden administration's approach to deficits and debt worries me greatly. Endless spending. And this is the first time in history that it has occurred during a stable economy without war. After such extravagant spending, the only option left is to raise taxes, leading to an inescapable equilibrium where the U.S. becomes a European-style country.

We need to reduce the massive federal debt and control government spending, but it must be done gradually. We cannot make drastic cuts all at once. We need to reduce debt and deficits without triggering a recession. For every $300 billion cut in spending, GDP declines by 1%. Therefore, we must proceed steadily, like a plane making a smooth landing.

(Question: We have established a system where everyone is encouraged to buy homes, believing this is the American Dream. Now we are trapped in an unsustainable real estate bubble, and most people cannot afford homes.) The demand for scarce resources will lead to anxiety. Moreover, this situation can lead to despair, as many feel they will never pay off student loans, never afford a home, and their income will never increase to a level that allows them to achieve these goals

Plan one is to reduce government debt leverage by cutting spending while streamlining government personnel. Plan two is to readjust the international trade system, bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States and revitalizing the middle class. (Plan three is) to use tariffs to bring some industries and supply chains back to the U.S.

Tax cuts and deregulation will promote economic growth and increase GDP. If the economic growth rate rises from 1.8% to 3% or even higher, the trajectory of economic development will change. If spending can be kept stable or boldly reduced, the goals can be achieved.

I fully support the independence of the Federal Reserve in monetary policy. (However), as the functions of the Federal Reserve continue to expand, I believe that some of their practices in regulation, climate policy, diversity and inclusion (DEI), and even certain non-traditional monetary policies may threaten their independence.

If the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR), which is a binding regulation for banks, is removed, U.S. Treasury yields could drop by 30 to 70 basis points, with each basis point saving about $1 billion annually.

Right now, everyone only sees the negative impacts of spending cuts but fails to recognize the future benefits. These benefits will only become apparent after 9 months, 12 months, or even 15 months.

The Social Security Fund has a surplus of $2.7 trillion, but in reality, it is just a pile of non-tradable U.S. Treasury bonds. Should the Social Security Fund invest in the S&P 500 index or stocks? Why not turn the Social Security Fund into a sovereign wealth fund to invest in the future of all Americans?

Regarding Social Security, perhaps we can replan it. If we can establish a sovereign wealth fund, there are many philanthropists interested in "baby bonds." If we can set up some kind of investment account for newborns, running parallel to Social Security, it could achieve compounded wealth growth and also serve as a safety net.

Energy prices must be lowered... The biggest challenge right now is how to get the private sector to be willing to invest in projects that may not yield returns for 5 to 10 years. Moreover, government turnover is frequent, and policies lack coherence, changing from one thing to another. We are working hard to address these issues.

Nuclear energy is definitely an important component of future energy, but it is difficult to achieve in the short term. Currently, nuclear energy lacks investment attractiveness, which requires government intervention.

The following is the full interview, translated by AI:

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Well, today is a very important day. We have invited the 79th Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent. We want to take this opportunity to explain in more detail how the economy works and the current economic situation we are in, such as the deficit, tariffs, budget, economic policy, monetary policy, and fiscal policy. How can we ensure that everyone understands the plan to make America great again? So, Scott, thank you for joining us. Great.

Scott Bessent:

Thank you very much. Thank you for having me

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Actually, I want to start by reviewing the past. You grew up in South Carolina, and your father was a real estate developer. Can you tell us where your passion for finance comes from?

Scott Bessent:

Well, I'm not quite sure how my passion for finance specifically came about. As you mentioned, my father was a real estate developer, and he experienced the ups and downs of the economy. So I think my passion for risk management might stem from that. However, I was lucky. When I entered Yale University in 1980, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. You can imagine that back then, there were still punch cards, but those are gone now. Yale's computer system transitioned from punch cards to screens. I considered majoring in computer science and also thought about being a journalist because people still read newspapers back then. Those punch cards and newspapers are now a thing of the past. Later, I got an internship opportunity to learn from a mentor who taught the investment business exceptionally well.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Me, and...

Scott Bessent:

His name is Jim Rogers, very famous. He was George Soros's first partner, right? He had just completed a round-the-world motorcycle trip and wrote a book called "Investment Biker." He is a very charismatic person. While learning the investment business from him, I thought, this is what I truly enjoy because it requires both quantitative analysis skills and storytelling, and it involves human emotions.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Were you trading stocks, bonds, all financial products, and currencies at that time?

Scott Bessent:

I started trading stocks and did that for several years. Later, I went to Soros Fund Management to work for my mentor Stan Druckenmiller, who is incredibly impressive; the company's performance has never declined in over 40 years. When you sit next to him, you think, what am I doing every day?

David Friedberg:

He became famous multiple times in his career for "going all in."

Scott Bessent: 05:01

Going all in. Fully committed.

David Friedberg:

And he was right every time.

Scott Bessent:

That's right. But the most impressive thing about him is that he is the most decisive person I have ever seen in changing his mind.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Druckenmiller has a famous saying, "Invest and investigate."

Scott Bessent:

He has many famous quotes. I've always urged him to write a book because he has so many amazing stories. Maybe you can encourage him too. "Invest and investigate," have the courage to be a "greedy" person, right? Since then, I've been fascinated by the market because it involves both quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis, and it provides real-time feedbackYou can have a long-term investment perspective, but at the same time, you need to make judgments based on short-term changes. I really like this. For the past 35 years, I have been doing macro investing. Trading currencies, bonds, commodities, stocks, and some credit products, and communicating with leaders around the world to try to figure out the next policy direction.

David Friedberg:

I think this is important because I have talked to some macro traders, and as a macro investor or macro trader, a large part of the job is to understand the direction of central bank actions, be clear about the trends in government bonds, and communicate with economists around the world to understand the flow of global capital. Is this a correct description of the work of macro investors?

Scott Bessent:

Pretty much. There is also a great macro investor named Bruce Kovner. He has a saying that I really agree with, which is that his success comes from being able to imagine a different future and believing it can happen. So the key is to believe that the future will change and then manage risks well. For example, can you imagine what would happen if the Iron Curtain fell? What would it be like? You venture capitalists should also think about these kinds of questions, about how the world would develop under different conditions.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Okay, let's put this topic aside for now. 1992 might be an important moment when macro trading became well-known to the public. At that time, you, Druckenmiller, and Soros basically put the Bank of England in a difficult position, which is a great case to analyze many economic phenomena. Can you tell us about the actual situation at that time, the new reality you saw in the UK, and then we can compare it to the current situation in the US?

Scott Bessent:

This is a classic historical case that showcases macro trading from three aspects. At that time, I was an analyst, Stan was the portfolio manager, and in a way, George was the risk manager. I was working in the UK office, right there in the UK. Suddenly, I had an idea; I believed that the UK had just gone through a real estate boom, and at that time, UK mortgages were not long-term loans, but floating rates. So if the Bank of England raised interest rates on Wednesday, your mortgage payment would increase by Friday. The UK had joined the exchange rate mechanism and needed to maintain a balance with the German mark, fluctuating within a certain range. I realized that if they raised interest rates to maintain the exchange rate range and protect their currency, it would be unsustainable because homeowners in the UK would go bankrupt.

Scott Bessent:

The brilliance of Stan was that he analyzed that this exchange rate range setting created a perfect asymmetric bet. Because we pushed the exchange rate to one side of the range, their task was just to push the exchange rate back to the other side, so we would only lose at most 2.5%.

Scott Bessent:

Stan also told an interesting story about how he shared his plan with George Soros. Soros asked him how much he planned to invest, and Stan said he might invest 100% of the fundSoros shot him a glare at that moment, and Stan thought he had said something wrong. Then Soros said, why not invest three times the amount? So, we pushed the exchange rate to the edge of the range. The Bank of England and the UK government had to buy a large amount of pounds and even started raising interest rates. That was in September 1992. In the end, they could not bear the pressure from high interest rates and exited the exchange rate mechanism. We made huge profits, with daily returns reaching around 20%.

Scott Bessent:

That's right. Stan's real brilliance lies in the fact that, just like playing backgammon, there is always a next move after one step. We made so much money and were all excited. But what comes next? Because after one trade, there is another trade. We made so much in one day, but in the remaining time of that year, we made another 20%, although this was not widely reported.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

At that time, you observed a certain degree of disconnection, or even a serious disconnection, between the real economy and the financial economy. You have also mentioned the binary opposition between "Main Street (real economy)" and "Wall Street (financial economy)" multiple times. At this point in 2025, what similarities do you see with the early 1990s or other periods when you were actively trading?

Scott Bessent:

Well, I think if some things are unsustainable, they will eventually cause problems. The reason I am here now is that about 18 months ago, I met with President Trump. I have known the Trump family for 30 years, but I was not very familiar with the president himself before. I went to tell him that I wanted to get involved in the campaign because I am very concerned about the Biden administration's approach to deficits and debt.

David Friedberg:

Endless stimulus policies, endless spending.

Scott Bessent:

Endless spending. And this is the first time in history that it has happened during a stable economy without war. I think this approach is very irresponsible. Because I feel that after such rampant spending, the only option left is to raise taxes, right? Then it will fall into an inescapable equilibrium, and the United States will become a European-style country, just like those...

Scott Bessent:

Moreover, I think they are also very irresponsible regarding immigration issues. The official number of illegal immigrants, the president says is 22 million, I don't know what the actual number is, but I tend to believe the president's statement. But they are allowing a large influx of immigrants, making the problem increasingly severe.

Scott Bessent:

However, I still want to focus on the financial sector. From a financial perspective, their approach will lead the United States down a path of no return, imposing radical financial ideas on this country, and then there will really be no turning back

Chamath Palihapitiya:

During that time, wages were severely suppressed. And the stock market was continuously pushed up by funds, as money kept pouring in.

Scott Bessent:

Yes, funds have been abundant. This situation has also brought about distribution issues, returning to the question you just mentioned about Wall Street and Main Street. Vice President Harris said she wants to speak for the middle class, but her policies have inadvertently or intentionally weakened the middle class, especially the bottom 50%. We are currently in this...

David Friedberg:

Due to declining purchasing power, inflation has intensified.

Scott Bessent:

It’s even worse if you don’t have assets.

David Friedberg:

This is very important. Many people don’t understand that if you have stocks or other assets, those assets will appreciate with inflation. But if you don’t have assets, everything's prices are rising, and your wages aren’t increasing, you have no purchasing power.

Scott Bessent:

Exactly, not only has inflation intensified, but Jason Furman proposed a "Common Person Index." During that time, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by about 22%, but the "Common Person Index" rose by over 30% or even 35%, because the basket of goods consumed by the bottom 25% to 50% of wage earners is different from ours, and those goods' prices are rising faster, such as used car prices, car insurance, rent, groceries, etc. This is not only unfair but can also lead to instability.

David Friedberg:

It can also trigger social issues. Yes. Sorry, back to the previous topic, I remember Stan mentioned this issue in the summer of 2023. What did he think should be done at that time? How long did this situation last?

Scott Bessent:

I think Democrats would say that those massive spending bills were meant to save the economy. But in March 2021, the economy was already recovering, and there was no need for those massive relief plans at all.

I also remember Larry Summers and Paul Krugman had a fierce debate. Summers believed that these spending bills were at least $900 billion to even $1 trillion too much. And during 2022-2023, the Federal Reserve's response was also very slow.

In the end, we see that the top 10% have assets, the stock market has soared, while the bottom 50% have no assets and are burdened with debt. Credit card debt has increased, housing prices have skyrocketed due to the pandemic, making it impossible to buy a house. This has really affected the realization of the American Dream. And we have been bearing the consequences of this inequality

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Scott, what do you think the American Dream looks like today?

Scott Bessent:

I think the American Dream has not changed. After World War II, in 90% of American households, children's income exceeded that of their parents. But now that ratio is only 50%. The American Dream is to own a home, achieve financial security, live a certain level of comfort, find purpose in work, be able to support a family, have choices, and not have to work two jobs.

Scott Bessent:

Two weeks ago, I made a statement at the New York Economic Club, and Mike Pence (former Vice President of the United States) deliberately contradicted me. I said the American Dream is not built on cheap goods, and he said it is. I just want to say that Vice President Pence's economic policy of "getting people to buy flat-screen TVs" is not what people want. People do not want a bubble economy. Just like in the past...

David Friedberg:

People want progress. I remember Jonathan Haidt did some research a long time ago, and many socioeconomic surveys show that happiness is measured by changes in net worth or income each year, rather than absolute levels. What people pursue is a sense of progress in life.

David Friedberg:

I’m thinking that to achieve this sense of progress, we have created a system that encourages everyone to buy homes, believing that this is the American Dream. To buy homes, people invest most of their net worth into them; I remember that 60% of the middle class's net worth is tied to a single home. Then, to make people feel like they are making progress, we established a loan system and related economic and fiscal policies, which ultimately led to home prices rising every year. Now we are trapped in an unsustainable real estate bubble, and most people cannot afford homes. Where did we go wrong? And what impact will this have on the realization of the American Dream in the future?

Scott Bessent:

I think it largely comes down to scarcity. Just like you mentioned San Francisco, where zoning regulations are very strict, leading to a shortage of housing. For example, the educational resources of Ivy League schools; suddenly many people want to attend Ivy League schools, and they have also admitted many international students. But since the 1950s, the number of degrees awarded by prestigious schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton has not changed much. The demand for scarce resources creates anxiety. And this situation can also lead to despair, as many people feel they will never pay off their student loans, never be able to buy a home, and their income will never increase to a level that allows them to achieve these goals.

David Friedberg:

It feels like these goals can never be achieved, such as paying off student loans, affording a home, and seeing income growth.

Scott Bessent:

And...

David Friedberg:

Is this an urgent problem that needs to be solved? This...

Chamath Palihapitiya:

I think, first of all, this is a data problem. One impressive thing about the Trump 2.0 administration is that they are more aware that this data is not as reliable as other governments claim, and other governments just find data to support what they want to do. It's as if they just need to find data that can justify their actions.

I think part of the reason is, can you trust GDP data? Can you trust non-farm payroll data? Do you think this data is reliable enough to allow you to take action on behalf of the United States? No. You see...

Scott Bessent:

This data will be significantly revised over time. The Biden administration made a big mistake, but thank goodness they did, which is that they did not look at the actual situation, only focusing on the data, ignoring the feelings of the American people. They say this is just the public's subjective feeling, that you don't understand how good your life is. But that's not the case. When I participated in the "Meet the Media" program yesterday, someone said that the American people think Donald Trump did not do enough economically. I told the host that I would not respond to that statement because I must respect the feelings of the people, but we need to look back at what caused this anxiety. That's what we need to do next.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Exactly. So let's analyze this in depth. What do you think is causing this anxiety? What factors can the federal government control to alleviate some of the pressure? Which are issues that the market itself needs to adjust and resolve?

Scott Bessent:

Well, I think we need to do three things. I think you may have discussed this last week, like the three legs of a stool. From an external perspective, you understand it quite well, but I want to refine this point a bit.

David Friedberg:

I was just about to ask you, quickly tell me which of my understandings are correct and which are not.

Scott Bessent:

Okay. Actually, you are quite close in your understanding. First, we need to reduce the massive federal debt and control government spending, but it must be gradual. We cannot cut significantly all at once.

Scott Bessent:

I generally don't like to repeat private conversations with the president, but this matter reflects his thinking well, so I want to share it. When I first went to Mar-a-Lago to see him, as soon as I walked in, he asked me, "Scott, how do we reduce debt and deficits without triggering an economic recession?" This is exactly the problem we are facing now. We need to reduce debt and deficits without triggering a recession. I replied to him, "Sir, once you win the election, this is not your fault. Let's set a goal to bring the deficit back to its long-term average by 2028. We will gradually reduce the size of the deficit."

Chamath Palihapitiya:

The long-term average deficit as a percentage of GDP is about 3% to 3.5%, right?

Scott Bessent:

Yes, 3% to 3.5%. I've always said that the problem in the U.S. is not insufficient tax revenue, but excessive spending. Our tax revenue averages about 18% of GDP, at least for the federal government. The Biden administration has increased the spending ratio to 25%. Normally, the spending as a percentage of GDP is around 21% to 21.5%. Our inflation rate is 2%, the real GDP growth rate is 1.8%, and the nominal GDP growth rate is 3.8%, which is how we can balance the budget. Last week, the head of a sovereign fund from Singapore visited. Can you guess what the government's spending as a percentage of GDP is in Singapore?

David Friedberg:

3%?

Scott Bessent:

They have no deficit, and their spending ratio is 18%. He also mentioned that they have a lot in common with the Trump administration, both leaning towards a small government model, disliking illegal immigration, and valuing personal safety, which I find quite interesting.

David Friedberg:

Sorry, I want to confirm. Cutting government spending is key, but now we have accumulated nearly $30 trillion in debt, and the interest on that debt is continuously increasing. We now have to pay $1.2 trillion in interest each year, which takes up more of the federal government's spending budget, meaning that investments in other federal projects will have to be reduced. So the actual cuts in spending will be much more than originally planned, making it very difficult and painful to reduce debt and deficits. Given the high interest expenses and debt levels, can Congress really take action as we hope to bring the deficit as a percentage of GDP down to target levels?

Scott Bessent:

In this Republican-controlled Congress, I'm not sure what a "deficit hawk" looks like, but I consider myself one. Many Republicans want to quickly reduce the deficit. Two weeks ago, when I spoke with a member of the Congressional Budget Committee, I reminded them that for every $300 billion cut in spending, it equates to a 1% drop in GDP. So we need to proceed steadily, like a plane making a smooth landing.

Scott Bessent:

Exactly, that's the plan I want to focus on today. We have three plans. Plan one is to reduce government debt leverage through spending cuts while streamlining government personnel. On the other hand, we need to relax financial regulations; for a long time, financial regulation has been like putting a straitjacket on the financial industry. After relaxing regulations, the private sector can re-leverage to fill the space left by the government's deleveraging, and those who lost their jobs due to government layoffs will be absorbed by more productive private enterprises

David Friedberg:

It will indeed be like this. Sorry, this is very important. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss these with you today because I often hear people talking about these topics in isolation, neglecting their intrinsic connections. Understanding these connections is crucial for grasping how this government is driving economic recovery, avoiding inflation while ensuring sustainable economic development, and allowing people to achieve the American Dream in feasible ways.

Scott Bessent:

Some measures to address the affordability crisis, if you want to discuss, we can delve deeper later. The current question is, how to lower prices? Egg prices have indeed decreased, but while lowering prices, we also need to increase real wages. Raising workers' real wages brings us back to the relationship between the real economy and the financial economy. Plan two is to readjust the international trade system, bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States and revitalizing the middle class. Using tariffs to prompt other countries to adjust their policies.

David Friedberg:

Creating economic incentives for some industries and supply chains to return to the United States.

Scott Bessent:

Exactly, using tariffs. Additionally, I think there are three other crucial things. First, implementing a low and stable predictable tax policy; second, significantly reducing regulation, as regulation affects private investment; third, ensuring low energy prices.

David Friedberg:

Excuse me, what is the relationship between tax cuts and controlling the deficit as a percentage of GDP between 3% and 3.5%?

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Especially since the Continuing Resolution (CR) has given everyone a "get out of jail free card," we have maintained a $2 trillion spending cap.

Scott Bessent:

Yes, but this takes time. I have only been in this position for seven weeks, and President Trump has only been back in the White House for eight weeks. Many people are dissatisfied with the Continuing Resolution, but a government shutdown is not a good choice politically or economically.

David Friedberg:

Sorry, is the part about tax cuts compensated by tariffs or by cutting government spending?

Scott Bessent:

Tax cuts and deregulation will promote economic growth and increase GDP. If the economic growth rate rises from 1.8% to 3% or even higher, the trajectory of economic development will change. If we can maintain stable spending or boldly cut spending, we can achieve the goal.

David Friedberg:

This is important. Sorry, I want to confirm, if spending decreases and economic growth accelerates, the government's tax revenue as a percentage of GDP can be reduced. I think everyone needs to understand this relationship. Viewed in isolation, tax cuts may reduce government revenue, but if government spending is cut simultaneously, regulations are relaxed, and the international trade model is adjusted, theoretically, it can accelerate U.S. economic growth and increase overall government revenue, even if tax rates are loweredThat's it.

Scott Bessent:

Yes, to be honest, I've been in the investment industry for 35 years, and I used to confidently quote the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scoring results, only to later realize that my understanding of these scores was not thorough. Once you are in government, you will see how unreasonable these scores can be.

David Friedberg:

Indeed...

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Easily manipulated.

David Friedberg:

That's how the system works.

Scott Bessent:

CBO scores are easily manipulated. The most obvious example is that in normal CBO scoring, we say we want to extend existing tax policies, which is just extending the current tax system, but once the existing policies expire, tax rates will revert to the previously higher levels.

Scott Bessent:

However, government spending never needs to be "renewed," it just continues as is. When I think about the logic of how the system operates and collapses, I find that one reason for the expansion of government spending is that people believe spending does not need to revert to its original levels.

David Friedberg:

Government spending does not need to revert. In a democratic system, elected representatives must fight for the interests of their constituents, and if their constituents benefit from government spending, they will demand that their representatives guarantee their interests and even seek more. Every year, there is a group of elected representatives whose main goal is to secure more funding for their constituents. How do we solve this fundamental problem? What do you think?

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Do you think most politicians are trying to secure funding for their constituents?

Scott Bessent:

After all, it's other people's money (OPM, Other People's Money). But they...

David Friedberg:

Danny DeVito starred in a related movie.

Scott Bessent:

Right, but people feel that politicians who can secure benefits for their districts are good politicians. For example, continuing resolutions, many people dislike them, one reason being that they lack earmarks. How dare they do that!

Chamath Palihapitiya:

It's like those "Christmas tree bills" that appear near the end of the year, filled with various add-ons.

David Friedberg:

It does feel a bit...

Chamath Palihapitiya:

We just mentioned deregulation, which is a very important tool, right? How can we increase economic growth rates by 50 to 100 basis points through deregulation? You mentioned lifting financial regulatory constraints; what are the key measures?

Scott Bessent:

We are re-evaluating all banking regulations. Why do these regulations exist? For example, why do banks need to hold 5% or 7% of their funds in U.S. Treasury bonds? Last week, a group of community bank and small bank leaders came to me, and they didn't understand why they had to hold the same amount of capital as large banks like JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, as their businesses are not that complex. One small banker said, "Bank of America does it this way." But Bank of America has trillions of dollars in deposits, while the bank he works for only has $183 million in deposits.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Look at the burdens brought by these regulations, various frameworks like Basel I and Basel II. The result is that to cope with these complex regulations, many related institutions have emerged, but ultimately it has only reduced economic activity.

Scott Bessent:

And speaking of incentives. What is the incentive for regulators? It is to continuously strengthen regulation. They do not care about economic growth or whether it is reasonable.

David Friedberg:

They believe that eliminating all risks is their job.

Chamath Palihapitiya: 34:30

If we were to set a metric to measure the effectiveness of deregulating financial regulations, would it be appropriate to measure it by the lending speed of private lending institutions to encourage the private sector to leverage? Or should we measure it by interest rates?

David Friedberg:

Which metric is appropriate?

Scott Bessent:

It doesn't necessarily have to be interest rates. If we push forward the series of measures mentioned earlier, such as relaxing regulations, lowering energy costs, streamlining government personnel, and cutting government spending, then both interest rates and inflation rates should decline. As for the measurement metric, I think private credit is a good reference. I believe private credit is vibrant and can adapt to market demands.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

It can match the actual needs of businesses.

Scott Bessent:

The strength of the U.S. financial system lies in its depth and breadth. But now a lot of lending has shifted to non-bank financial institutions, which indicates that regulation is excessive. So, one criterion for examination is the lending situation of banks, especially small regional banks and community banks. These small banks and community banks issue 70% of agricultural loans and 40% of small business loans. This is also one of the reasons for the constraints on the development of the real economy.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Can you talk about how to work with the Federal Reserve to promote these financial reforms? Of course, cooperation with Congress is also needed to achieve these changes. Additionally, what are your views on the role of the Federal Reserve in this process? Is it a facilitator or an obstacle?

David Friedberg:

You not only need to work with the Federal Reserve but also need to collaborate with Congress to promote these changes.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

To achieve these changes. Also, generally speaking, what are your views on the role of the Federal Reserve in this process? Is it a help or a hindrance?

Scott Bessent:

I fully support the independence of the Federal Reserve in monetary policy. Although I do not always agree with their policies, that is the reality. I will not comment on future policies, but I can talk about some of the mistakes they have made in the past, and there are quite a few. As the functions of the Federal Reserve continue to expand, I believe some of their practices in regulation, climate policy, diversity and inclusion (DEI), and even certain non-traditional monetary policies may threaten their independence. I hope the Federal Reserve can remain strong, robust, and independent in monetary policy. In terms of regulation, I feel they are too strict in regulating small and medium-sized banks. There are three main banking regulatory agencies in the United States: the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Additionally, there are other regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). At the Treasury, we have the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), of which I am the chair. Through this council and the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (another coordinating mechanism), I will continue to advocate for safe, reasonable, and prudent regulatory relief measures. For example, why should banks face capital costs when purchasing government bonds? If the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR), which is a binding regulation for banks, is removed, U.S. Treasury yields could drop by 30 to 70 basis points, which translates to an annual saving of $1 billion for each basis point.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Can we discuss this issue in detail? I have believed for a year that one major mistake made by Janet Yellen is the continued issuance of short-term government bonds to finance the deficit, which poses significant challenges for the future. In the next nine months, approximately $9 to $10 trillion in government bonds will need to be refinanced. Would you like to discuss this issue?

Scott Bessent:

I think so too. When interest rates were low, the maturity of government bonds should have been adjusted. However, in recent years, the Treasury has shortened the maturity of government bonds. I believe part of the reason is to maintain low interest rates. When interest rates rise to around 5%, I still maintain the current policy because it relates to the issue David mentioned earlier. When will we see the effects of controlling government spending? The market has not fully recognized this yet. People are uncertain about what to believe.

David Friedberg:

The market is indeed uncertain about what to believe. We often hear various different opinions, and there is much debate.

Scott Bessent:

That's right, there is a significant difference in market expectations, and the core viewpoints are unclear. We know there are issues, such as waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending, but it's hard to quantify these problems. Once we can quantify them more accurately, the market will recognize our efforts.

David Friedberg:

Indeed. Returning to my earlier question, how much action does Congress need to take for this administration to keep the deficit as a percentage of GDP between 3% and 3.5%? What are your views on Congress's attitude and ability to act?

Scott Bessent:

There have been many news reports recently about chaos within the Democratic Party, and the media loves to report on such things. But actually, the Republican Party has been very disciplined this time, which I think is largely due to President Trump’s leadership of the party. For example, some said that Mike Johnson would be unable to push through reconciliation procedures with a slim majority, but he did.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

He indeed did.

Scott Bessent:

Others said he wouldn't be able to pass a clean continuing resolution, but he did that too. Now it depends on the progress of the budget proposal. We need Congress to work with us on budget issues. Both the House and the Senate are aware that if this issue is not resolved, the consequences will be unimaginable, equivalent to the largest tax increase in history.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

So what's going on with DOGE?

Scott Bessent:

DOGE is the plan to cut spending. This is the first time business people are involved, unlike the Clinton-Gore era committees, which were mostly made up of business school professors.

David Friedberg:

This time, there are real CEOs involved, like Lutnick, Bergen, and Elon Musk. There are many experienced practitioners in this administration's cabinet who can find ways to save taxpayer money while ensuring the government works effectively.

Scott Bessent:

That's right, but there are also some difficulties. A few days ago, we held a cryptocurrency committee meeting, and I, Secretary Lutnick, and Kelly Loeffler all attended; we are all professionals in the market field. On DOGE, I fully support Elon Musk's approach. But some say, is it really necessary to rush? I've only been here for eight weeks, and in this position for seven weeks. But I can tell you, if we don't act quickly, vested interests will obstruct reform, like being stuck in quicksand. Everyone has their lobbyists; think about it, within this 10-mile radius, 25% of America's GDP flows every day, and everyone wants to get a piece of it. I told Elon in a meeting that people are unhappy with you because you moved their "cheese," but that cheese isn't theirs; it's the American people's.

David Friedberg:

Every penny spent by the government goes into the pockets of certain individuals, who will do everything to protect their interests and keep the money flowing into their pockets. Elon is in a tough spot; every time he takes action, there will be opposition, and the media will distort the reports. Reforms will harm the interests of some organizations, and it will take time for these individuals to reintegrate into the private economy. Right now, everyone only sees the negative impact of spending cuts, but they do not see the future benefits. These benefits will only become apparent after 9 months, 12 months, or even 15 months. For most people, the cognitive dissonance caused by this time lag is hard to reconcile.

Scott Bessent:

Indeed, there are several issues. As soon as people hear about spending cuts, they worry that government services will be affected. But I have always emphasized that this is to improve government efficiency, not to cut government functions or eliminate government departments. We need to think about how to make the government operate better with fewer personnel and costs. I do not want to belittle any federal government employee; the people working in this building are of high quality, and I would want to hire them in private companies; they are all excellent public servants. For example, if I need to complete a 25-page memorandum over the weekend, they can do it with high quality within 72 hours. I believe that after the reforms are completed, there will be two major outcomes: one is to save on contractor expenses.

David Friedberg:

We were just discussing this issue.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

There is a shocking statistic. Someone told me, but I cannot disclose the specific company name, that one organization took 98% of the relevant revenue.

Scott Bessent:

It has been reported in the newspapers; it is Booz Allen Hamilton.

David Friedberg:

We were discussing this matter at that time. Then looking at the data from other companies, the whole situation...

Scott Bessent:

What kind of risk management is this? It shows that they are not managing risk at all, and it demonstrates how entrenched these interest groups are.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

They believe their position is secure, which is very advantageous for them.

Scott Bessent:

It is indeed very advantageous. Moreover, in practice, contracts can only be signed for a maximum of 6 months as per regulations, but some people's contracts have been signed for 46 months, and some have been in the same position for 20 years; it is unbelievable. This whole...

David Friedberg:

I am glad the government is being transparent about these issues. Even just letting the public see these situations is very important for taxpayers and the citizens of this country, helping everyone recognize and understand the seriousness of these issues. I am glad these issues are being addressed. But

Scott Bessent:

As long as the public wants to know, they can see this information.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

That's what I was going to ask next. If certain forces hinder reform and slow down the process, some say that the only way to cut spending is to start with social security and other welfare programs. Do you think that's the case?

Scott Bessent:

I don't think the American public will agree to cut these welfare programs. There may be some differing opinions in the Northeast, but from national polling data, people in other regions do not want reform to stagnate, and this administration will not stop reform. The courts are also obstructing, with judges demanding that all laid-off employees be reinstated. But we are acting quickly, and once we start announcing some real cases and promoting the results of the reforms, the situation will change. I will talk about these soon. There is a department closely related to everyone that has a customer service hotline that operates 24/7 every year, with the same number of staff on Christmas Eve as on April 14th (the U.S. tax deadline).

David Friedberg:

By the way, that department is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which has always been controversial. Theoretically, for every dollar invested in the IRS, there should be a $3 return in tax revenue, but that's not the case in reality. What I want to illustrate is that the federal government can collect taxes without wasting funds.

Scott Bessent:

Well, if I say we need to cut spending while also cutting the IRS budget (the IRS is overseen by the Treasury), that would be very much in line with Trump's style. My three goals are simple: increase tax revenue, protect privacy, and improve customer service.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Research shows that there are currently four or five companies capable of doing this; if the entire federal tax law data is input into an AI model, it can provide reliable tax filing services for Americans, ensuring no waste, fraud, or abuse of taxes. This would significantly reduce the burden of tax filing for people. Some say that sometimes people are audited for political reasons.

Scott Bessent:

It's not just a perception; it is indeed the case. On Tuesday, we made a significant announcement, inviting 200 whistleblowers from the Biden administration who revealed a lot about who gets audited and who doesn't. They will participate in investigations related to the IRS in this building, clarifying the triggers for audits and how political persecution occurs, striving to change the culture of the IRS. In fact, 99% of IRS employees are good, just like in other government agencies, but there are some bad apples.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Exactly. But as you said, technology can provide reliable assurance for American citizens. For example, if the model shows that I owe $1,000 in taxes, then that's the amount, and I don't have to worry about adjusting it. With such software, everything is clear

David Friedberg:

Returning to the topic of welfare programs. Last week I talked about Social Security on a podcast. The Social Security Fund has a surplus of $2.7 trillion, but in reality, it's just a pile of non-tradable U.S. Treasury bonds. Should the Social Security Fund invest in the S&P 500 or stocks? Why not turn the Social Security Fund into a sovereign wealth fund to invest in the future of all Americans?

Scott Bessent:

The ideal is rich, but the reality is thin. George W. Bush once tried to privatize Social Security. I heard you mention data tracing back to 1971, and it should be around $15 trillion or $16 trillion now; the fund size has certainly grown significantly since Bush's attempt at reform. If the reform had succeeded back then, we wouldn't be facing these issues now. But now we can only face reality. For Social Security, perhaps we can replan; if we can establish a sovereign wealth fund, there are also many philanthropists focused on "baby bonds." If we could set up some kind of investment account for newborns, running parallel to Social Security, it could achieve compounded wealth growth and also serve as a safety net.

David Friedberg:

But currently, the money in the Social Security Fund is all invested in U.S. Treasury bonds. This is actually an opportunity, not only to improve returns but also to allow Americans to participate in the development of the U.S. economy, making current Americans aware that they can benefit from the economic growth of the U.S., rather than lending their retirement funds to the federal government for daily expenses. This could bring about significant change. I'm not sure if the two need to be completely independent, but I think this is a great opportunity.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Are you interested in the idea of establishing a sovereign wealth fund?

Scott Bessent:

I am very interested. President Trump has his own plans for everything he does; although the process may be tortuous, the goal is clear. He wants to be the first president in generations to create assets for the American people rather than debt. He wants to reduce debt and then create assets for the people through means such as establishing a sovereign wealth fund.

Scott Bessent:

There is now a lot of discussion about economic cooperation with Ukraine, and the benefits generated from these cooperations could also be included in the sovereign wealth fund. The government has a large stake in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Once Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac end their conservatorship, how should these shares be handled?

Scott Bessent:

How should they be handled? Doug Burgum established a mechanism similar to a state sovereign wealth fund when he was governor of North Dakota. North Dakota has a population of about 700,000 to 900,000, and the fund size is $2.5 billion

Chamath Palihapitiya:

There is also the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Scott Bessent:

Yes, the Alaska Permanent Fund. But the funding for these funds mainly comes from natural resource revenues. A few days ago, when the President announced the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund in the Oval Office, he asked me to share some thoughts. I said at the time that we need to activate the assets on the balance sheet and also revalue gold. However, today I can clarify that we will not be revaluing gold for the time being. But Doug Burgum (Secretary of the Interior) and other department heads are looking for assets that can be activated. For example, energy leasing projects, the federal government owns a lot of land in urban areas, going back to the housing shortage issue, can we utilize the land around cities like Utah and Nevada?

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Do you think there will be a wave of privatization? This could help repay deficits and debts, and...

David Friedberg:

An important point for me is, why put assets into a sovereign wealth fund instead of using them to pay off debt? Can you explain the financial logic behind this?

Scott Bessent:

Because you expect to achieve higher returns, right?

David Friedberg:

As long as the return rate is higher than the current debt interest rate, that's fine.

Scott Bessent:

I don't usually pay much attention to these figures, but the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond is currently 4.28%.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Can we exceed this yield?

Scott Bessent:

Can we do better? Of course. With the efforts of the current team and cabinet members, we are forming a research group for the sovereign wealth fund to learn best practices. We are communicating with people around the world, including investment experts and heads of other large sovereign wealth funds, and we want to make this fund a great endeavor.

David Friedberg:

Over the weekend, Dan Lobe mentioned that Australia's superannuation funds have 30 fund managers, and the fund size is about the same as the U.S. Social Security Fund, both around $30 trillion, but Australia's population is only 7% of that of the U.S.

Scott Bessent:

That's incredible. It's truly astonishing. I previously communicated with a sovereign wealth fund in the Middle East, and when I mentioned oil revenues, they said there hasn't been new funding injected into the fund for 20 years.

David Friedberg:

Why is the U.S. doing so poorly in this regard? **The U.S. has used surplus funds to invest in the future and build infrastructure. Why haven't we adopted the successful models of other countries, where their citizens have better security, while we are lagging behind?**

Scott Bessent: 56:54

I think it's because we have always viewed the Social Security Fund as merely a safety net, rather than a means to promote prosperity.

David Friedberg: 57:03

The Old Age and Survivor's Disability Insurance Fund under the Social Security system is like that, right?

Chamath Palihapitiya:

You have mentioned several times that cheap energy is a key part of the overall plan. What mistakes have we made regarding energy that have led to uncontrolled energy prices? What can we do to ensure that the marginal cost of energy approaches zero?

Scott Bessent:

The biggest challenge right now is how to get the private sector to be willing to invest in projects that may not yield returns for 5 to 10 years. Moreover, with frequent government changes, policies lack coherence, shifting from one approach to another. We are working hard to address these issues.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

This is a very subtle but important issue. We have active tax credits and transferable markets that make many institutions willing to make long-term investments of 5 to 10 years. Although the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has many issues, it has played a positive role in stabilizing market expectations for specific investment tax credits (ITC) and transfer terms. There is a report, which you may have seen, from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stating that as of December, over 90% of new electricity in the U.S. comes from energy projects utilizing these ITC credits and transfer terms. So, we need to carefully balance to ensure... but the situation is more complex regarding tax policy and fossil fuel regulation.

Scott Bessent:

Tax policy is manageable, but fossil fuel regulation involves many states and requires more approval processes. In contrast, the approval for solar, wind, and geothermal projects is somewhat easier.

David Friedberg:

And we need to address...

Scott Bessent:

Nuclear energy is definitely an important component of future energy, but it is difficult to realize in the short term.

David Friedberg:

We need to solve supply chain and regulatory issues.

Scott Bessent:

Exactly, we need to solve supply chain and regulatory issues. We need to determine the development model. Some say you two might know more about nuclear energy than I do; I’ve heard...

Chamath Palihapitiya:

I have a conflicted attitude towards nuclear energy. In fact, I don't dislike nuclear energy; I just think it needs about 10 more years to mature. For some people, investing in nuclear energy now is not a good choice

David Friedberg:

Don't listen to him.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

For them, nuclear energy is not an investable project yet.

Scott Bessent:

Hmm...

David Friedberg:

But the key is that when nuclear energy becomes an investable project, it means we have solved the related issues.

Scott Bessent:

That's right. But currently, nuclear energy lacks investment attractiveness, which requires government intervention.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Indeed. I completely agree. During the transitional phase of technological development, the government needs to play a bridging role.

Scott Bessent:

We need to engage in time arbitrage to make up for the time lag in technological development. Moreover, for small modular reactors, it is said that they need to be built in concentration to achieve economies of scale. But finding people willing to do this is not easy.

David Friedberg:

Before we wrap up, let me ask you one last question. Since you became Secretary of the Treasury, what has surprised you the most?

Scott Bessent:

National security matters have surprised me. I now spend 40% to 50% of my work time on national security-related issues, such as reviewing transactions of foreigners purchasing U.S. assets (CFIUS), implementing sanctions (OFAC), anti-money laundering, etc. We just designated the Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Last weekend, President Trump launched a fierce missile attack on the Houthis.

Scott Bessent:

Prior to this, we had spent several weeks investigating the bank accounts of the Houthis and their affiliates. Iran supports the Houthis, and previous actions by the Treasury severely disrupted their funding support system, so now Iran can only pay them in cash or directly give them a tanker to sell. We have the capability to cut off their funding sources.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

When you go home and chat with your kids and spouse, there must be moments when you think, "This job is so cool." Is there anything interesting you can share with us to give us a sense of the uniqueness of your job?

Scott Bessent:

There are many such moments. For example, after the presidential inauguration, I asked President Trump to let my family tour the White House and take a photo. We sat in the Oval Office, with my 11-year-old daughter, my spouse, and my 15-year-old son. President Trump had a great time chatting with them. Then he suddenly said, "Scott, while you're here, I'll call in two other people, and we'll discuss something." The kids witnessed the government decision-making process live

Scott Bessent:

I have to say, the scene of President Trump, Vice President Pence, and President Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office was truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I hope there won't be such meetings in the future (referring to tense diplomatic situations). I was sitting in the front row, witnessing history. I was on the sofa with Vice President Pence and Secretary Rubio, watching President Zelensky... I think his performance at that time was one of the biggest blunders in diplomatic history.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

You made a very accurate comment on TV. You were there on site, trying to negotiate with him, and from your description, the atmosphere was tense, and the arguments were intense.

Scott Bessent:

Yes, the arguments were loud. For the past 35 years, my job has been outside the conference room, trying to understand leaders' decisions and predicting the impact of those decisions on the market. Now I am sitting in the conference room, participating in decision-making, thinking, "What should we do? What can we do? What impact will this have on the market and the real economy? What impact will it have on the average American worker?" It feels wonderful, both exciting and a bit nerve-wracking.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

So how do we solve the problem of high living costs?

Scott Bessent:

We need to analyze the problem in depth and then find solutions. For example, is there a problem in the insurance market? What can we do? I have worked in the home construction industry, and for the past 50 or even 60 years, there has been almost no progress in home construction technology; some building codes are still at the level they were after the Great Chicago Fire. Can we innovate in housing classification? Right now, it's just traditional brick-and-wood structures and modular buildings; is there something in between? The more prefabricated and modular buildings there are, the higher the standardization, the lower the cost, and the faster the construction speed. From Washington D.C. to Bethesda and Potomac, if adjacent communities belong to different municipal areas, there will be different building codes; this is not a zoning issue but a difference in building codes. Why should the construction standards of houses be different when they are adjacent? Can the federal government provide some guidance to encourage factory production, which would lower costs and speed up construction?

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Is this pressure or influence something you can exert? You mentioned San Francisco before, where local zoning regulations have restricted housing supply, leading to high housing prices. But it's unclear how to break this restriction. Should it rely on local people to push for local policy reforms? How do we solve this problem to match housing supply with demand? It would be great if many places could increase housing supply.

Scott Bessent:

In fact, there are many successful experiences in various places that can be referenced. I lived for a while in Greenwich, Connecticut, which is probably one of the wealthiest suburbs in the United States. There are many high-quality multi-family homes there, as well as some affordable housing. Connecticut has enacted a law requiring each municipal area to allocate 10% of idle land for the construction of multi-family housingIf the zoning planning committee does not accept the construction application, developers or non-profit housing organizations can bypass the committee and apply directly to the state government (Hartford), which has the authority to approve construction. No town wants the state government to interfere in its affairs, so now each town will actively negotiate to resolve housing construction issues.

I think there are many similar things that can be done. For example, in terms of insurance, I have been thinking about what the federal government can do for California. In California, people must first purchase homeowners insurance, and then there is reinsurance. There is a reinsurance company in California called "Fair Access to Insurance Requirements" (FAIR). Is it possible to introduce more private funding on top of these insurances? If the federal government intervenes as the fifth layer of risk, can it require changes to some regulations, such as standardizing building codes and clearing brush?

David Friedberg:

Change building codes.

Scott Bessent:

Yes, change building codes and also change material choices.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Change the choice of building materials.

David Friedberg:

Exactly, that makes sense.

Scott Bessent:

Right. So I think if we...

David Friedberg:

Obviously, when it comes to the cost of living, energy is a key factor.

Scott Bessent:

Energy costs are indeed critical. But the cost of transporting food from the source to grocery stores and the prices of all petroleum products are also affected by energy. I think we can take measures in these areas. There is actually a lot that can be done, and it shouldn't be too difficult. About 10 days from now, we will release a report on the cost of living. Experts in the supply chain field will participate to find some quick solutions. Returning to the previous question, besides inflation, the high cost of living is also a significant factor causing anxiety. How can we reduce the cost of living?

David Friedberg:

For those concerned about climate change and carbon-free energy, I want to say that in the U.S., the most effective way to reduce energy production costs is to develop low-carbon or carbon-free alternative energies, which are actually cheaper than building new traditional energy plants, and the pace of development is accelerating. I don't know how much this government values this relationship, but in my view, if we can unleash energy production capacity, production costs will decrease, and the economy will transition smoothly.

Scott Bessent:

Achieve economic transformation. I think we shouldn't be too dogmatic. Look at the Biden administration's policies on electric vehicles (EVs); I personally have an electric vehicle, and I feel quite reluctant to part with it when the lease expires. I also have a hybrid vehicle that I only fill up about three times a year. But the Biden administration is heavily suppressing hybrid vehicles, believing they do not meet the so-called "environmental standards."

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Their "taking sides" approach leaves many people puzzled.

Scott Bessent:

And...

David Friedberg: 01:10:26

I think cheap energy can solve many problems, right?

Scott Bessent:

I think so too. Cheap energy is also about energy security. Europe is a prime example; they are constrained by energy issues. Russia hasn't stalled due to energy shortages because they have ample energy.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Today, we are in a fierce competition regarding technological hegemony, and artificial intelligence is a key area, with a huge demand for energy. So, if we can't consider these issues comprehensively and find ways to reduce the marginal cost of energy to zero, whatever we do, we need to establish corresponding incentive mechanisms to integrate all factors.

David Friedberg:

Exactly, without energy, we cannot develop manufacturing, nor can we meet the energy needs for artificial intelligence computing.

Scott Bessent:

Right. We can't exploit labor like some other countries do, so we must lower energy prices.

Chamath Palihapitiya:

Absolutely right. In the Oval Office, what misconceptions do outsiders have about the president, and what is the reality? What do people know, and what don't they know?

Scott Bessent:

Let's put it this way, many foreign leaders visit. I know someone from the entourage of one of those leaders. Later, he approached me, amazed, saying, "President Trump is so smart; he remembers clearly what happened in their country 30 years ago." The president indeed has an exceptional memory; he listens carefully, observes people's reactions, and demonstrates outstanding leadership. Moreover, although he has a tough attitude, there was a time when we were discussing an issue, and I mentioned it might lead to some job losses, and he immediately said, "Then we need to find a way to solve this problem." I always say he sees himself as the "mayor" of America, taking care of 330 million people.

David Friedberg:

He wants to be friendly with everyone and cares about each individual. Whether you are Elon Musk or a worker trimming flowers in the Rose Garden, in his eyes, you are all his constituents.

David Friedberg:

Very good. Scott, thank you very much for taking the time to be interviewed. It has been a pleasure talking to you, and we appreciate your sharing. Thank you for your service to the country and fulfilling your duties as Secretary of the Treasury. Thank you. Thank you very much