Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the impact of President Trump’s tariffs on U.S. manufacturing jobs, as leaders in the industry call for an end to the tariffs, arguing it’s “been a couple of months.”

Since April, manufacturing jobs have fallen by 12,000 and are now down by 42,000. Businesses have complained for months since Trump announced sweeping tariffs that they are slowing the economy. However, during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Bessent argued that not enough time has passed for the U.S. to see the benefits of tariffs on manufacturing jobs.

“It’s been a couple of months. And with the manufacturing sector…we can’t snap our fingers and have factories built,” he said.

He added that the U.S. is seeing a “record amount of investment intentions.”

“The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ which has full expensing for factories and equipment, was passed on July 4th,” he continued. “Many companies were holding back then. So, we are going to see construction jobs. And we are going to see manufacturing jobs.”

When host Kristen Welker brought up former President Biden’s jobs report, saying he added manufacturing jobs while Trump has been losing them, Bessent argued, “We need good data.”

“What we are seeing is the jobs that are being created are going to either native-born or legal Americans,” he said. “Most of the jobs created under the Biden administration went to illegal aliens.”

“That’s the facts,” Bessent added when Welker said there would be debate over his statement.

Manufacturing jobs fell by 12,000 and are now down by 42,000 since April, a month after Trump announced his tariffs.

Trump has justified the new taxes by arguing that they will help to reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing and create domestic jobs. The president argued that the country will export more products manufactured in the U.S. and also sell more domestic products.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he feels “confident” the Trump administration will win the fight to rescue President Trump’s tariffs in the Supreme Court after lower courts invalidated them. 

During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Bessent was asked by host Kristen Welker whether the administration was prepared to offer rebates on the tariffs if the Supreme Court ruled against them.

“I am confident that we will win at the Supreme Court,” he said.

However, he argues that there are “numerous other avenues that we can take.”

When pushed as to whether the administration would “be prepared” to offer rebates, Bessent said the U.S. “would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs,” adding that it “would be terrible for the treasury.”

“There’s no ‘be prepared,'” he said. “If the court says it, we’d have to do it.”

Tariff rebates, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) in July, would provide $600 tariff rebates to almost all Americans and to their dependent children. It would be modeled on the direct payments Congress authorized in the 2020 CARES Act, which provided $1,200 direct payments to adults and $500 direct payments to children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump is pushing for the Supreme Court to greenlight his tariffs after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the bulk of Trump’s tariffs, ruling the president can’t use emergency powers to justify levies imposed on dozens of trading partners. 

Trump said would be on “the brink of economic catastrophe” unless the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs are legal.

“The President and his Cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a statement, according to the Associated Press.

The Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees NASA, recently held a hearing with the colorful title of “There’s a Bad Moon on the Rise: Why Congress and NASA Must Thwart China in the Space Race.”

As the title suggests, the committee convened to examine the possibility that China might actually be the first country back to the moon and what could be done about it.

What is the Chinese threat, in the view of the committee, and how can the U.S. thwart it? The consensus of the witnesses was that a return to the moon would derive enormous benefits in a number of areas.

Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine referred to these benefits as “DIME” — short for “Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic.” The country that returns to the moon will be the preeminent power on Earth for a long time to come.

The witnesses noted some of the economic benefits of space exploration, not only of the moon, but of low Earth orbit.

Mike Gold, president of civil and international space for Redwire, noted that his company has flown numerous experiments on the International Space Station that lead the way for advanced pharmaceuticals and growing of human organs.

Another topic that arose was the mining pf helium 3, an isotope with great promise for nuclear fusion, from the moon.

A return to the moon also has national security implications. The moon is, in some ways, the “high ground” which allows the country that occupies it to exert both hard power (military) and soft power (diplomatic and information).

The U.S. must be the nation that leads the world back to the moon. If China is that nation, the results will be catastrophic, considering that country’s totalitarian government and its imperialistic drive to dominate the Earth.

Both the witnesses and the members of the committee were disappointingly vague on solutions for preventing the Chinese from beating the U.S. back to the moon. Several talked about a “grand strategy” for space, encompassing not only the moon but also low Earth orbit and beyond. Details were lacking on what this grand strategy would be.

More than one participant mentioned the need for adequate and consistent funding, something that lacking during previous attempts to return to the moon. 

Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned continuity of architecture, avoiding what he viewed as a “premature” pivot from the Orion/Space Launch System to purely commercial vehicles. 

Gold and Bridenstine were particularly supportive of the Lunar Gateway, a lunar orbital space station they suggested would enhance lunar surface operations.

Nuclear power also came in for some praise. The witnesses touted the recent decision by Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy to build a lunar surface nuclear power plant and get it to the moon by 2030.

Bridenstine took note of the one technology that may well prevent NASA and its partners from beating China back to the moon. The SpaceX Starship Human Landing System is far away from being operational enough to take astronauts to the lunar surface and back. 

The things that the human landing system will have to do, including multiple refueling missions in low Earth orbit, makes the vehicle too complex to quickly become a lunar lander, in his view. 

Bridenstine suggested that had he (or anyone) been NASA administrator when a lunar lander had been selected, the human landing system would not have made the cut.

Nevertheless, the Starship Human Landing System is the lander selected to return astronauts to the moon. No prospect exists of a last-minute substitution that would be ready in time.

Barring SpaceX’s Elon Musk pulling a rabbit out of his hat or the Chinese faltering, the U.S. is in peril for a “Sputnik moment” on steroids.

As mentioned in a previous article, what happens next depends on whether the U.S. reacts in the same way as it did in the wake of the Soviet Union’s first artificial satellite.

A flags and footsteps mission to the moon will be a fleeting victory for China if NASA and its partners follow with a permanent moon base.

The future of the world depends on wise, clear-eyed policy that takes a temporary defeat and presses on to the ultimate victory.

Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond” and, most recently, “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.

(NEXSTAR) – The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have updated their joint guidelines for people with high blood pressure for the first time since 2017, making changes to the way they recommend managing the condition.

The guidance expands the options for preventing and managing high blood pressure, which is a major risk factor for more severe health issues.

“By addressing individual risks earlier and offering more tailored strategies across the lifespan, the 2025 guideline aims to aid clinicians in helping more people manage their blood pressure and reduce the toll of heart disease, kidney disease, Type 2 diabetes and dementia,” said Dr. Daniel W. Jones, chair of the committee that writes the guidelines.

One big update has to do with GLP-1 medications, like Ozempic and Mounjaro, which have grown popular in recent years for their ability to promote weight loss. The new guidelines suggest patients with high blood pressure who are also overweight may want to seek a prescription for a GLP-1.

The American Heart Association also changed its guidance for pregnant and postpartum, recommending certain medications when patients record a stage 2 high blood pressure reading. The change is based on additional evidence that high blood pressure can cause serious complications, like preeclampsia, during pregnancy and after delivery.

Also new is an added emphasis on how hypertension can contribute to cognitive decline and dementia. New research shows that high blood pressure can damage blood flow to the brain, causing issues with memory and cognitive function.

Another major change in 2025 is advising doctors use a risk calculator, nicknamed PREVENT by the American Heart Association, to estimate patients’ risk of cardiovascular disease. The calculator looks at an individual’s age, sex, blood pressure, cholesterol and more to predict his or her risk of developing heart disease within 10 years and within 30 years.

Some things haven’t changed, however. The criteria for what constitutes high blood pressure remains unchanged from 2017:

The guidelines also still recommend a healthy lifestyle to prevent and manage blood pressure issues. Eating healthy, reducing salt, exercising and managing stressors are all recommended to reduce blood pressure and related conditions like heart attack, stroke, kidney disease, and more.