Being on Air Force One provides a unique setting where the most significant global conversations happen. During a trip to Alaska to meet with Putin, Howard spent over 20 hours awake alongside the President and other officials like Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff. The time between major meetings involves a lot of waiting for world leaders in different time zones to wake up. During these hours, the atmosphere is informal, involving simple activities like chatting and watching golf.

Howard, while you're napping, we're trying to settle world peace.

The exhaustion of these long trips can be intense. While the President and his team were on secure handsets coordinating with European leaders, Howard fell asleep on the office couch. The President noticed and playfully threw a Tootsie Roll at him to wake him up. This moment highlights the blend of high-stakes international relations and the human reality of working under such pressure.

Howard approaches his role in government with a focus on outcomes rather than effort. He believes that working hard on something that fails is still a failure, while success is measured by the actual result regardless of the struggle. This mindset contrasts with the typical incremental approach found in government, where people often try to move the ball forward by just 10 percent without rethinking the system.

The way it was done yesterday isn't right. It was just what they did yesterday. You're not even saying it's wrong. You're just saying it's not.

To drive change, Howard reduced his department from 52,000 people to 40,000. He argues that cutting outdated programs quickly allows the remaining staff to feel secure and focus on new objectives. He found that government workers are often narrow experts in specific topics rather than generalists. His strategy involves weaving these specialists together and giving them tasks that maximize their specific knowledge.

Your job as the secretary is to weave that blanket together so that these specialists succeed. And so when you give them tasks that maximize their capacity, they get jazzed.

The Department of Commerce manages a wide range of responsibilities, from tariffs and export controls to space commerce. The Bureau of Industry and Security handles sectoral tariffs and ensures that advanced technology does not reach adversaries. This bureau also works on driving down the price of pharmaceuticals in the United States.

The International Trade Administration acts as an advocate for American businesses. It helps companies sell products globally and assists foreign companies looking to invest in America. Howard focuses on helping major companies like Boeing secure international deals to grow American jobs.

Every time I do a deal, at the end it says they buy 50 or 100 Boeing planes. We are always helping American companies sell overseas and helping companies invest in America. Help them with their permits or whatever they need to build and grow so we can grow our American jobs here.

Modernization is a major focus for the department. Howard is working to replace manual census processes with automated APIs. The department has also begun publishing GDP data on the blockchain to improve transparency and efficiency. This rapid innovation is supported by President Trump, who makes quick decisions based on his intuition and knowledge.

The reason you want to work for President Trump is his intuition is so extraordinary and his knowledge base is so amazing. I can talk to him about should we put GDP on the blockchain, and he'll chat with you about three or five minutes, and he goes, 'That sounds great.' And then you just go do it.

Other key areas include the Patent Office and the NTIA, which manages telecommunications and spectrum for 6G. The department also operates a center for AI advancement that studies new models, such as those from DeepSeek, and compares them to American models. Additionally, Howard recently moved the Office of Space Commerce out of NOAA to his direct oversight to better handle the growing industry of commercial satellites.

The trade deficit is often misunderstood. Some people compare it to buying groceries from a supermarket, but that is a poor analogy. A better way to look at it is through the relationship between two islands. Imagine one island that invents and another that produces. If the inventor keeps buying products from the producer using cash, the producer eventually uses that money to buy the inventor's island. Over time, the inventor ends up working for the producer.

The producer owns the inventor's island, and the inventor works for the producer because he ran an infinite trade deficit and kept paying his money away.

In 1985, the United States was a net investor in the rest of the world by about 148 billion dollars. Today, that situation has flipped. Foreign entities now own 26 trillion dollars more of America than America owns of them. Howard explains that this imbalance means Americans have effectively become employees of the people producing the goods they originally created. The goal of tariffs is to fix this imbalance.

Some argue that foreign companies investing in America by building factories is a solution. However, Howard suggests that is just another way for other countries to buy American assets. True balance occurs when American ownership of the world equals what the world owns of America. The strategy is to encourage companies to build products here and sell them here, or pay for the privilege of selling in the American market.

The administration moved away from a simple universal tariff toward a more complex, country-specific model. This approach is harder to execute but much more effective. In the past, internal disagreement made this difficult, but Howard notes that the current team is fully aligned on these goals. They are focused on driving outcomes rather than sticking to academic ideals.

Japan presents a unique challenge because its market is culturally and economically closed. For instance, nearly all cars driven in Japan are Japanese brands. Opening such a market requires more than just changing rules. Howard's initial approach was straightforward: if Japan would not open its market, they would face a 25% tariff. This forced the Japanese leadership to the table to explain their specific constraints.

The Japanese market for cars is culturally, technically and economically closed. So even if you opened it technically and even if you opened it economically, you may not be able to open it socially. So what we did is we said, all right, you're going to pay a 25% tariff, simple. You won't open your market.

The Japanese government explained that their manufacturing is built on a system of thousands of small companies. These small businesses receive government subsidies for machinery to create specific parts for major manufacturers like Toyota. Because these businesses are so small and specialized, they cannot easily move their operations to the United States. This structure creates a deeply rooted economic web that makes traditional market opening very difficult.

Howard notes that most governments actively shape and subsidize their own domestic productivity. This creates an unlevel playing field for American companies. Using steel as an example, Howard explains how the Chinese government provides free power to producers. This allows them to sell steel at a fraction of the cost of American-made steel. This practice has led to a dramatic decline in American infrastructure. The number of steel blast furnaces in the US has dropped from 40 down to just 10.

Imagine if I gave you the power for free. You'd be making your steel for 250 bucks a metric ton. And it costs 700 bucks a metric ton in America. So they're going to put our guys out of business. And then Japan subsidizes, Korea subsidizes it.

The loss of domestic manufacturing leads to a dangerous loss of self-sufficiency. Howard argues that relying on other nations for critical supplies like steel, aluminum, and copper makes a country subservient. This dependency extends to modern essentials like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. Even when products are manufactured by allies, the supply chain often traces back to less friendly sources. For example, many generic pharmaceuticals are produced in India, but their base ingredients originate in China.

If there's one nut or bolt that you need and it comes from China, they don't send it to you. There were these things called magnets. Magnets go in a car. The value of a magnet that goes in a car is 20 bucks. You're buying a $30,000 car and it's a $20 part. But if they don't have it, sorry, that can't work.

China operates an economy centered on overproduction and government subsidies. Every province competes to build major industries like electric vehicle companies. Because the government provides the capital and power, these mayors prioritize growth over profit. This leads to massive overcapacity where hundreds of companies produce far more than the local market can consume. To manage this surplus, China dumps these products into foreign markets at prices significantly below the cost of production. A car that costs $30,000 to manufacture might be sold in Europe for $15,000. This strategy effectively puts foreign competitors out of business and gives China strategic leverage over those nations.

It is their model, which is an attack chaos model. But the attack chaos model has overcapacity. And then they turn that over capacity into an asset, says, let's dump the overcapacity. We're going to lose a fortune. Okay, but the government's just paying. We're going to dump that over capacity into America or into Europe or into anybody who will take it. We will put their industry out of business, and they will have them over a barrel.

Tariffs serve as a tool to slow down this leverage and encourage domestic production. Howard explains that negotiating these trade deals requires constant iteration. In dealings with Japan, the goal was to move beyond simple foreign direct investment. Instead of Japan just building a single factory, a deal was structured for them to finance $550 billion in U.S. infrastructure projects. Japan acts as a limited partner by raising money through domestic bonds to fund projects like nuclear power plants in the United States. This arrangement allows the U.S. to build essential infrastructure using Japanese capital.

I've always described my business success in life. I always came at it like this, and then this, like this, sooner or later, iterate to success, sooner or later I got through. So what we came up with was $550 billion. They literally will finance any project we want to build in America as long as it is a good cash flowing project.

The deal is structured so that the U.S. and Japan split the cash flow evenly until the initial investment and interest are paid back. After that point, the U.S. retains 90 percent of the revenue. This creates a scenario where American taxpayers gain massive infrastructure and long term income without the initial financial burden. Japan benefits through reduced tariffs and economic stability. This model turns trade negotiations into a vehicle for domestic industrial growth.

Howard describes tariffs as an External Revenue Service that functions to reduce the national deficit and shift the tax burden away from American citizens. By collecting revenue from foreign trade partners, the government can fund specific domestic tax relief initiatives, such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security for those earning under $150,000. This approach aims to fix the budget through revenue enhancement rather than by cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. Howard emphasizes that the goal is to protect the standard of living in the richest country in the world without taking away from its citizens.

Politicians think all they have to do is give or take. The richest country in the world should be able to give people retirement at 65. We shouldn't change a darn thing. Can't we figure out ways to enhance our revenues to keep it that way?

The administration uses a staircase model for international trade negotiations to create urgency. In this framework, the first country to reach an agreement receives the most favorable terms. Subsequent deals become progressively less advantageous for the partners. This strategy was used during negotiations with the UK, where a strict deadline was set to incentivize a quick resolution. By rewarding those who move first, the administration ensures that countries are motivated to come to the table early rather than waiting to see how other deals play out.

President Trump does deals like a staircase. The first stair gets the best deal. You can't get the best deal after the first guy wins. Everyone says, "I want the UK deal," and the answer is no. They were first. They took the chance. They moved quickest.

In high-stakes trade negotiations, timing and momentum are everything. Howard describes his role as a table setter who negotiates the contracts and sets up the framework for the president to close the deal. This partnership allowed for a rapid succession of agreements with various countries. When a country misses its window of opportunity, the terms often shift against them as other deals are finalized in the interim.

The president, during all these deals, he would refer to me as the greatest table setter who ever lived. Because you have never had anybody who is as successful as me as a businessman before, who is just the table setter. I would negotiate the contracts and set the whole deal up. But let us be clear, it is his deal. He is the closer. He does the deal.

India serves as a primary example of how hesitation can lead to unfavorable outcomes. Despite being offered a specific timeframe to finalize a deal, they failed to act before other nations stepped in. As Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam reached agreements, the baseline for negotiations rose. When India eventually returned to the table, the previous favorable terms were no longer available because the train had already left the station.

This dynamic is compared to being on the wrong side of a seesaw in trading. Howard recalls a time early in his career when every trade he made seemed to go the wrong way. During those moments, he found it more productive to literally wash the plants in his office rather than continue making losing trades. In international diplomacy, internal politics often delay decisions, causing countries to fall to the back of the line while more decisive nations secure their positions.

When you are on the right side of the seesaw, you cannot lose. You buy, it goes up, and then you sell and it goes down. But when you are on the wrong side, what I used to do is I used to put the phone down, I used to go in the bathroom, fill a bucket with water, take a rag, and I would wash the plants in the office because it was much cheaper than me picking up the phone.

Ultimately, these trade deals are designed to be durable and address critical sectors like automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. Tariffs serve a dual purpose in this strategy. They are effective tools for reducing trade deficits and can be leveraged to influence the behavior of other nations on the global stage.

The United States currently acts as the primary source of revenue for the global pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies generate 75 percent of their revenue and all of their profits from the American market. Other regions like Europe use socialized medicine to negotiate prices just above the cost of production. This results in Americans paying significantly more than other nations for the same medications. Howard notes that while Americans might pay 1,000 dollars for a drug, other countries might pay as little as 175 dollars for the same product.

We are dictating fairness. If we are your biggest customer, treat us fairly. We are not even saying treat us the best. We are saying treat us fairly.

The goal is to implement Most Favored Nations pricing. This ensures that no wealthy nation receives a better price than the United States. To achieve this, Howard acted as a hammer in negotiations by using the threat of massive tariffs. Since most drugs are manufactured overseas and exported to America, the government has significant leverage. The administration offered pharmaceutical companies a specific deal. They could provide their best drugs at the lowest global prices and move manufacturing back to America. If they agreed, the government would waive tariffs. If they refused, they would face immediate and substantial tariffs on their imports.

You have two things we want from you. We want your best drugs at MFN prices. You cannot sell it to anybody in the world at a better price than you sell it to us. Charge us the same and reshore, and I will waive your tariff while you are reshoring. Or hammer.

Howard explains how drug pricing is being renegotiated to benefit American citizens. For example, medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro are now available through Medicaid and Medicare for significantly less than their previous market rates. Some pharmaceutical companies, such as Merck, have even agreed to provide their top drugs to these programs at no cost. This shift saves tens of billions of dollars annually and ensures that the United States is no longer the only country paying premium prices. Howard notes that for too long, the rest of the world has viewed America as a giant chicken leg, an easy source of wealth that would not miss the money taken from it through bad trade and drug deals.

The world views us as a giant chicken leg. We are so rich, we won't miss it. And so all the trade deals were bad, the drug deals were bad.

According to Howard, this change is driven by Donald Trump's intuition and his willingness to challenge established systems. This approach applies to everything from immigration lotteries to the shipping industry. Howard points out a specific tax game where cargo ships use flags from countries like Liberia to avoid paying taxes on their profits. By claiming their profits are made on the high seas and treating ports as expenses, these companies avoid contributing to the system. Howard expects the government to aggressively attack this type of fraud and waste in the coming year.

The conversation also addresses the link between immigration and the welfare state. Howard argues that the United States could only afford open borders before 1914 because the government provided no social safety net. In that era, individuals had to be self-sufficient or they would not survive. However, once a country establishes a welfare state with food stamps and housing, open borders become unsustainable. Taxpayers cannot be expected to provide for anyone who enters without a system of control.

When we went to have a welfare state, you have to close the borders. Because if the people are going to give their money, they need to give it to each other. You can't really open the border and say I'm going to give my money to anybody who wants to come in.

The goal of new immigration initiatives like the trump card programs is to ensure that people entering the country provide a clear benefit. For the last five years, the average green card recipient earned significantly less than the average American. This trend means the country has been bringing in the bottom quartile of earners. Howard argues that this makes individuals more likely to rely on government assistance rather than contributing to the economy. The new approach requires proof of benefit, such as a million dollar payment to help reduce the national deficit and taxes. This shifts the focus toward bringing in top earners who will help the nation grow.

If you're going to give everybody the gift of America, we better get something back. The idea for us is to prove you are going to be a benefit to this country. You come in and you're going to be top quartile, maybe top decile. You're going to help America be better.

The strategy also involves refining the H1B visa process. While these visas are valuable for high earning engineers, they should not be used for entry level roles that could be filled by graduates from American universities. Howard emphasizes that the greatness of the country is built on an entrepreneurial spirit rather than open borders without vetting. When the United States is economically powerful and provides global security, the rest of the world benefits. Even as other nations pay more in trade or tariffs, their stock markets often rise because they value the long term stability and resilience of a strong American economy.

If the United States is powerful and strong and building an economy that we can rely upon and trust upon, our companies are going to do great. The world shines brighter when America shines brighter.

Howard plans to tackle systemic fraud in federal spending by improving cooperation between government departments. When the federal government provides funds that states administer for welfare, there is a clear interest in how that money is spent. In the past, departments like Commerce and HHS rarely worked together. Howard intends to change this by using modern technology to cross-reference data and identify discrepancies in programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

No one has ever looked at, if you're getting Medicaid and Medicare, how much money do you make? No one's ever compared the two. You're supposed to tell us, but it's the honor system. We are going to build the technology to do this. Everybody is on board. We are going to come out with models and methods to seek the fraud out.

The economic strategy also focuses on driving significant GDP growth. Howard expects growth to reach 5 percent due to massive construction projects and committed capital. He points to new factories for companies like Micron and auto plants in Detroit as evidence of this momentum. While he admits that government shutdowns can artificially lower GDP numbers due to odd accounting rules regarding furloughed workers, the underlying trend remains strong.

When you furlough them on the shutdown, you're still paying them. That's the deficit. But they're not actually working at the government, so they're not productive. So they take it away from GDP. This is actually like the silliest thing in the world. You're giving the guy the same amount of money. What's the difference? These are the rules.

If interest rates are cut, Howard believes the economy could even see growth levels of 6 percent. This would match the peak growth rates once seen in China but achieved within a more open economic system. He argues that 1.5 trillion dollars in growth is possible on a 30 trillion dollar base, despite many economists doubting such high targets.

Howard predicts a future with 6% GDP growth. He explains that when wages rise because demand for skilled labor is high, it represents healthy growth instead of inflation. This shift is visible in the construction and tech infrastructure sectors where high paying jobs are becoming abundant.

Technical trades are currently offering immense earnings potential. In Arizona, electricians working on a data center project earn between $500,000 and $750,000 a year. This exceeds the salaries of many software engineers at major tech companies. Howard believes the economy is creating opportunities for people to make significant money by working with their hands in ways he has not seen before in his career.

We have to pay electricians between 500 and $750,000 a year, which is more than what we pay the engineers that work at the models at a Facebook. It is an example of just how the economy has created earnings potential across the board in ways that I have never seen in my career.

The American education system previously moved away from vocational training in favor of expensive liberal arts degrees. This left many students with debt and limited job prospects. However, new manufacturing projects like the TSMC plant in Arizona are changing this. American technicians there are now performing as well as those in China. These roles provide engaging work that allows people to solve complex problems and earn a high living without a traditional college path.

The initial approach to the CHIPS Act involved direct subsidies, but a different strategy uses leverage instead of simple giveaways. For instance, instead of giving 6 billion dollars to a massive company like TSMC, the threat of a 100 percent tariff can incentivize them to build in America without a handout. Howard explains that in negotiations, existing contract requirements, such as DEI mandates, can be used as leverage. By identifying where a company is in breach of these specific conditions, the government can negotiate for much larger investments in exchange for waiving those requirements. This approach turned a 60 billion dollar project into a 160 billion dollar investment.

You signed that contract, so you are in breach. Okay, so how about this? How about add 100 billion? So instead of building 60 billion, you build 160 billion. And we agreed.

Deals with companies like Nvidia follow a similar logic of strategic leverage. Jensen Huang argued that cutting off China completely would only force them to fund their own domestic competitors. By selling them chips that are better than what they can make but behind the current United States leading edge, America maintains economic influence. In exchange for this access, the government can charge a 25 percent tariff on those exports. The government also tests these chips upon arrival in the country to ensure they have not been secretly enhanced before granting export licenses.

If you shut off China down entirely, then all of their economics go to their national champion to build new stuff. If you give them better than what they have, you do not have to give them your best. Then they will give less to their champion and more to you.

A key part of the current administration's process is ensuring that decision makers are surrounded by smart people who hold differing opinions. It is a misconception that the person who speaks to Donald Trump last always wins the argument. Instead, he listens to a wide variety of views. Often, if he is about to make a decision, he will call the person he agrees with last because that is the individual he is saying yes to. This helps balance the process even when he has to say no to someone else.

Donald Trump hears so many different views that often he will call the person he likes that he is going to go with the last one before he gives it. Because that makes sense. Like, if I am going to say yes to you, I am saying no to him, but I am saying yes to you.

Howard Lutnick notes that Jensen did an excellent job presenting his case to the president regarding China. Despite varying opinions on China policy, Howard observes that the president possesses incredible intuition. Decisions are made with deep thought and balance, even if others disagree with the final choice. Howard finds it rewarding to work for someone who challenges him. After leading companies with thousands of employees, he appreciates working for a leader who operates at such a high level.

He does have the best intuition of anybody I have ever met in the whole wide world. And when he thinks it is okay, and I know he has had full information and he makes really make strong decisions, you might disagree. He does not always agree with me, but it is a strong decision which has deep thought and balance to it.

When companies require the unique infrastructure or assistance of the United States government to succeed on the global stage, it is reasonable to expect that the American taxpayer should receive something in return. For example, recent arrangements have included a revenue share on Nvidia chips and a ten percent stake in Intel. These assets can then be used to address significant national issues like balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, or shoring up Social Security. Howard explains that if a company needs the president to open a door or change a situation, that value should benefit the public coffer.

If you really need his help, and you need him to open the door to drive the door to change it, you need America to make it happen for you. Isn't there something for the American taxpayer there? Because in the end, if we can balance the budget, then he can take care of the people.

Solving a problem like Social Security often carries a negative political stigma because it usually implies benefit cuts. However, a different approach involves injecting outside money generated from these strategic government-corporate deals and general economic efficiency. By eliminating fraud, which could save an estimated trillion dollars, and achieving higher growth rates like six percent, the country could mathematically resolve its financial obligations without taking anything away from citizens.

The answer is if you hit it with outside money and just start hitting it with money that you've made out here and you fix it, you take nothing away.

The decision-making process in the administration involves a deep understanding of secondary consequences. In a meeting with several advisors at the Resolute desk, Donald demonstrated this by identifying derivative results of a proposal that everyone else in the room had overlooked. This ability to see the broader impact of policy decisions is central to his leadership style.

Howard shares a humorous story about his four children and their family dynamic. With an oldest son, a youngest son, and an only daughter, his son Brandon would jokingly sign cards as the fourth favorite child. Whenever a sibling made a mistake, Brandon would run into the room and announce he had moved up to third place.

My son Brandon would sign his birthday card, your fourth favorite, because he was neither the youngest nor the oldest nor the daughter. Whenever one of the other kids screwed something up, Brandon would come running in and say, third, and he would run back out.

A strong family foundation is important to Howard. He credits his wife of 31 years for being a spectacular mother and raising capable children. To maintain their close bond, he lets his adult children choose the family vacation destinations. He believes that following their lead is the best way to ensure everyone stays together.

I asked my adult children where they wanted to go, and that's where we went. Because if I went somewhere else, they wouldn't go with me, and I want them to be there.

This personal stability allows Howard to focus entirely on his role in the government. He transitioned from running a company with billions in revenue to serving as Commerce Secretary. To do this, he divested his business interests and patents. He believes that having a cabinet with deep business experience will lead to significant achievements.