Secretary Bessant, it's uh wonderful to

see you.

Before we maybe deep dive into AI, do

you want to give us um the highlevel

update on the 333 plan? How are things

going? Um you you had an incredible

clip, by the way, with Maria Bardomo

where you talked about some of the

things that were happening economically.

Maybe just level set everybody on what's

going on. So just just for good framing

during the campaign IDA 333 plan

>> I think his microphone's off. Can we get

the microphone on for Scott? Test test

>> test.

>> There it is.

>> Okay, good. So I had a plan that I I

called 333. And the idea was to get the

budget deficit, which was running about

6.7%

of GDP under the Biden administration,

high highest that we'd ever had when we

weren't at war or in a recession down to

3% uh 3 plus% economic growth on a

persistent basis and to create 3 million

more barrels of energy equivalent. So

oil and gas um before President Trump

leaves office and look we're full speed

ahead. Uh we had the first June was the

first positive

June for the Treasury since 2015. We

actually had a surplus

and

we we did that in a good way. We took

took in more revenues, some from

tariffs, and we brought down spending.

And when when I think about what we can

do here that what I'm really excited

about is the idea uh you know with AI

that we can go back to the paradigm

when I I was younger in the '9s. Allan

Greenspan was able to run the economy

very hot

>> in the 90s and because of you know it

was the IT boom and we had this very uh

powerful non-inflationary growth and I

think that there that it's highly likely

we could have that now and so that kind

of growth would bring down the deficit

very quickly.

you uh there's been a lot of talk today

about the amount of capex spending that

needs to go into AI and all of the jobs

that it creates and you uh posted as

well actually a couple days ago and you

talked about that there's just been an

inflection point that you've seen in

capex spending sort of as a steward of

the US economy. Can you tell us about

what what's happening?

>> So it it's com combination and it's a

barbells. So, uh, I I've been in

Pittsburgh twice in the past four weeks.

Four weeks ago, I went with President

Trump when he announced the US Steel

Nippon Steel deal, substantial

investment by Nippon Steel into an old

very important industry. And then last

week on Tuesday, there there was an A AI

summit in in Pittsburgh, all the big

players. And Pit Pixsburg is a natural

location uh for AI. Uh lot lots of cheap

energy. Carnegie Melon Pit uh are there.

And so it was very interesting to see

the juxiposition there. But we are

seeing uh this incredible capex. The

hyperscalers are have obviously been in

an arms race kind of you know the big

five the big seven. We estimate that

that is approximately 1% of GDP a year.

>> Wow.

>> So $300 billion.

>> Wow.

>> That's being spent on AI. And in my

perfect world, which never happens, uh,

we would go through this big capex boom

and then sometime in 26, the capex boom

would hand off to a productivity boom. M

>> I mean it's an incredible thing because

it's sort of you mentioned alluded to

this a little bit earlier but it does

violate a lot of economic theory in the

sense that it just hasn't had the

negative pernicious effects. Do you

think is that is that a yet thing or do

you think that we're in a structurally

different kind of economy now?

>> You mean the AI boom?

>> Yeah.

>> Well look we we've seen uh throughout

history that technology can can drive

these things. If you go back, I'll talk

about the ones I was around for. I was

not around for the railroads, but eight

18, but I I used to teach economic

history. 1880s, 1890s, the the railroads

made it 10 times faster to cross the

United States. We had this incredible

productivity boom. It was the gi

gigantic GDP growth and it was

disinflationary. So imagine you're

having doubledigit GDP numbers and

inflation was -2 -3 -4%

just cuz the costs were coming down.

Then in the 1980s

uh under Reagan we had what I would call

a deregulatory

boom because hard for anyone everyone in

this room to remember but everything

used to be regulated. you know, price of

airline tickets, the uh te telephone

bills, uh banking services. So, uh 1980s

we had a deregulatory boom, you know,

Paul Vulkar brought down inflation, but

it was also the deregulation.

1990s which I previously mentioned we

had had a

electronic buildup and then finally it

kicked in especially in office work um

and that led to a big productivity boom

and we paid down paid down the national

debt right

>> you know I mean

>> had a surplus

>> we we had a we we had a surplus and I

mean it it seems crazy I found a paper

the other a that people were wondering,

well, what are we going to do if there

aren't any government bonds?

>> But we didn't have the

>> But we fixed that. There are plenty of

government bonds. But I I I do think

there's a chance now that we could have

this growth acceleration

and I if I'm shooting for 3%, but I I

can tell you the trajectory of the debt

path really changes. And if we can also

uh have lower interest rates because

it's non-inflationary

and I I I think the Fed's going to have

to be open to this idea.

>> So let me ask two questions on that. The

first is at that the examples you gave

we didn't have some of the tariff that

since we last talked several of these

trade deals have been negotiated out

further. You have better clarity

probably on what the tariff rates are

going to be. what do you estimate the

dampening effects on the growth rate to

be if any associated with the tariffs in

those trade deals and uh second is love

to hear your point of view on the

Chinese report of s selling half of

their US treasuries and where's the

market for treasuries going to kind of

fall over time here so two parts

>> uh so um

>> to address the interest rate

>> yeah so I I think that

um in terms of the well I I'll I'll take

the second one first. Uh we we expect

that that the Chinese will slowly

divest, but that with the passage of the

genius legislation last week, I I think

that we could see several trillion

dollars of demand for T bills because

the way the legislation works, it it's

under 90 days. And I I think that that's

really going to lock in the US dollar in

terms of uh

you know individuals on the street in

whether you know it's it's Nigeria qual

are are going to be using stable

USbacked stable coins and if I think

about the alternative

um you know if you think about a central

bank digital currency

China

Euro or ECB or even Canada. You know, a

lot of you will remember during COVID,

the Canadian government, they didn't

like what some truckers were doing and

they seized and froze their bank

account. So, with a central bank digital

currency, you could put out a mean

tweet. Not that any of you are,

>> but if if you put out a mean,

>> no one up here is known for doing that

>> ever. uh uh that

if you have a government backed then

they they can shut you down as opposed

to this kind of unbridled

uh choice that consumers are going to

have for US dollar stable coins.

>> And on the first question about growth

rates being hampered by tariffs, is is

the revenue you're seeing offsetting

effectively the rates?

>> We we we haven't seen that yet. And I I

think there's a good chance that we

could see. So if we think about China,

so chi China's are you China has a high

tariff rate. It's 30%. The Chinese

business model is like the the brooms

and the water buckets from Fantasia.

They they just keep they they just keep

going. And it's an it's an employment

agency.

>> I'm thinking of the song. I know the the

piece. Yeah. A and it's an employment a

so they they will just keep cutting

costs to uh maintain market share. So so

we haven't seen that thus far and a lot

of the other foreign producers have cut

cut price to maintain market share. A

lot of the US companies have eaten into

their margins to maintain market share.

And then but the other thing we're

seeing is the tariffs are creating the

onshoring.

>> So you might have seen can't remember

whether it was yesterday the day before

Astroenica said that they were going to

build

>> 50 billion

>> 50 billion

>> incredible

>> plant here. So we're seeing this this

big onshoring move that I think can

accelerate all that. So yeah, I I think

there's a very good chance that we see

just like with AI, we're seeing now

we're in the construction boom phase,

then we're going to be in the use case,

right?

>> I I think we could have this massive

construction boom

>> and then the factories get populated.

And part of the President Trump's one

big beautiful bill, the most powerful

part of that is the 100% immediate

expensing,

>> right,

>> of equipment, and we also did it for

factories. So, not only are we trying to

make the US the the best destination

regulatorywise,

we're also making it tax-wise. So, you

you can immediately write off all the

equipment for the next 5 years. You're

going to be able to write off the

factory structure and I I saw

Secretaries Bergamman right and we're

going to have cheap energy. Yeah.

>> Which seems like a pretty good

combination. Should the Fed remain

independent?

>> Sorry,

>> the Fed, should it remain independent?

Should uh Trump replace the Fed chair?

You know, you guys seem a bit frustrated

with him. Uh what are your thoughts

there? Because you guys have done such a

good job in terms of the confidence in

the markets. CPI went up a little bit in

June and it does seem like the economy

is very strong and people are very

confident. So then poly market is

showing no rate cut is the most likely

case in September. So how do you think

about the Fed? Well, I I think if you if

you look that the Fed publishes

something called the summary of economic

projections and it's it's pretty

politically biased. Uh but we're we're

seeing that we could see one two rate

cuts this year and I think that once we

see o over the next one two months that

the tariffs haven't been inflationary

and you I I have breakfast with chair

Powell almost every week and you know I

just keep saying that a one-time price

level increase is very different than

the notion of a persistent inflationary

spiral. I think that you uh we used to

say TDS was Trump derangement syndrome.

I now say TDS is tariff derangement

syndrome,

>> right?

>> And when you think about it, the market

crashed, then it had the fastest

recovery in history over a 54-day

period. We're back at a new high. So I

think the market's looking through all

this to next year with the productivity

boom. And to to the question,

I think minimum on a forward 12-month

basis, we're going to take in at least

$300 billion in tariff income.

>> Yeah. Are they punishing you in a way

for maybe the roll out of the tariffs

was uh a little bit shock and awe or a

little bit uh effervescent, however you

want to describe it. It was pretty

intense. Is the Fed sort of punishing

you for that in your mind?

>> Uh, no. I I think that they're they're

just stuck in in an old way of thinking.

>> How much should they cut? What should

they How should they think?

>> Uh, look, I'm only going to talk about

the mistakes they made, not the mistakes

they're going to make. Um, but the the I

I I I do think at a at a point they're

just going to have to kind of admit that

they have have been wrong because if if

you think about it, I don't believe that

a tariff is a consumption tax.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> But if tomorrow we put on a 1%

consumption tax, you would never say

that's 1% inflation.

>> That's right.

>> Right.

So I I am I am hoping that in their

infinite wisdom that the I can't

remember it's 350

PhD economists which I I said on TV it

was either yesterday or the day before.

My worry is that the Fed is turning into

universal basic income for PhD

economist.

>> Right? That I I don't I don't know what

they do. They're never right. If you if

you were to

>> maybe you should double the number of

PhDs if you go to 700 they might get it

right. Well, well, look, I I mean, if

you were to look at the central value

tendency ver versus how they've done it,

it's shocking. It's shocking. I said

like if air traffic controllers had did

this, no one would get in an airplane.

>> They do seem to put a little tail on

everything.

>> Last the last question maybe as we wrap

this up. Secretary as a economic

historian maybe just very briefly tell

us the lessons of these previous

economic expansions technological booms

what we need to learn from those things

whether it was railroads or whether it

was the agrarian revolution or the

industrial revolution so that we don't

screw up the AI revolution what are the

few critical things we need to do right

>> well I I think the most important thing

that that we are doing is getting out of

the way and setting

the the conditions for it because

I I would say one of the surprises that

I I've had and I've had a lot of them

when I went from civilian to a public

servant has been that in the US we've

made it so hard to build things.

>> Right. Right.

>> And it's just very frustrating. I'm I'm

sure Doug Doug and Chris will talk about

it, but this idea

TSMC wants to build a gigantic fab

system in Arizona and I I think it might

be able to prod produce up to 7% of the

chips that the United States needs. and

they're dealing with local building

inspectors who said and you know

evidently like the these chip design

plants are moving so quickly. You know

you you're constantly calling an audible

and you're saying well like

3 months ago it looked like this but in

18 months we've now decided it needs to

look like this. And you you've got

someone saying well you said the pipe

was going to be there not there. we're

shutting you down.

>> So, a and you know just the level of

permitting we always talk about how I I

think I may have even talked about it on

your podcast how Germany had

de-industrialized,

>> right?

>> We even made the decision to

de-industrialize

>> through our environmental regulations.

And I think the most important thing we

can do is make it easy to build things

again and uh stay out of the way and not

overregulate.

>> Secretary, thank you. Thank you very

much.

>> Thank you guys for being here. I know

it's been uh a rushed afternoon. We did

not expect

the uh uh the incredible turnout that

we've had, but thank you both. Um,

you're the chair and the vice chair of

the National Energy Dominance Council.

We've talked at length today about the

boom underway in AI. Uh, we've talked

about this on the podcast. The US energy

production capacity, electricity

production capacity is about a terowatt

today, growing to an estimated 2

terowatt by 2040. China's going from 3

to 8. They're adding in America every 18

months. Um, maybe you guys could just

give us an update on the National Energy

Dominance Council, how that work is

going to try and accelerate energy

production in the United States to help

enable this AI boom.

>> Well, h happy to do that. And I just

want to say again, thanks to the all-in

for pulling together this amazing uh

team

>> and Hillen Valley.

>> Yes.

>> And Hillen Valley, too. Thanks,

Christian. uh we uh when when we look

back on this day when historians look

back on uh the the the challenge of our

times which is like the summit called

winning the AI arms race I think one of

the things they're going to dis conclude

is that the reason why the United States

won the AI arms race was because of

President Trump and and I'm not saying

that as a political statement. I'm

saying that the policy of the Trump

administration is more energy fast and

an understanding of how important it is

uh for the AI arms race. And so with

that, as you've just outlined, we've got

a huge challenge ahead of us. Uh you

know, China uh is deploying everything.

I mean, they added 94 gawatts of coal

last year. 1 gawatt's Denver. Uh they're

60 over 60% of their power is still

coming from coal. They're just pouring

uh pouring that on. The Wall Street

Journal ran an article yesterday talking

about what a great job that China was

doing with EVs and with solar. I read

the whole article. They never mentioned

coal. It's twothirds of their electrical

power. And and so then just by

definition, I mean twothirds of the the

EV cars in China should have a bumper

sticker that says powered by coal. Uh so

they are this is a we're in a race of

our lifetime. They're also doing

nuclear. They're doing hydro. They've

got no permitting issues. I mean they

build a hydro dam. It'd be like the

equivalent of us putting a dam on the

Grand Canyon what they were doing on the

Yang Sea. So we've got real competition.

We can lead in technology but we haven't

been leading on electric production. So,

the National Energy Dominance Council,

part of the job that Chris and I have is

helping through cut red tape, uh,

produce more electricity, whether it's

hydro, geothermal, nuclear, uh, and and

and, and of course, LG, natural gas is a

key part of this. And then bringing back

coal and making sure that we stop

shutting down base load in America, uh,

has been a key part of what we're doing.

>> Yeah. And he's just to riff off that

where United States gets electricity

today in order natural gas by far then

nuclear then coal those three sources

are 75% of US electricity and 90% of

what matters which is electricity that's

there whether the sun's shining or the

wind is blowing. Um but we had in the

previous administration's plans to

remove three and a half gawatts of hydro

power. We're going to stop that. There's

plans between now and 2030 to close to

close a 100 gigawatts of power plants.

100 gigawatts. Um and we're stopping

most all that. Yeah. Just I I see the

head nodding. Right. If we need to add a

hundred after the meetings they had this

morning, I think it's more than 100

gigawatts in the next five or seven

years. The first thing to do is stop

subtracting 100 at the same time you

want to add a hundred. Um but I think

America became great by big bold people

making big bold investments. That's

where we got here. And then we've just

drifted off track the last bunch of

years and made it so hard to build

something so easy to stop something and

just a crazy love affair with

intermittent unreliable energy sources.

>> You're talking about solar. Why are you

so down on solar? This is the cheapest

thing you can install. Batteries are

here and they're being produced at a

incredible rate. Why Why are we so

anti-olar?

>> Or why are you so anti-olar?

>> Oh, I'm not anti- solar. So why do you

keep saying then that like this

unreliable solar if you put batteries on

it it's totally reliable

>> if you take all the batteries in the

United States you could store 5 minutes

of power 5 minutes

>> of the entire country but if we've had

many days in California and in Texas

where solar has been the majority of it

so why are you so down on solar

>> it it can be the majority on a sunny day

in the summertime that's not what

matters you in PJM where we are right

now at peak demand this year 97% % of

electricity, wind, solar, and batteries

delivered 3%. That's when it matters. If

you're 20%

>> cherry picking DC, you're cherrypicking

DC. Let's talk about California and

Texas. These are very voluous states in

terms of population.

>> Absolutely. Let's talk Texas. So, the

peak demand times in Texas have been

cold spells, low they're high pressure

systems in the wintertime. Yep. Wind and

solar go on vacation. They're 35% of the

capacity in Texas, 8% of the delivered

power at peak demand.

>> Talking about 2 weeks. I live in Texas.

>> Yeah, but those are the two weeks that

matter, right?

>> No, the other 50 are the ones that

matter actually. But sure,

>> in in in in Yuri when they weren't

ready, over 200 people died. We we don't

want people to die. We want the lights

to go on when people need them. And and

it's the system cost that matters. If

you're not there at game time, all you

are is a parasite on the systems that is

there.

>> Let me redirect this uh back to AI

because um

>> Good idea.

>> Good idea. So

if you if you actually forecast the

growth of just the servers and then the

robots and all of these things

um we're going to need terowatts and

terowatts that's on one side and so the

obvious solution would be to build right

to drill to do what we need to do and

then on the other side is this latent

fear that some people have that this

will somehow upset the apple cart

sustainability the climate etc. How do

we create the logical bridge so that

people really understand that this is

all possible that this is not going to

destroy the earth and that we can get

this abundant energy especially because

as you guys have said very well if we

don't do it and somebody else has

marginal costless energy they will de

facto win. So how how do we frame the

argument so that people can understand

this better? Yeah, I've been writing and

talking about that for 20 years and and

you're 100% right. And to me, it comes

down to the same thing AI is focused on,

which is on data and facts. We've

increased atmospheric CO2 by 50%, 100%.

It absorbs infrared radiation. It's been

a force for warming. That's all true,

but if you look at the trade-offs on it,

it's not in the top five problems the

planet focuses. And what has been the

biggest source of decarbonization, not

just in the United States, but globally,

has been market forces. Cheap natural

gases, displaced coal, and and what

what's what's a lower carbon energy

source? Nuclear. That's on all the time.

So, this administration all in to get

the nuclear industry moving again.

Natural gas is the fastest growing

energy source on the planet. Get out of

the way of that. Let natural gas grow.

It's the cheapest source of electricity

in the US. I'm pro solar as well. I just

don't want taxpayers to pay for it. I

want businesses to pay for it. But solar

is going to keep growing. Solar is going

to keep growing.

>> When you got nuclear expansion, I just

want to talk about nuclear expansion for

one second. So, um, how do we actually

build these things faster, have the

capability and the, you know, the

technical construction knowhow so that

these aren't 15-year projects, but also

how do we incentivize the states to

basically get out of the way, uh, or

like, you know, these other

organizations that can launch the

frivolous lawsuit, slow it all down. How

do we do that?

>> So, lot of regulatory firm things. One,

we're working on FK, right? FK has this

inefficient Q system that just gets

gummed up with mostly stuff that's never

going to happen. FK came out yesterday

with a new system where you're going to

prioritize things that matter. They're

going to move through faster.

Uh you saw the Supreme Court decision on

on NEPA. We got to get NEPA back to

where it was. A process check on the

environment, not an avenue for lawfare

to stop things and kill things. So

there's structural changes. There's just

common sense reforms. We're going to get

rid of Clean Power Act 2.0. 0 that says

you're going to have to have carbon

capture and storage, you know, 15 years

out on any natural gas is what's going

to power AI. Let's just be honest.

What's going to be the main source of

new electricity in the United States by

far and away? Natural gas just because

it's cheapest, fast, it's reliable and

dependable. Solar is going to play a

role. Nuclear's going to play a role.

Hydro, geothermal, stop closing coal,

lots of pieces, but it's dominantly

going to be natural gas. It's the

fastest growing energy source, not just

in the US, but in the whole planet.

There's a reason for it. It's cheap.

It's massively abundant. It burns clean.

The machinery lasts longer than

machinery burning oil or coal or

something else. Um, but it's a let

businesses, Doug and I are not here to

tell anyone what to build and what not

to build. We're here to get roadblocks

out of the way so capitalism and and

consumers and investors can decide where

>> I mean, that's the good news. Solar is

cheaper than coal plants, right? So,

>> okay. So some some of the um some of the

the scal the scalability of nuclear

>> as simple as that.

>> Yeah. The scalability of nuclear I think

is unbounded. Um and what we've seen in

China in the past couple of years is

these generation 4 nuclear reactors.

This pebble bed reactor is probably the

most elegant, beautiful energy system

designed in human history. It's

incredible what it can do, the

scalability, the the cleanliness of it,

how it works. We have no effort in this

country today to build and deploy Gen 4

reactors because there's no economic

incentive. It the path to get there is

so far. The cost is so high. What can

the energy dominance council? What's

what are you guys doing in your roles to

make Gen 4 reactors? Because everyone's

like go back to the AP 1000, these old

Westinghouse designs from like 50 years

ago and build that for nuclear. Why

can't we build for the future? And what

can we do to create the incentive to

make this work?

I was gonna say, I mean, the one thing

that's already happened if if people are

interested nuclear, which doesn't help

us in the near-term race that we're in,

the near-term race, as Chris said, is

going to be won by us uh getting natural

gas power online and stop shutting stuff

down. But President Trump signed four

executive orders on nuclear about 6

weeks ago. Uh and there's been a flood

of capital, fresh capital coming in.

We've got a bunch of venture capital

going towards, you know, over over close

to a dozen different uh SMR startups. Uh

there's a lot of interest going on in

that field. Chris's work with the

national labs redirecting that. Uh I

mean nuclear's got a future, but it's

it's not the thing we need in the next

24 months right now. That's got to keep

moving ahead. President Trump's

executive order has helped that, but

we've got to get focused on getting more

power right now. Nuclear is the single

biggest issue I work on. We will have

three next generation Gen 4 reactors

critical in Idaho National Lab next

summer. M um we have we we're supplying

Halo, the fuel for these next generation

reactors to the we've already committed

to five and we'll give it to a dozen of

these next generation reactor companies.

We worked in the one big beautiful bill

to keep in the nudge the the tax credits

for nuclear because the government

smothered the industry and killed it for

three decades. Even a free market guy

like me thinks we need to get a little

help to get it started.

>> How far away are we till it's free

market running?

uh probably 10 years 10 years 10 years

because it's just a learning curve with

the the small modular reactors you got

to build up the supply chain you got to

build up and build them in volume the

cost can come down dramatically but the

first ones

>> as you guys look at your energy demand

curves do you account for this

revolution happening in physical AI

because every time I look at it's data

centers this and buildings that but no

one talks about physical AI which is

batteries in robots and some people are

estimating hundreds of millions or

billions of these things being built

trillions. Is this part of the the

energy calculus as you think about

demand?

>> It it is it is a meaningful part of it

and and and yes, the more you look at

that, the more you see increased

consumption of energy there and the more

excited I get. The more we can build

things at scale, the better we can get

the economics. One one other data point

we put out at the Department of Energy.

We got 16 locations to build data

centers. We said, "Who wants to come

build one? We'll permit them right away.

We'll help you build power generation

right next to it." We got 300 responses.

We we will announce tomorrow the first

four of those sites that will be

developed and then you'll hear many more

coming behind that.

>> How do we solve the um the supply chain

issues around the turbines and the other

enabling technologies that we need for

things like Matt Gas because I I agree

with you. Um I have a data center

project in Arizona. It's a gigawatt and

it'll be $25 billion of capital. But

we're stuck in this weird situation

where onshoring the the nat gas turbines

are extremely difficult. Then you know

you see certain people will just buy the

nack gas entire plants and then ship

them over. So how do we solve the supply

chain constraints to generating the

energy we need?

>> Well, I wouldn't say if if again back to

the immediate need right now. We need

more power and we need power for

factories that are producing AI like

using Jensen's word which I think

everybody should stop saying data

centers because a data center if you're

have a data center the way America

thinks about them you're processing a

shopping claim you know it helps the the

seller the buyer and maybe a third party

if you're processing a healthcare claim

it's a provider a payer and a patient

but in an AI it's general purpose

technology it we're we're actually

literally manufacturing every day over

and over more intelligence and so that's

different. It's not data centers. It's

AI factories. And we've taken a look at

NEC at the supply chain. If any of you

are trying to build an AI factory and

you need power and you haven't talked to

Chris and I and our team inside the

White House at the National Energy

Dominance Council, you need to come and

talk to us because we're mapping out

talking to everybody in the industry.

We're we're a neutral party, but we're

saying here's where the shortages are.

We've talked about things like the

Defense Production Act. We've talked to

companies that are producing turbines.

everything we're doing, we say, "Hey,

you've got to amp up because some of

these people are sleeping on the

sidelines." And they don't think there's

going to be real demand. And we're

saying, if anything, the demand is

underestimated. So, we're trying to jack

up the supply into the supply chain, but

please contact us. Uh, we're there.

Think of us not we're not a group that

writes papers. We're a group that helps

people build. We We help people build

projects. That's what we do.

>> Can't wait to visit. Just Just build a

data center, Jake Helen. You'll get an

invite.

>> So, AI factory.

>> AI factory.

>> Somebody else can build data center.

We got enough data.

>> Secretary Bergen, right, can you as we

finish up hit on the point we were

talking about a little bit earlier,

which is that you take a step back. The

focus here upstream on these

prioritizations from energy to critical

minerals is not just you have a new

market obviously on the AI side and

there's huge demand and this buildout's

important for national security. This

buildout is important for winning uh the

AI race. But the derivative impact is

what's most interesting, right? These

are thousands of jobs, tens, hundreds of

thousands of jobs. And then on any of

these manufacturing buildouts,

particularly in factories, nuclear uh

capabilities, they're going to lead to

usually 10x the amount of indirect jobs

as well. Back to Chim's point on the

supply chain for these things. Can you

talk a little about the job impact now

that we're seeing? And then if we're

successful here in this building at

capacity, how many jobs are we talking

about? How much how much can we actually

help the middle class here? Well, it's a

fabulous question, Christian, and I'm so

bullish on the US economy because as our

our friend Scott, who was just on here

before us, but I mean, you take the

combination of of lower taxes,

dramatically lower regulation,

accelerated permitting time, just

accelerating permitting, uh there could

be a trillion to a trillion half dollars

stuck in this two to fouryear federal

government permitting thing. we

accelerate that expenditure of capital,

the onshoring uh the greatest economic

developer in history bringing foreign

direct investment back to the United

States, President Trump with these

tariffs. You know what do we announce in

Pittsburgh? It's $15 trillion that's

coming back. So with AI, software has

always been the one things that extended

human capability more than any other in

our lifetimes. And now with AI, it it's

just a massive multiplier of that. But

to make the factory happen, we're going

to have an explosion in in jobs in the

trades. I mean, you're going to be able

to skip college, go directly into

develop a trade, you know, make 150.

Yeah. 150 grand, 120 to start in my home

state. Uh, and and again, and for people

that are spending money on site

selection, I'll tell you one thing. You

want to build it faster, go to where the

stranded gas is, build your power plant

there, build the AI factory next to it.

You don't have to permit a transmission

line. You don't have to permit a

pipeline. Those are the two things.

Linear infrastructure has been

weaponized by the people that are

opposed to energy development in this

country. They weaponized the blocking of

those things. I say pipeline, you say

protest. You know, so go to the go to

the same place and colllocate. President

Trump himself has said in speeches,

we're going to let you operate off the

grid. We can build all this stuff and

and and keep rates for electricity for

small businesses, consumers down because

we've got to add to the supply. But, you

know, which if you're going to go to

where the gas is, there's sweet places

to go. The Marcellus, the Perian, or the

Bacan. And uh and you can save tens of

millions hiring sight selection guys. Go

find the people with stranded gas and

get going.

>> Great.

>> All right. Well,

>> Secretary Wright, Secretary Bergam,

thank you for being with us. That was

great. That was great.

>> Well done. Thank you. Really great.

>> Nice to see you, brother.

>> Everything guys to see you.

>> Welcome back to doing it. How are you?

>> Nice to see you. Howard, I noticed you

had that incredibly smooth, refined

tequila at your birthday. How was it?

Take us through it every

>> 14 minutes. Just let's get let's get to

it. Let's get to it.

>> Yeah.

>> Smooth.

>> Yeah. Well, thanks for being gonna kick

us off.

>> So, the White House just rolled out a

massive deal with Japan, which obviously

plays a critical part of the

semiconductor supply chain. Could you

tell us a little bit about what the

nexus is between this new exciting trade

deal with Japan and how it fits with our

the current debate around winning the

race on artificial intelligence?

>> So, it was fundamental for Japan to

lower their tariff because their car

industry and their manufacturing

industry is fundamental to their

economy. And they paid a $550

billion what the president likes to call

a signing bonus. Right. the greatest

signing bonus of all time. So they've

committed $550 billion to finance

projects in America that are important

to the president and to American

infrastructure. So we can build power

means we could build 10 nuclear power

plants. We could build fabs, right? We

could build critical minerals. We could

do ship building power. We could do

anything and they will finance it and we

split the profits of the project.

90% for America and 10% for Japan. And I

don't think people can actually

understand how powerful that is. This is

the national security sovereign wealth

fund, the United States of America,

funded by President Trump's tariff

policy,

>> right,

>> that produced that kind of money

committed to America. It's

>> Will that actually go into

Congratulations. Will that go into a

sovereign wealth fund that you've been

talking about and the president has been

talking about?

>> No, I think this is this is separate.

The what the president says about the

sovereign wealth fund is we do a

sovereign wealth fund that invests when

we've done paying off our deficit. Okay?

Right. First, we got to pay off our

deficit before we're trying to make

money. So what this is is this is the

Japanese government says I will finance

and I will pay for

>> right

>> not finance I will pay for you want to

build a nuclear facility build it. You

want to build 10 nuclear facilities you

go build them. You want to go build a

pipeline you go build it. You want to

build uh fabs you go build it. Whatever

you think is necessary you build it.

We'll pay for it. You net lease it to an

operator and we'll split the lease

payments. 90 for you, 10 for Japan. It's

a blockbuster if there ever was one.

>> But it's an incredible deal structure.

How do how do you get to that?

>> Well, I got to that. So this I came up

with this idea in uh in January and then

I kept restructuring it to try to figure

out how to do it because I met with some

uh Japanese senior executives while uh

before election before inauguration day

and they said you know I understand your

tariff policy but Japan's never going to

open right they're just never going to

open I mean in in 1850 Perry took an

armada and tried to break it open in

1850 50 couldn't open it open the

Japanese market. So come up with another

idea and the other idea was they buy it

down and so what structure we used how

they did it they offered us they

originally started offering us loans or

loan guarantees and the president's like

I don't need someone else to loans like

I don't need to borrow money from

someone else and then finally we figured

out that really it just needed to be

committed capital to back projects that

we want and so it was five months in the

making and and I'm me talking to the

president about about doing different

structures and eventually in the middle

of last week we came to the structure

the president said okay I like it let's

bring him in and talk and then the

president made the deal better

>> are you going to replicate this is this

like a new blueprint or is it unique to

Japan which is protectionist and its own

unique culture

>> well I mean the problem that Korea has

is they're staring at it you know they

view themselves deeply competitive to

Japan they both produce huge amounts of

cars they both produce huge amounts of

electronics. They both do these things

and now they're looking at the price,

>> right?

>> And they're thinking, "Ouch." So, you

know, how quickly did they come to see

me? Let's say when we announced the deal

and uh they were in my office uh today.

>> So,

>> the Koreans were

>> Oh, yeah.

>> Fantastic.

>> How much how much have you prioritized

market access for American businesses

into some of these countries versus some

of the other kind of uh trade

considerations? Where does it

prioritize? And we've talked about this

a lot particularly as it relates to AI.

And I think that part of this is in the

uh the action plan and in the EOS being

signed later today, but this is a

broader question for American

businesses. I work in agriculture. It's

very hard to access overseas markets. Um

and there's not a lot of par. Is that

become key to some of these

conversations? And where does it sit on

the priority wrong? That

>> that's the priority rule. So the rule is

you must open your market. open, open,

open. And and let's be clear, these

markets have never been open. We have

Stockholm syndrome in America. These

markets have never been open. There's

tariffs. There's non-tariff trade

barriers like you can't sell an American

car in these locations. Whether you want

to or not, you're not allowed or they

won't buy them because the seat belt is

like this or the this is like they make

these rules.

>> So, we are demanding the markets are

open. And the issue with Japan was they

were never gonna open it.

>> So what are we going to do? And the

answer was all right. That's where he

came up with this uh you know signing

bonus, right?

>> So reciprocity or something interesting

>> if you want something more bespoke.

>> Vietnam completely open, Indonesia

completely open, Philippines

mostly open, small deficit relatively

higher tariff. Right? So it's all

there's a sort of a lot of levers and

you pull those levers.

>> When are you going to wrap all this up?

This has been like a really shocking and

now I think kind of you know more

mundane methodical approach. So when

does it all wrap up and we can kind of

put the tariff issue behind us?

>> Okay. So on August 1st whatever hasn't

been settled will be settled

>> and the tariffs go into effect. Right.

So all this 10%, they'll all just pop up

to some higher number. He sent a letter

to a lot of people, right? And now

nothing stops them from negotiating the

next day, but they're paying on that

day. So that's next Friday. I mean,

that's not that far away. So we're very

busy because a lot of people are now

coming to the table with their best best

offer. But the price has gone very very

high.

>> And let's be clear what that price is.

You will open your market to America.

You will open it to ranchers, farmers,

fishermen. You will open it, you know,

you couldn't sell lobster to all these

places. Like for instance, Indonesia is

completely open except for two products.

Muslim country, no pork, no alcohol,

right? We're talking India obviously no

beef, right? I mean, you do things like

that. You say, "But we need it open." If

they don't want it open,

there's your tariff. It's 26% 27% 31%

19% whatever it is and then if you

decide to open it later come on but

that's what we're doing.

>> You'll find out over time what other

kind of regulatory processes they have

put in place. This is always the issue

when any any of us work in foreign

markets. You've worked in foreign

markets and you go in and then you find

out well there's this thing I got to do

and this thing takes 18 months or 36

months and they make it hard to get the

permit or the whatever you need. There's

always a way. Does this become like a

continuous policing exercise for your

department? And how does this become

part of American trade? Like is this an

ongoing kind of kind of iteration

iterative process here?

>> They've bought their tariff rate down by

opening the market. So if they mess with

that, they're messing with the

president. And I don't know if you guys

have seen him on TV, but that doesn't

really work well. Yeah.

>> Okay. So the idea is he's making the

deal, he's closing the deal. So the way

we we talk about it together is I set

the table, right? And he closes the deal

and and he is the best negotiator

because he's just he's done this his

whole life and he's the president of the

United States. So that's an amazing

power and he wields it to get the best

deals.

>> Well, let's talk about the big issue,

China. Where are we going to wind up

with China reciprocity, Tik Tok, the

whole shebang? Is this going to be one

big grand bargain? Taiwan, Tik Tok,

there's so many issues. Is there any way

to thread the needle on this?

>> I I think the way I think about uh China

is draw a line. Okay, there's below the

line like they sell us uh baby clothes

and we sell them soybeans. That stuff we

need to do more of it. They we want to

buy more of that. They want to buy more

of ours. We need to open that. get this

Dayton stuff, you know, where we're just

flowing below the line.

>> Got it.

>> Above the line would be, you know, our

best chips, Blackwell chips, H, you

know, 200s and 100s, right? We don't

want to sell them our best stuff. They

don't want to sell us hypersonic

missiles either, right? We would say if

it was open, we'd say, "Well, let's take

a couple of your hypersonics. Let's see

what you got. Right? So, that's not

happening."

>> So, that's above the line. And then the

question is, what's the line?

That's the proper negotiation, right? Be

open, below the line, let's get it on,

good for both economies. Above the line,

we're competitors. Let's just call it

what it is and and stick with it. And

then what we can really negotiate when

we're together is the line.

>> Where's Tik Tok in all this? Jacob and I

are both pretty uh adamant this is spyw

wear. This is something that should not

be on a 100 million Americans phones. It

is way too dangerous. They've proven

themselves to use it to spy on

journalists already. And the fact that

they won't divest from it, I think,

tells you everything you need to know.

They see this as a critical weapon

against the United States. Where what do

you think? What does the administration

think?

>> Well, the the president is reasonably

positive about Tik Tok provided it goes

into American hands and it's controlled

by American technology. Right. I think

that's his view is that they've got to

be out of it. It's got to be on an

American technology stack and it's got

to be owned by Americans, period. And

then how we work it on through there. Uh

we'll figure it out. Right now it it's

sort of in that uh

>> straddling the line.

>> Yeah. You're sort of staring at each

other, but eventually that'll get sorted

out. I I think that deal will happen and

uh America will buy Tik Tok because the

alternative is just shuts it off and

that just seems illogical.

>> Can I go back to the above the line,

below the line? Love that. Love that

saying by the way. Um

how do you think about the and you

talked about the chips. How do you think

about these export controls to various

countries in various regions? What's

your risk calculus about where those

things should be? And and if I could

just actually add a question that builds

on top of that. You've talked about

creating AI economic zones where trusted

partners could get preferential access

for American technology. So could you

describe a little bit what your vision

is for that? I think what we're

wrestling with and this is we're really

discussing literally the intellectual

wrestle we're going through now is is

the idea that we are comfortable with

allies buying significant numbers of

chips right and having a large cluster

provided that cluster is uh operated by

an American a trusted American operator

and the cloud is a trusted American

operator so that we know that giant

cluster is surrounded by us.

>> Right.

>> Right. As you go down from there, right?

That's where we go. Okay. If they want a

smaller cluster,

>> would you expand the number of people

who are trusted, right? And the answer

would be probably yes, right? And then

when you go down from there to a smaller

and smaller cluster, right? How do you

deal with that? So I think it's cluster

size is sort of the a way of thinking

rather than saying uh you know because I

went to Poland and I was in I was in

Poland on a on a mission for the for the

government and the prime minister of

Poland chases me down and says what did

I do to America to be tier three and I

was like I thought you were part of

Europe you know like I didn't understand

what it could possibly be the issue so I

think the answer is ally or not,

>> right?

>> Cluster size and who controls it or not.

I think once once you sort of wrestle

with those ideas and anybody who has

ideas along those lines and you want to

come and talk to us about it because

this is this is really the thinking

right now and we're sort of debating

that right now.

>> Howard, I just want to say thank you for

it's so great to have a sharp negotiator

and and such a creative mind

representing America. It makes me feel

like really great about the

>> 90% carry there. There may be fun.

>> How do we get 90% carry?

>> I love it. Yum. Yum. I love said that

you're a New Yorker. Yeah,

>> I I am. But the

>> negotiator chief,

>> New York. Uh I grew up on Long Island.

My kids have grown in Manhattan, but uh

the negotiator chief is Donald Trump.

>> That's nice that he's got you right.

He's amazing. Well, thanks for coming.

We're going to make uh make some room

for the president. He's going to get

ready. Howard, thank you for joining us.

That was great. Thank you.