Press Sec: OBBB $1.6T Savings + $2.8T Tariffs + 3% Growth = $8T Deficit Cut Over 10 Years; LA Mayor Karen Bass: “Fight for All Angelenos Whether Papers or Not”; Booker Calls Anti-ICE Riots “Peaceful”; Border Czar Homan: “Newsom Is an Embarrassment”; CEA Hassett: CBO’s $2.8T Tariff Revenue Exceeds Bill Cost; Rand Paul Wants to Cut ICE Funding in Half

Multiple stories converged in June 2025. Press Secretary Leavitt laid out OBBB’s total fiscal impact: “This bill provides $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings. When you combine that with the tariff revenue that President Trump’s America First trade agenda is bringing in nearly $3 trillion over the next 10 years, that’s a projection according to the Congressional Budget Office. And when you combine that with the Council of Economic Advisers projected growth of 3%, we’re going to cut the deficit by $8 trillion over the next 10 years.” LA Mayor Karen Bass declared during Anti-ICE riots: “We are going to fight for all Angelenos. Regardless of when they got here, whether they have papers or not, we are a city of immigrants.” Sen. Cory Booker characterized riots featuring concrete projectiles and arson as “peaceful protests.” Border Czar Tom Homan: “Governor Newsom is an embarrassment for the state. He’s the one that’s feeding this mantra. He supports sanctuary cities. If he cared about public safety, he would not have a sanctuary for criminals.” CEA Chair Kevin Hassett: “CBO 10-year tariff estimate says $2.8 trillion — more than their own estimate for the cost of this entire bill, so that’s deficit reduction right there.” Sen. Rand Paul: “We should cut the immigration enforcement funding in Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill in half.”

The $8 Trillion Calculation

Press Secretary Leavitt laid out comprehensive fiscal math.

“This bill provides $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings,” Leavitt said.

She combined revenues: “And when you combine that with the tariff revenue that President Trump’s America First trade agenda is bringing in nearly $3 trillion over the next 10 years, that’s a projection, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

She added growth effects: “And when you combine that with the Council of Economic Advisers projected growth of 3%, we’re going to cut the deficit by $8 trillion over the next 10 years.”

She elaborated: “And look at all of the other pro-growth economic policies this president has taken.”

She framed Trump’s priority: “He understands the concerns about our nation’s crippling debt. That’s why we need this bill to pass. It will ultimately reduce the deficit. And the president is very much focused on signing this historic piece of legislation.”

The $8 Trillion Breakdown

The specific math was significant.

Component 1: $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings

Medicaid reforms
SNAP reforms
Various program changes
Historical savings size
Since 1990s scale

Component 2: $2.8 trillion in tariff revenue

CBO official estimate
10-year projection
Already-in-place tariffs
Continuing revenue stream
Growing over time

Component 3: Growth effects

3% annual growth projection
CEA estimate
Above trend growth
Additional tax revenue
Compounding effect

Total: ~$8 trillion deficit reduction

Over 10-year window
Combining static and dynamic effects
Comprehensive fiscal impact
Historic scale
Structural change

The Historical Context

$8 trillion in deficit reduction was extraordinary.

Historical comparison:

1997 Balanced Budget Act: ~$127 billion in savings
2011 Budget Control Act: ~$2 trillion (caps)
2013 Sequestration: ~$1.2 trillion
Previous Trump administration: ~$1.5 trillion
OBBB + tariffs + growth: $8 trillion

Why this was unprecedented:

Combined multiple mechanisms
Larger than single act
Structural rather than arithmetic
Spending + revenue + growth
Comprehensive fiscal restructuring

The significance:

$8 trillion over 10 years
2.5-3% GDP impact annually
Fiscal trajectory change
Debt ratio improvement
Long-term sustainability

The LA Riots Context

The broadcast addressed ongoing LA riots.

The LA situation:

ICE operations in Los Angeles
Protests began
Escalated to riots
Violence against ICE agents
National Guard deployed

The specific violence:

Concrete projectiles thrown at vehicles
Fires set
Property destruction
Federal officers attacked
Police injuries

The political context:

Democratic leaders supporting protesters
Some calling violent riots “peaceful”
Trump administration deploying federal force
Escalating federal-state tension
Political divisions widening

LA Mayor Karen Bass on “All Angelenos”

Mayor Bass made a notable statement.

“We are going to fight for all Angelenos,” Bass said.

She extended: “Regardless of when they got here, whether they have papers or not, we are a city of immigrants.”

She added specifics: “And this impacts hundreds of thousands of Angelenos.”

The Bass Position

Bass’s framing was significant.

What Bass claimed:

LA will protect all residents
Papers/legal status irrelevant
City of immigrants identity
Universal protection
Sanctuary commitment

Why this was problematic:

Local government can’t overrule federal law
Illegal immigrants have different legal status
“Papers or not” ignores legal framework
Encourages illegal immigration
Undermines federal enforcement

The specific claims:

“All Angelenos”: includes illegal immigrants
“Hundreds of thousands”: implies vast affected population
“City of immigrants”: conflates legal and illegal immigration
“Fight for all”: implies opposition to federal enforcement
Commitment ignoring legal distinctions

The constitutional framework:

Federal government has immigration authority
State and local governments don’t
Supremacy clause applies
Local noncooperation allowed
Active obstruction not allowed

Booker on “Peaceful Protests”

Senator Cory Booker made a remarkable characterization.

“The reality is we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles,” Booker said.

He continued: “And again, any violence against police officers should not be accepted. Local authorities can handle that.”

He delivered the core framing: “But remember, a lot of these peaceful protests are being generated because the president of the United States is sowing chaos and confusion by arresting people who are showing up for their immigration hearings.”

The “Peaceful” Framing

Booker’s characterization was politically astonishing.

What Booker called “peaceful”:

Concrete projectiles thrown at vehicles
Fires set
Property destruction
Federal officer attacks
Police injuries

Why this was politically damaging:

Direct contradiction of visible reality
Video evidence widely available
Voters watching events unfold
Democratic credibility damaged
Characteristic of denial approach

The 2020 parallel:

Democrats had characterized BLM riots as “peaceful”
Journalists had used “mostly peaceful” framing
Similar reality denial
Cost Democratic credibility
Pattern continuing

The “mostly peaceful” fallacy:

99% might be peaceful
1% engaged in violence
1% still violent
Violence not excused by majority
Peaceful characterization misleading

The Immigration Hearing Framing

Booker’s claim about causation was also problematic.

Booker’s claim:

Peaceful protests caused by Trump
ICE arresting people at immigration hearings
Creating chaos and confusion
Justifying opposition
Political cover for violence

Reality check:

Immigration hearing attendance didn’t trigger arrests
Specific criminal illegal immigrants targeted
Standard enforcement practice
Not randomly arresting
Focus on criminal elements

The political purpose:

Create false narrative
Justify violent response
Shift blame to administration
Rally base
Avoid responsibility for consequences

Border Czar Homan on Newsom

Border Czar Tom Homan delivered sharp criticism.

“Governor Newsom is an embarrassment for the state,” Homan said.

He made the specific charges: “He’s the one that’s feeding this mantra. He supports sanctuary cities. He supports sanctuary laws.”

He made the public safety argument: “If he cared about public safety in the state of California, he would not have a sanctuary for criminals. Where criminals get released to the streets of this state every day because of his policy.”

The Newsom Critique

Homan’s critique was substantive.

What Homan alleged:

Newsom supports sanctuary policies
Sanctuary policies endanger public safety
Criminals released to California streets
State policy responsible for crime
Democratic priorities misplaced

Why this mattered:

California actually had high crime
Specific sanctuary incidents occurred
ICE requesting detention of criminals
California refusing cooperation
Public safety consequences real

The specific California policies:

SB 54 (California Values Act) - Sanctuary policy
Limits on ICE cooperation
Prevents detention holds
Releases criminals despite federal interest
Documented consequences

The documented incidents:

Kathryn Steinle killed in San Francisco
Multiple murders by released illegal immigrants
Various crimes after sanctuary policy release
Specific public safety failures
Political cost accumulating

Hassett’s Fiscal Analysis

CEA Chair Kevin Hassett provided specific fiscal detail.

“We had about $60 billion in tariff revenue in the U.S.,” Hassett said.

He connected to inflation: “And inflation, every measure of inflation is the lowest that has been for more than four years.”

He articulated the comprehensive impact: “And so all of our policies together are reducing inflation and helping reduce the deficit by getting revenue from other countries.”

The $2.8 Trillion Tariff Estimate

Hassett cited the specific CBO estimate.

“And how much revenue, I think that you might have covered it, the Congressional Budget Office put out a 10-year estimate that says that the tariff revenue that’s already in place right now is going to raise $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years.”

He delivered the key insight: “That’s more than their own estimate, their own static estimate for the cost of this entire bill.”

He drove the point home: “So that’s deficit reduction right there.”

The Deficit Reduction Logic

Hassett’s logic was simple but powerful.

The CBO’s own estimates:

Tariff revenue: $2.8 trillion
OBBB cost (static): less than $2.8 trillion
Therefore: $2.8T > OBBB cost
Net effect: deficit reduction
Using CBO’s own methodology

Why this mattered:

CBO’s own numbers support OBBB
Net deficit reduction even without growth effects
Not relying on optimistic assumptions
Using scoring system Democrats demanded
Undercuts Democratic criticism

The distinction from CBO’s OBBB analysis:

CBO analyzes OBBB isolated
Ignores tariff revenue connection
Treats as separate policies
Misses comprehensive picture
Obscures total fiscal impact

Rand Paul’s Rebuttal

The Senator Rand Paul position was captured.

“There are people who are questioning why you would not support a bill that puts more money into border security, particularly at this moment in time when we see what’s going on in Los Angeles this morning,” a reporter noted.

The context: “The president had to send the National Guard to Los Angeles.”

The reporter asked: “Are you suggesting that the money being spent on the border is too excessive?”

Paul’s Specific Objections

Paul laid out his critique.

“What I’m suggesting is that we can add some money to the border, but what they’re asking for is excessive.”

He gave a specific example: “And I’ll give you an example. For the fence, they want $46.5 billion.”

He did the math: “Well, I did the math on this. The current rate, according to the Border Patrol, is $6.5 million per mile. That would be $6.5 billion for 1,000 miles.”

He made the comparison: “Nobody’s really estimating there’s more than 1,000 miles that could be fenced at this point. So that’s $6.5 billion versus $46.5 billion.”

He asked the pointed question: “Where’s all the money going?”

Paul’s Math on Border Wall

Paul’s specific calculation was politically damaging.

Paul’s calculation:

Border Patrol rate: $6.5 million per mile
1,000 miles of fencing
Total need: $6.5 billion
OBBB request: $46.5 billion
Discrepancy: $40 billion

What the administration would argue:

Urban vs. rural mileage different
Additional technology and infrastructure
Access roads and maintenance
Detention facilities
Sensor and camera systems
Administrative costs

The political problem:

Paul’s math appeared reasonable
Administration hadn’t clearly explained gap
$40 billion is significant amount
Fiscal hawks concerned
Communication failure

The substantive reality:

Border wall is comprehensive system
Not just fence
Includes roads, facilities, technology
Multiple layers of defense
Complex infrastructure

The Agent Hiring Question

Paul addressed agent hiring.

“As far as hiring new people, I would hire some new people. I would give some bonuses.”

He suggested cutting: “I’d probably do half as much as what they’re asking for because the border is largely controlled right now.”

He articulated the concern: “And what we don’t want is when we wind up looking back at this, have an army of Border Patrol agents that we have on the hook for payments and pensions and everything else.”

He concluded: “We need to do it judiciously and not in a reckless manner.”

The “Largely Controlled” Claim

Paul’s “largely controlled” framing was significant.

Current border situation:

Border crossings dramatically reduced
Enforcement strong
Apprehensions near historical lows
Administrative effectiveness
Political success

Paul’s argument:

Don’t hire excessively now
Border problem largely solved
Reduce future liability
Long-term fiscal prudence
Conservative principle

The administration position:

Sustain enforcement long-term
Need personnel for maintenance
Prevent regression to open border
Demographic growth requires scaling
Long-term investment

The political tension:

Paul: Don’t build too much government
Administration: Build capacity for future
Different time horizons
Different risk assessments
Different philosophical commitments

”An Army of Border Patrol Agents”

Paul’s concern about long-term liability was substantive.

The specific concern:

Current hiring creates future obligations
Pensions cost billions over decades
Benefits commit future taxpayers
Shrinking later is difficult
Long-term fiscal drag

The administration response:

Personnel essential to security
Need ongoing force to deter illegal immigration
Can always adjust later if conditions change
Worth investment for security
Strategic rather than minimal

The conservative argument:

Smaller government preferred
Temporary needs don’t require permanent structures
Consider alternatives
Bonuses rather than positions
Flexibility preserved

The political calculation:

Fiscal hawks concerned
Administration wants comprehensive package
Tension within Republican coalition
Compromise possible
Substance matters

The Paul Position Significance

Paul’s cuts proposal was politically significant.

What Paul proposed:

Cut ICE funding in half
Reduce border wall funding
Limit agent hiring
Reduce future liabilities
Smaller fiscal commitment