A (3:52)

Would you say you're surprised then if that's true? Would you say given where you were two years ago and where you are now on this issue, would you say I got it wrong, I missed something?

B (4:03)

I think, look again, I've had an open mind and that I've evolved on this and that the President's been right and the President has a, I said it publicly, President has a much higher risk appetite than I do. And my evolution went to, well, I think we should do smaller incremental tariffs. And the President went in with a maximalist position and that is actually what gave us the leverage in the negotiations by saying, okay, you've got a 35% tariff. When Japan agrees to a 15% tariff, you know, it's domo gato. Thank you.

A (4:51)

Why has there been such a reticence for the administration to say, you know what we're going after these tariffs, we think they're bringing in a lot of revenue, we think it's good for labor and you know what, it might have an inflationary impact and we're cool with that.

B (5:06)

No, Andrew, first of all, I think in your mind, what's inflation?

A (5:11)

Well, I think any time you see prices move up beyond the sort of standard, if you will, and I don't know what the standard you think should be, but any time that there's a period of time where there are artificial things happening that are effectively pressing prices.

B (5:27)

Up, well, you could get a one time price adjustment. Inflation is a generalized price and persistent price increase. So there's a big difference that this hasn't set off the some inflationary mindset. And the other thing too that I missed, but I saw early on in the negotiations is that China is a very different economic animal and they are willing to subsidize labor, subsidize production, subsidize capital. And because of that they depend on this export economy. And I think if you were to look The Chinese have consistently. On the Chinese portion of the imports. The Chinese have consistently cut prices. Consistently cut prices.

A (6:18)

You don't look, I mean, this is.

B (6:21)

And that. I don't believe tariffs are attacks, but I was surprised. I got a couple of the Democrats to step into the bear trap. They said, well, tariffs are attacks. We said, okay, so you believe tariffs are a tax? Yes. You believe tariffs are inflationary. Yes. So you believe taxes are inflationary. So join me and cut taxes and that will be disinflationary. We could get.

A (6:48)

But then that's an acknowledgment that to some degree it's a tax.

B (6:51)

No, no, no. But I'm just parroting what they say. According to that logic, we could reduce inflation across the country by cutting the sales tax 5%. Right.

A (7:02)

Look, I understand this is bank of America. They say, we think there is no debate tariffs have pushed consumer prices higher. Jay Powell, who I know you're not a fan of, who was here last year, said inflation away from tariffs is actually not so far from our 2% goal. But of course he's saying it's away from tariffs. And so the tariff piece, clearly.

B (7:21)

But the tariff piece is a small part of the economy. You know, you're in this fever swamp of Democratic talking points. And by the way, a huge number of the Democrats, a huge number of the Democrats, they are in favor of tariffs. They just can't say it now because they can't deviate from the hive. I think if you were to go back and look at Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, that. So now because it's the Trump tariffs, they got to be against it.

A (7:49)

Okay, let me ask you a different question then, which is there is going to be a ruling we're going to hear from the Supreme Court at some point soon, likely about tariffs, if in fact they strike them down or push them back. And I'm just curious what kind of planning you've been doing, what you think the different permutations are that this could.

B (8:07)

Take a couple of things. Andrew, is. I can tell you I was not in the same hearing that the New York Times and the mainstream media was in. It was a completely like the reporting.

A (8:17)

Tell me when you heard that.

B (8:19)

The reporting was. The hearing was very different, very different. When Amy Comey Barrett said that if we undo this, it'll be a mess, it was taken as, oh, it'll be a mess. She actually meant it as, we've got to be very judicious, which I assume the Supreme Court would be, but they've got to be Very prudent about doing this. And I just saw that Costco is going to file for a refund. Okay, tell me what kind of refund Costco's do. If the foreign producer lowered their price, they've taken a deduction on having paid the tariffs. So. And I am optimistic on this. Everyone says it'll be a loss for the administration. I think it'll be a loss for the American people. And.

A (9:12)

But if you lose, what do you do?

B (9:14)

But the ultimate goal here, that the revenue and I have been very consistent on this, that tariffs are a shrinking ice cube. The ultimate goal is to rebalance trade and to bring back domestic production. Okay, let's just step up and, and to finish that, the IIPA authority, and if anyone listened or looked at the transcript, that it was kind of the neo theater, the absurd because the plaintiff said, I think it was Justice Alito said, so you believe that the President, United States has the right to put on an embargo, but not a 1% tariff? And he said, yes, but we can recreate the exact tariff structure with 301s, with 232s, with the. I think they're called 122, but not permanently. Permanently.

A (10:08)

You think you're.

B (10:09)

Well, the 122s aren't permanently, but the others. We can do it. The, the IEBA authority gave the president and our team much more negotiating room. And I said it several times, if I was an emergency power, if the fentanyl crisis wasn't an emergency power or an emergency, then what was? Now, because of the fentanyl tariffs, the Chinese are making the first step forward that they've made. And I don't know when fentanyl came on the scene, but they are making a robust effort to reduce. Do that. That on October 8, when the Chinese announced that every product in the world that had a.01% rare earth Chinese content needed a license, President Trump was able to threaten them with 100% tariff. They immediately came to the negotiating table. That's emergency authority.

A (11:09)

I want to talk to you about China in a second, but I do want to ask you one final question on the tariff piece, which is the president said last week that potentially given the amount of money being brought in as a function of tariffs, and this goes to the tax issue, that he believes he could ultimately lower the income tax over the next several years. Are you planning to do that?

B (11:25)

We'll have to wait on the ruling.

A (11:27)

And that's dependent on the ruling. But you're saying if you get, if.

B (11:30)

You get and we'll see where it goes.

A (11:33)

Okay, let me pivot here to the Federal Reserve if I could, because Kevin Hassett is now said to be the frontrunner. I think Shane Kaplan might be here from Polymarket this morning. Polymarket odds right now have him at 70%. Can you give us any insight as to whether Hacketts either getting this job, but perhaps even more importantly, how much you think it matters that the Fed chair appear to be independent from the president?

B (12:01)

Lot to unpack there. So I will point out that during the contest for Treasury Secretary, I was at 80, then I was at 16, then I went to 100. So the poly market is only as good as the informational inputs.

A (12:17)

We'll find Shane up here somewhere, but keep going.

B (12:20)

It's, you know, in the efficient market hypothesis, it's assumed that everyone has perfect information. And in this, you can't. I have asymmetric information. And I think the important thing to remember here is that it's a board and then several other voters from the regional banks. So the chair of the Federal Reserve has the ability to move and start the discussion, but at the end, end of the day, he or she is one vote.

A (12:51)

But you, I believe, have a. And we were talking about this last week. You have a larger problem with the broader Fed construct today and the way even Fed presidents from the regional banks are selected?

B (13:02)

Well, there are a couple of things. Is I think that the Fed, as it used to be known, the creature from Jekyll island that has become the creature that the Fed doesn't understand itself. When you think about how can they set monetary policy, inflation, jobs policy, it has gone from an monetary interest rate function. Now there's a balance sheet function, which I can tell you no one understands. They've gone to an ample reserve, the corridor that I think some of the volatility we saw in November was the ample reserve corridor being tested. And then there's a regulatory component. So it's become this very complicated calculus. It's not just rates up, rates down.

A (13:56)

And so when you. But let's talk about this president issue because I think that part of what you've been talking about is that the regional presidents you think actually are not as independent unto themselves that you want.

B (14:08)

Well, no, no. I think when I was on Squawk Box last week, Becky said, well, Susan Collins at the Boston Fed says that people in her district are having an affordability problem. I should have said, well, she's in a red state, affordability is worse. I mean, in a blue state, affordability is worse. Than a blue state.

A (14:28)

We can debate that. But keep.

B (14:30)

There's no debate. The number 50 basis points higher inflation, the 10 highest. The inflation rates are in blue cities.

A (14:41)

But just so you know, because I went to look at this, this is the joint Economic Committee 2000. Since 2021, the highest inflation over the past four years has been in red states, especially Florida.

B (14:55)

I'm talking about current, current, current.

A (14:57)

Not over the past four years.

B (14:58)

Right. Today.

A (15:00)

Okay. I would think four years would be a reasonable.

A (15:06)

Trend line to look at today.

B (15:09)

Today it is 50 basis points higher. So anyway, and look that people are voting with their feet. I have the American people on my side that New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts.

A (15:24)

Are depopulating and they're going to places in Florida, like Florida where interest rates, or I'm saying inflation's up 22% over the last four years.

B (15:32)

Well, inflation then inflation is up 25% nationally. So it's lower.

A (15:38)

I believe in New York it was 19%. Sorry, I believe in New York it was 19%.

B (15:42)

I don't think that's right.

A (15:44)

We can go through the math.

B (15:46)

But to come back, I do believe that there is now a disconnect from the original framing with the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve presidents in the regional banks were meant to be from their district. And now there's this idea of importing a bright shiny object. And three of the Federal Reserve member for the regional banks, two of them used to work at the New York Fed. One of them was on a committee at the New York Fed was in a New York investment bank. So do they represent their district? So I am going to start advocating going forward, not retroactively, that regional Fed presidents must have lived in their district for at least three years.

A (16:38)

Is that a rule that you plan to put in place? Can you put that in place? Is that saying the Fed would have to do?

B (16:42)

I think that we can. It may be Congress, it may be the chair and the board have final say on who the regional bank boards can select. So I believe that.

B (17:00)

You would just say unless someone's lived in the district for three years, we're going to veto them.

A (17:05)

Okay, let me pivot to the economy and a watchword which has been the word of the day. Affordability. The President called the word affordability a con job yesterday. I'm curious what you think of the idea of affordability and where you think we are in the economic cycle. This is Jamie Dimon. Last month he said the lower income wages haven't gone up for a long period of time. He did not Call the economy recessionary but weakening. Do you think it's weakening right now?

B (17:35)

I think that certain sectors are and maybe it goes back to the reason we need interest rate cuts that clearly housing has weakened. And I believe that again, the Fed doesn't really understand this calculus. We've had balance sheet roll off which is tightening. We have had the two rate cuts. But I am very optimistic about the economy next year. We've had a 15% growth in capex and historically capex is always followed by employment growth.

A (18:13)

You mentioned China. Want to mention, want to discuss China for a moment which is there is a deal or we're working towards a deal in place. Part of the deal, the most recent deal was that China was supposed to buy 12 million metric tons of US soybeans. As of just about a week or two ago, they had only bought 330,000. By the end of this year, no.

B (18:34)

By the end of the season. So I think that'll be February 28th.

A (18:37)

So okay, we're still at 300.

B (18:39)

If we're at 330,000, I promise you you can try to try to stir it up. They are in a perfect cadence to complete that goal.

A (18:49)

But 330,000.

B (18:50)

No, no, no, no. Again, bad information. Bad information, Bad information. If I look at the loadings then the. Their purchase by their central government is well into the correct cadence.

A (19:05)

Okay, so let me ask you then a different question.

B (19:07)

We're going to, and I will say that China is on track to keep every part of the deal. Every part of the deal.

A (19:17)

We're going to show you an interview a little bit later today with the president of Taiwan. And of course, Taiwan is very, very worried right now about the possibility of China invading. They just announced a plan to spend a lot more on their military. I'm curious right now whether you believe that if China were to invade Taiwan, whether the US given its strategic ambiguity policy would come to the rescue.

B (19:41)

I don't answer hypotheticals.

A (19:45)

That's a good way to stop us in our tracks.

A (19:49)

But how should the folks in Taiwan think about the relationship then they should.

B (19:54)

Think that it's unchanged.

A (19:59)

And what does that mean?

B (20:00)

That we are in a very good equilibrium and that you are starting with this. Well, what if China invades tomorrow? I have found that since I've come on this side, my least favorite word in journalism is could. Because when a journalist has no story said, well, they could. So that's why.

A (20:24)

But that's why Taiwan's spending all the money that they are. That's why they're Wringing their hands. They're worried about something that could happen. And they don't know whether we are really an ally of theirs or not.

B (20:34)

The United States is an ally of China. The relationship remains unchanged.

A (20:40)

Of China. Not Taiwan. Sorry, you said of. Of China. Just one.

B (20:44)

And Taiwan.

A (20:44)

And Taiwan. Okay.

B (20:46)

The relationship remains unchanged.

A (20:48)

Let me ask you a separate question, which is about a lot of the big investments we've been hearing over the last couple of months. The president announcing, you know, a huge number of transactions with countries like Saudi Arabia and others that plan to invest in the United States. NBS was at the White House, said he was going to spend a trillion dollars. And I'm curious if you could just help us understand the scale and size of these investments and how realistic they are. And I say that because a trillion dollars happens to be basically nearly the entirety of the GDP of Saudi Arabia. And so how long, you know, if the GDP of Saudi Arabia is $1.3 trillion and they're pledging a trillion dollars to us, how that works in practice?

B (21:31)

Well, I think that we can see a cadence that's developing. I was back in my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina, and the Boeing plan is there, the bills, the Dreamliners expanding by 50% because of the foreign investment that as part of the trade deals we have negotiated, President Trump has negotiated a thousand, the new Boeing airplanes. So we are getting into this cadence that with pharmaceutical reassuring, with semiconductors. You know, Apple has said that they are going to, I think we're up to 6,100 billion now. So, you know, I think that we have set the stage and we have these commitments, and those commitments are due to certainty on tax, certainty on energy, certainty on regulation.

A (22:29)

But you think. I guess my question is the administration has talked about $21 trillion in investment being made in the U.S. this is according to Bloomberg. So you can go after them if you want to go after them. They say over review of the 137 projects on the White House's webpage, they believe there's only 7 trillion in pledges that could be considered real invest.

B (22:47)

Well, first of all, let's go back to that. Okay, only 7 trillion. Say that again, by the way.

A (22:53)

I'm not dismissing seven trillion. Seven trillion. Extraordinary.

B (22:57)

But let's go back. Let's give you credit for it. Only 7 trillion. What was the entire, what was the entire FDA, FDI during the Biden administration?

A (23:06)

I'm not going to, I'm not going to tell you that this is not extraordinary. The question is whether the public is being told the right amount.

B (23:12)

Well, the thing is, again, we have asymmetric information. We know which companies have committed to reshore production. As part of that, we arrived and back to the China relationship that.

B (23:31)

I always say we do not want to decouple. We want to de risk. And everyone who was in the administration the past four years should be ashamed because they did nothing to de risk. So whether it's semiconductors, whether, and I will tell you back to Taiwan. The single greatest economic threat is that the single point of failure for the global economy would be the disruption on chips from the island of Taiwan.

A (24:01)

Taiwan becomes more or less valuable strategically to us and the rest of the world as we move more of that manufacturing onshore. Meaning the president says he wants to have 50% of all manufacturing chips in the US here in the next two years. If that was. Even if that were to happen, does that make it more likely that China could go effectively take over Taiwan without us getting involved in? Because we'd say we've got the chips, we're okay, or does that make it more likely that we would go protect them?

B (24:29)

Well, I think that that's like a flawed question because it's like saying that if I have insurance, do I want my house to catch them? Is it more? Is my house more or less likely to catch on fire? Right. Well, because you're de risking, that doesn't mean you've changed anything.

A (24:48)

We're going to have Larry Fink and Brian Armstrong out here in just a moment. We're going to talk about the markets and everything else. One of the big questions in the marketplace right now is private credit. There's a great worry that perhaps private credit is, as Jeffrey Gundlach has described it, garbage lending. Howard Marks is saying cockroaches in the coal mine, that if there's a crisis in the future, this is where it's going to come from. What do you think?

B (25:12)

I think that if we think about the framing of private credit, what. First of all, let's ask why did we have we seen this growth in private credit? The growth in private credit, in my view, is because the regulatory framework for the regulated banking system has been too tight. So we at Treasury, I lead something called the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and we have been working with the regulators to create more credit in the regulated banking system. I think it was Oliver Wyman's numbers, not mine. When we finish the. The regulatory changes that we've announced will be 2.5 trillion more in lending capacity from the banks. So I think that your private credit, I Almost think of it as a first loss tranche that it's investors not.

A (26:12)

And so you don't think it's connected back into the banking system more broadly?

B (26:16)

I think it could be connected back into the banking system but I think that there is a large buffer there. I have a different worry about private credit than other people do. My worry is that in a downturn it could be very pro cyclical. That because it is financed by investors, if there was a, some kind of financial instability, if there was a downturn in the economy, treasury through the regulator and the regulators and the Fed, we can give window guidance to the regulators to loosen lending the restrictions. The Fed can ease monetary conditions, maybe go to the balance sheet. My worry is the private credit become very pro cyclical. That when you have investors, you know, in the investment business for 35 or 40 years in your book 1929, when you have investors as opposed to a government entity, they will always panic at the bottom.

A (27:25)

Right. We're going to run out of time and I have a couple of important questions for you. One is just about the relationship between the business community and the Trump administration. I want to give you an example of this. I wanted to get your thoughts on it because it's in the headlines right now. And, and it was something I had planned to ask David Ellison if he was going to be here on this stage. So David Ellison, as you know, is trying to buy Time Warner Discovery. There is news in the past week that he has greenlit a film called Rush Hour 4 by Brett Radner.

A (27:57)

Because the president effectively suggested or said this is one of my favorite films and I want to do this for Brett. And so now he is doing this and people look at this and think that this is an example of a company trying to, that the president is trying to push him and they are trying to placate the president. What do you think of that?

B (28:16)

Not much. That the, that that that a transaction of that size would be.

A (28:23)

But do you think it's appropriate for the president to be, to be asking them to do something like that? And is it appropriate for a company to be doing something on the other end to placate the president?

B (28:34)

I don't know. Is the, the Obama's contract with Netflix, is that appropriate?

A (28:41)

My understanding is that came after he was the President of the United States and that's the distinction because these are things that are going to be in front of the president and the administration.

B (28:49)

So for the first son to have a contract with the, with a Ukraine.

A (28:55)

Energy well and Don Jr. Has a relationship. I don't know where Shane is at Polymarket and with Kalshi. And so it's very complex. I mean, I'm curious how you think about these things.

B (29:05)

These things are very complicated. And I think that it is like, you know, if you want to start pulling at every thread, then let's start pulling at every thread of where Chuck Schumer's children work. Let's start pulling at every thread where every one of his former staffers work.

A (29:24)

But you appreciate that there's a large swath of the public that looks at these. These relationships and says this is different. And by the way, I had somebody who's a big supporter of the president actually said it just happens now out in the open. His argument was this used to happen privately all the time. The president is just more explicit about it here. This. That's the sympathetic view.

B (29:48)

Yeah. Look, I think that that is completely the offsides that the president could have said. I think it'd be a great movie. I have no idea. I wasn't there. Right. But you know, Andrew, the president should.

A (30:04)

Be weighing in on a transaction like that, I guess is the question. Sorry, should the president be weighing.

B (30:08)

Well, but you're not saying that he weighed in.

A (30:10)

He hasn't yet.

B (30:12)

You aren't saying whether he's weighed in on Paramount, Warner Brothers.

A (30:16)

What I'm suggesting saying he could.

B (30:18)

Let's go back to the.

A (30:19)

Yes, we're back to could. We're back. But that's why arguably. Look, my understanding is a Paramount passed on making that film originally. So one of the reasons that you're seeing lots of companies do lots of things is to, to attempt in their own way to curry some favor with this administration.

B (30:36)

Andrew, the Defense prime spend $200 million a year on lobbying.

A (30:41)

I understand, but. And the question is, is this. You put this in the lobbying context.

B (30:45)

Sorry, you're.

A (30:46)

You're.

B (30:47)

I could be.

A (30:49)

And you think that's. But I guess the question is how should. This is like a new look, Is this a new normal that.

B (30:54)

Andrew, there's no new normal. And you know, I can tell you that I actually don't read the New York Times anymore, but sometimes I do watch cnbc. But you know, occasionally people sending. Send me articles and there's just this feverish swamp and you know, you're, you're now a pop historian with 1929 and you know, in 20, 30, 40, 50 years, the new York Times is no longer the paper of record. You can't go, you know, I read this article like President Trump is slowing down President Trump's mental capacity. It is 100% fake that like he only called me twice at 2 in the morning last week instead of three.

A (31:38)

Times, you're saying he called you. I believe that he called you at 2 or 3 in the morning.

B (31:41)

Like that whole narrative. And this is why people like, this is why young people are going to TikTok. You know, this story might like somebody sent it to me. Mike Johnson is beleaguered. He and his wife are so tired. They gave actually a very sympathetic and funny interview that somehow got twisted on the pages of the New York Times into this. You know, it's just, let me say.

A (32:05)

This though, just if I could, I think that what is hap. What's happening here, and I will just defend that article for a moment, not because I had nothing to do with it, but I think part of it is if you remember, the media, including the Times and others, got criticized for not raising more issues around the health of Joe Biden. You remember this. And by the way, we did actually on this stage with the vice President, United States back then. But nonetheless, I think there was a lot of criticism about that. And so I think there's now a renewed sense that given people's age, that we should be doing more in that space. I don't want to overstate it, it's not something I wrote, but I'm just trying to.

B (32:42)

You had what was the greatest, one of the greatest scandals of the all time, that the coverage of the Biden administration, Joe Biden's diminished capacity and the.

A (32:52)

COVID And that's why it's probably fair to raise these questions.

B (32:55)

Where was the New York Times? We just had a three hour cabinet meeting yesterday, Andrew. For 10 months, the Biden administration did not have a Cabinet meeting. How are you going to invoke the 25th Amendment if the Cabinet secretaries never see the president, which they did that. You know, I hear from people in the treasury building that I see President Trump more in a day than my predecessor saw Joe Biden in half a year.

A (33:23)

So I'm not taking the position one way or the other. I'm just saying I think it's a fair question to at least raise.

B (33:31)

Well, look, I don't. I think this is why, you know, you just wrote a book. People in 20, 30, 40, 50 years deserve to know what really happened as opposed to, you know, again, people send me these stories from the New York Times and the headlines are not that different than the Daily Beast and the HuffPost.

A (33:56)

Let's end this conversation On, On, On, On. On a. On a subject that I think everybody, on a bipartisan basis, can probably agree upon, which is that yesterday you announced what is called the Trump accounts, and Michael Dell and his wife gave $6.25 billion to these accounts. And these accounts are going to go to children starting in July all across the country. What does that ultimately look like? And this is really one of the first sort of private public efforts, because it's all going to be run by the Treasury. And I think your goal ultimately is to get philanthropists across the country to effectively give money through the treasury to young Americans.

B (34:39)

Yeah, I think that this is the beginning of a shareholder economy. If, if we look 12% of Americans own 80, I think it's 88% of equities. And then if you go down to the fit, the balance, 10% of Americans own 88% of the equities, and then the balance, you go down to 50. The other 12, that's mostly through 401ks. You know what we're seeing now, we've seen this asset appreciation in America. You either have assets or you don't. And I think that this is an opportunity for the American people, for everyone to have a stake in the system, for everyone to be a shareholder. So for the next five years, every child who was born in the US Will get a thousand dollars. The account that will be invested in the S and P they cannot access until they're 18. So they will see the power of compounding. We are going to have, via Treasury, a huge amount of financial literacy. And I think that when, when you see that people have a stake in the system, they don't want to bring the system down. The second component of that is Americans are the most generous and giving people in the history of the world. And there has never been a vehicle for them to be able to give directly to American children. So this incredible gift that Susan and Michael Dell is giving, they're actually not doing it for the children who are going to be born. They're doing it retroactively. And the 6.25 billion is going to work out to about $250 per account for children from the past 10 years. But I believe that we are going to see this incredible outpouring into these accounts, and we now have the greatest fortunes in the history of America. And this is the chance that, because this had been talked about for a long time, and President Trump insisted on it being included in the one big beautiful bill, that this is the opportunity for philanthropists, for foundations and for corporates to contribute to all the American children. And you're going to be able to do it. You could do a school district, you could do a zip code, you could do a state. During the gfc, there was a panic among the billionaire class that people were going to come at them with pitchforks. So they did the Giving pledge. And the Giving pledge, while well intentioned, was very amorphous. And now this is concrete. This is Michael and Susan saying 6.25 billion. And I think we're going to see that. I think we're going to see people adopt states. I think we're going to see the school districts and that children and families are going to be able to check on their phone that this is my piece of the American dream.

A (37:43)

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you. We are out of time. I could talk to you for a much longer time and there's so many more questions. We appreciate you being here. Thank you.

B (37:50)

Good to see you very much.

A (37:51)

Thank you.

B (37:52)

Good.

A (37:52)

Thank you.

B (37:53)

Thanks.

A (37:58)

Dealbook summit is a production of the new york times. This episode was produced by evan roberts, mixing by kelly piclo and katie mcmurran. Original music by daniel powell. The rest of the dealbook events team includes julie zahn, hillary coon, melissa tripoli, beth weinstein, angela austin, haley hess, dana prukowski, matt kaiser, chantal rainier and yen wei liu. Special thanks to sam dolnick, nina lassom, christina josa and maddie mas.