CNN’s Jake Tapper allows Speaker Johnson to lie about the One Big Beautiful Bill to Americans.

Jake Tapper failed miserably interviewing Speaker Johnson. His pushback against the litany of lies and misrepresentation was anemic, bordering on journalistic dereliction.

Jake Tapper allows Speaker Johnson to lie.

Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.

Podcasts (Video — Audio)

---

Summary

CNN’s Jake Tapper let House Speaker Mike Johnson promote Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” virtually unchallenged. Johnson touted $1.5 trillion in “historic” cuts and rosy growth projections. Yet, independent fiscal analysts say the plan would add up to $4 trillion to the deficit, rely on discredited “dynamic scoring,” and deepen inequity by slashing Medicaid, SNAP, and other safety-net programs.

Five take-aways

• Deficit balloon, not shrink. The House budget instructions behind the bill permit $3.3 trillion in new borrowing—nearly $4 trillion with interest—despite Johnson’s repeated claims of savings.
• “Dynamic-scoring” sleight of hand. Economists warn that the growth assumptions Johnson cites are assumption-driven and historically inaccurate; there is “no evidence” that dynamic scoring makes forecasts more reliable.
• Trump economy myth-making. Johnson invoked Trump’s “greatest economy” narrative, but official data show Trump left office with 2.7 million fewer jobs, whereas Obama created 11.6 million.
• Negligible safety-net protection. Even Senate Republican Ron Johnson calls the bill’s $1.5 trillion cuts a “rounding error” that still increases deficits while gutting core programs.
• Media accountability gap. Tapper pressed on the CBO score but let multiple falsehoods slide—failing to flag cuts to Medicaid and SNAP or Johnson’s linkage to Project 2025, a far-right blueprint for austerity.

Progressives view the interview as another instance of corporate media normalizing austerity that shifts wealth upward. By platforming Johnson’s talking points with minimal pushback, CNN aided a bill that balloons debt, starves public services, and entrenches plutocratic tax giveaways.

---

Premium Content (Complimentary)

Corporate broadcasters often sell themselves as referees of fact, yet their performance frequently mirrors the interests of the powerful they cover. Jake Tapper’s recent CNN segment with Speaker Mike Johnson exemplifies how mainstream gatekeepers can allow ideological spin to masquerade as policy substance. Johnson arrived to celebrate Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” claiming it embodies the “largest cut in spending in at least thirty years” and insisting that “dynamic growth” will pay for everything. Tapper opened with a pointed Congressional Budget Office statistic—an estimated $3.3 to $4 trillion deficit increase—but then ceded most of the terrain, permitting Johnson to recite GOP talking points virtually uninterrupted.

A deficit wolf in deficit-reduction clothing
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that the House reconciliation instructions underpinning the bill authorize net deficit increases of $3.3 trillion and push debt toward 126 percent of GDP by 2034—“nearly $4 trillion including interest.” This is not a rounding error; it is a generational wealth transfer from the public purse to the already-rich through permanent tax-cut extensions and fresh corporate carve-outs. Johnson’s much-ballyhooed $1.5 trillion in “historic savings” represents bookkeeping theater: clawbacks from unspent pandemic funds, Medicaid work-requirement gimmicks that shift costs to states, and caps that future Congresses can waive. Even Senator Ron Johnson—the Wisconsin conservative nobody will confuse with a Keynesian—dubbed the package “the Titanic,” warning it increases rather than reduces red ink,

The alchemy of dynamic scoring
How does a bill that adds trillions magically claim to cut debt? Enter “dynamic scoring,” a forecasting device beloved by supply-side crusaders. Johnson asserts that lower taxes and deregulation will unleash growth high enough to offset lost revenue. Yet the very definition of dynamic scoring, as political economists note, hinges on judgment-laden models with “no evidence” that they outperform traditional methods. CRFB’s breakdown shows House Republicans assume $2.6 trillion in macroeconomic feedback, ten times what independent forecasters find plausible. Kansas’ failed 2012 tax experiment, cited in every public-finance textbook, serves as a cautionary tale: rosy projections met revenue collapse, credit downgrades, and painful service cuts. Johnson’s growth promises to recycle the same trickle-down mythology.

Rewriting economic history
Tapper allowed Johnson to tout Trump’s “greatest economy in the history of the world.” The data tell a different story. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Trump exited office with 2.7 million fewer jobs than when he began, partly but not solely because of COVID-19. Obama, starting amid the Great Recession, ultimately presided over a net gain of 11.6 million jobs and a lower unemployment rate. Real weekly earnings rose faster under Obama’s final years than under Trump’s pre-pandemic stretch. Johnson’s revisionism erases this empirical record to justify more regressive tax cuts.

Austerity for the many, abundance for the few
Beyond headline numbers lies the bill’s architecture: deep Medicaid and SNAP reductions, tightened work requirements, and privatization pilots that funnel public dollars into for-profit insurers. Johnson frames these as cuts to “waste and abuse,” echoing Project 2025’s blueprint for dismantling the modern welfare state. Progressives know the script: Republicans slash programs that disproportionately aid low-income families, then cite the deficits they themselves inflate as pretext for further cuts. Meanwhile, the bill makes Trump’s 2017 tax cuts—whose benefits flowed 83 percent to the top quintile—permanent. Working-class Americans get higher out-of-pocket medical costs; millionaires get another windfall.

Media complicity and the path forward
Tapper pressed on the topline deficit score but failed to interrogate Johnson’s core fallacies: that growth will magically appear, that safety-net recipients are “able-bodied” freeloaders, and that the Trump economy was historically unrivaled. Corporate media often adopt a posture of neutrality that, in practice, launders elite narratives. When fact-checking is reduced to a single “but CBO says” sentence, viewers receive the impression of balance while the substantive frame remains intact.

Progressives must therefore fill the vacuum. They can point to decades of evidence showing that public investment—in child care, green infrastructure, universal health care—has a far higher fiscal multiplier than top-heavy tax cuts. They can highlight CRFB’s warning that debt accelerates under, not despite, the GOP’s plan. And they can model alternative financing: a surtax on billionaire wealth, repeal of accelerated depreciation giveaways, Medicare drug-price negotiations that save hundreds of billions.

Finally, activists should pressure media platforms to pair government officials with subject-matter experts who can rebut misinformation in real time. Imagine Johnson forced to defend dynamic scoring beside an economist from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or a former CBO director. Absent that, progressive creators must continue “parsing it into a form that everybody can understand,” as the original transcript urges, flooding social feeds with data-driven explainer videos and infographics.

Conclusion
Johnson’s CNN appearance underscores the stakes of the current budget fight: a contest between a plutocratic austerity project and a multiracial working-class coalition demanding investment over extraction. When corporate TV shrugs, it falls to independent media and grassroots movements to expose the shell game—and to insist that fiscal responsibility means taxing concentrated wealth, not shredding the social contract. The One Big Beautiful Bill is neither beautiful nor responsible; it is a Trojan horse for trickle-down economics that the American people have rejected time and again. Progressives must say so loudly, armed with the numbers the Speaker hopes no one will read.