Elon Musk recently tweeted about the U.S. federal deficit and how reducing it could help control inflation. Let’s break down what he said in simple terms so a 7th grader (or anyone!) can understand.

What Is the Federal Deficit?

The federal deficit is the amount of money the U.S. government spends beyond what it collects in taxes each year. Think of it like an allowance:

• If you earn $20 a week but spend $30, you are $10 short. That shortfall is your deficit.
• The government does this on a much bigger scale, often spending trillions more than it collects.

In his tweet, Musk says, "Reducing the federal deficit from $2T to $1T in FY2026 requires cutting an average of ~$4B/day in projected 2026 spending from now to Sept 30."

This means that right now, the U.S. is expected to spend $2 trillion more than it collects in 2026. If we want to cut that in half, we need to spend $4 billion less every single day until September 30, 2026.

What Is Inflation and Why Does It Matter?

Inflation is when prices for things like food, gas, and rent go up over time. It happens when too much money is chasing too few goods. Here’s an example:

• Imagine you and five friends all want the same rare Pokémon card at a store.
• The store only has one left, but you all have extra money.
• The store realizes this and raises the price, knowing someone will still buy it.

That’s how inflation works: when demand is high or when there’s too much money in the system, prices go up.

Musk is saying that if the government reduces its deficit, the economy might grow enough to keep inflation from rising in 2026.

Why Would a Smaller Deficit Help Inflation?

When the government spends more than it collects, it has to borrow money or print more money. This can make inflation worse.

Imagine a store has a limited number of PlayStation 5s in stock.

• Normally, the PS5 costs $500.
• But suddenly, everyone in town gets an extra $1,000 for free and rushes to buy one.
• Since demand is now sky-high and there aren’t enough PS5s for everyone, the store raises the price to $800 because they know people will still buy it.

That’s how inflation works: when too much money is in the system and supply stays the same, prices go up.

Musk is saying that if the government reduces its deficit, the economy might grow enough to keep inflation from rising in 2026.

"Super Big Deal."

Musk ends his tweet by saying, "That would still result in a ~$1T deficit, but economic growth should be able to match that number, which would mean no inflation in 2026. Super big deal."

• Even if we cut the deficit in half, the government would still be spending $1 trillion more than it takes in.
• But if the economy grows fast enough, that extra spending won’t cause inflation because businesses will be making more money, and people will have more jobs and higher wages.

This is a big deal because stable prices mean people don’t struggle to buy what they need. If inflation stays low, families can afford groceries, gas, and rent without feeling like their money is shrinking.

In the end...

Elon Musk is pointing out that the government spends too much money, which can make prices rise for everyone. By cutting the deficit, we could slow down inflation and keep prices stable. That would make life more affordable for everyday Americans.

His tweet may sound complicated, but at its core, it’s about making sure our money stays valuable and doesn’t lose purchasing power. If inflation is controlled, everyone benefits—and that’s a super big deal.

Since President Trump’s return to office, the media has been working overtime to stoke fear and hysteria over his administration’s common-sense policies. The latest target? The temporary pause on federal financial assistance programs, as outlined in the January 27, 2025, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum. Left-wing outlets and partisan activists have rushed to misrepresent this pause as an attack on the most vulnerable Americans. In reality, this is nothing more than a responsible and necessary step to get government spending under control and ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted on radical, left-wing policies that have plagued federal agencies for years.

What the OMB Memo Actually Says

The OMB directive instructs federal agencies to temporarily pause financial assistance programs while reviewing them for alignment with President Trump’s policy priorities. The key phrase here is "review"—not "eliminate" or "defund." The memo specifically excludes programs that provide direct assistance to individuals, such as:

• Social Security
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Food stamps (SNAP)
• Welfare benefits
• Other individual assistance programs

Furthermore, the memo explicitly states:
"Nothing in this memo should be construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits."
Yet, despite these clear exclusions, the media continues to push the false narrative that Trump's administration is trying to rip aid away from struggling Americans.

Media Misinformation and Manufactured Panic

During the January 29 White House press briefing, multiple reporters demonstrated exactly how the media distorts reality to serve a political agenda. Despite clear explanations from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, reporters repeatedly asked the same misleading question about the funding pause, attempting to create an illusion of uncertainty.

Reporters Repeating the Same False Narrative

1. Zeke Miller (Associated Press):

   • "It’s caused a lot of confusion around the country among Head Start providers, services to homeless veterans, and Medicaid providers. Could you help clear up some confusion?"
   • Leavitt’s Response: "There’s no confusion in this building. This is not a blanket pause. Individual assistance programs, like Medicare, Social Security, and welfare benefits, are not affected."

2. Nancy Cordes (CBS News):

   • "How long is this pause going to last? And how should organizations relying on federal funding make payroll in the meantime?"
   • Leavitt’s Response: "It’s temporary. Agencies can request reviews, and exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis."

3. Peter Alexander (NBC News):

   • "Will nothing that the president is doing here, in terms of the freeze in these programs, raise prices for ordinary Americans?"
   • Leavitt’s Response: "This is about stopping reckless government spending, not taking away benefits. The real cause of price increases was Biden’s inflation crisis."

4. Jacqui Heinrich (Fox News):

   • "Does this impact organizations like Meals on Wheels?"
   • Leavitt’s Response: "I have now been asked and answered this question four times. Individual assistance programs are not impacted."

Exposing the Media's Agenda

Instead of reporting the facts, these reporters repeated the same misleading question over and over in an attempt to frame Trump’s fiscal responsibility as an attack on vulnerable communities. Even after Leavitt made it crystal clear that direct assistance programs are unaffected, they refused to accept reality and continued fearmongering.

Why This Pause is Necessary

President Trump was elected to stop government waste and restore fiscal sanity. Under Biden, taxpayer money was funneled into:

• Radical DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs
• Climate change social engineering (Green New Deal-style projects)
• Foreign aid to nations that refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration policies
• NGOs facilitating illegal immigration

This pause is a responsible and temporary measure to ensure that taxpayer dollars go toward America First policies rather than being squandered on leftist pet projects.

The Reality: Trump is Restoring Fiscal Responsibility

The truth is simple:

1. No one is losing Social Security, Medicare, or food assistance.
2. The pause is temporary and allows for program review—not permanent cuts.
3. Trump is ensuring taxpayer money isn’t wasted on radical leftist policies.

The real scandal here isn't Trump's funding pause—it's the media’s deliberate effort to mislead the public by manufacturing panic where none is warranted. Instead of acknowledging the administration’s reasonable approach to fiscal responsibility, they would rather stoke fear and push their preferred narrative.

President Trump is keeping his promise to drain the swamp and hold the federal bureaucracy accountable—and that's exactly why the media is panicking.

On January 17, 2025, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security, testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The two-term Republican governor and vocal advocate for border security made clear her intention to align the department’s priorities with Trump’s vision of national security. Noem faced questions from both sides of the aisle, addressing issues ranging from illegal immigration to cybersecurity.

Here are the five most significant takeaways from her confirmation hearing, as reported by Darlene McCormick Sanchez in The Epoch Times:

1. Border Security and Immigration Enforcement

Noem declared that border security would be her top priority if confirmed, vowing to act swiftly to address illegal immigration and related crime. She criticized the CBP One app—a tool enabling migrants to schedule border appointments—pledging to dismantle it on her first day in office. Noem described the app as a loophole that allowed undocumented immigrants to bypass asylum protocols and promised to retain its data to help identify individuals for deportation.

In a pointed response to concerns from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Noem emphasized the urgency of deporting the 425,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions and pledged to work on removing those with final deportation orders as well. She also expressed her intent to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their U.S. immigration cases are processed.

Additionally, she criticized the Biden administration’s use of parole programs—like the one granting entry to over 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela—arguing that they circumvent Congress and strain the immigration system. Noem stated that future parole decisions should be made case by case, not en masse.

2. Disaster Response and FEMA Accountability

Democratic senators pressed Noem on her approach to disaster relief, particularly allegations that Trump’s administration had withheld aid from California for political reasons. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) questioned whether she would allow partisan considerations to influence decisions on federal disaster aid.

Noem dismissed the claims as hypothetical, insisting that disaster response must be free from political bias. However, she pointed to past FEMA shortcomings under the Biden administration, such as inadequate responses to catastrophic flooding in North Carolina. Noem argued that FEMA had failed to adequately assist hard-hit communities and pledged to bring greater efficiency and accountability to the agency’s disaster relief efforts.

3. Counter-Terrorism and Southern Border Threats

Securing the southern border isn’t just about immigration, Noem warned—it’s also vital to national security. She cited alarming statistics showing that 382 individuals on the terrorist watch list entered the U.S. illegally under the Biden administration. Noem argued that this level of risk is unacceptable and that improving border security would significantly reduce the chances of terrorist infiltration.

Noem stressed the importance of collaboration with other federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of State, to develop comprehensive strategies for combating both domestic and foreign terrorist threats.

4. Addressing Cybersecurity Threats

Cybersecurity was another major focus of the hearing. Noem pointed to a recent breach of the U.S. Treasury by a Chinese state-backed hacking group, which accessed sensitive government data. She described such incidents as part of a broader effort by China to undermine U.S. security and called for vigilance across federal, state, and local governments.

She also took aim at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), arguing that it had overstepped its intended mission by allegedly monitoring and censoring Americans’ online speech. Noem proposed downsizing the agency and refocusing its efforts on protecting critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.

“CISA needs to be smaller, more agile, and better equipped to address real cyber threats while staying out of Americans’ personal lives,” she said.

5. Secret Service Reform and Public Trust

Finally, Noem addressed public trust in federal agencies, with a specific focus on the Secret Service. She cited two assassination attempts against Trump during his 2024 campaign as evidence of the agency’s failure to fulfill its core mission.

Noem called for new leadership and a stronger focus on national security events, arguing that the American people have lost faith in the agency’s ability to protect government leaders. She pledged to restore confidence by implementing reforms and ensuring that the Secret Service prioritizes its responsibilities.

A Clear Vision for DHS

Throughout the hearing, Noem emphasized her readiness to lead the Department of Homeland Security in addressing a wide range of challenges, from securing the border to modernizing disaster relief efforts and strengthening cybersecurity. Despite some skepticism from Democrats, Noem’s responses highlighted her commitment to carrying out Trump’s priorities while restoring public trust in the agency.

A Senate vote on Noem’s confirmation could happen as early as next week.