July 11, 2026 - Economic Insider

Forget “Crushing It.” John Berra Says the Real Skill Is Knowing How to Turn Things.

Economic Insider Staff on July 11, 2026

Business language is full of combat metaphors. Crush the competition. Slay the obstacle. Dominate the market. John Berra, the former Chairman of Emerson Process Management, spent decades inside one of the demanding corners of industrial business, and he came away with a noticeably different vocabulary.

His word is “turn.” Not defeat. Turn.

It’s the central idea behind his book Turning the Giant, and it’s a small linguistic shift that ends up changing quite a lot about how leaders approach the obstacles in their way.

Why “Slaying” Doesn’t Actually Work

John’s argument starts with a simple observation. Many of the major challenges leaders face, such as bureaucracy, skepticism, self-doubt, and competition, don’t go away just because you fight them hard enough. They’re persistent by nature. You can win a battle against them, and they’ll still be there next quarter, in a slightly different form.

What he learned instead is that these challenges have to be managed, redirected, and ultimately turned into something useful. That’s the entire philosophy packed into the book’s title. You don’t beat a giant. You turn it, and then it’s working in a different direction than it was before.

A Repetitive Job Started All of This

It’s worth knowing where John’s thinking actually came from, because it’s not a boardroom story. It’s a wire story.

Early in his career at Monsanto, he spent his days doing repetitive engineering work. Nothing glamorous. Just the same task, over and over, with plenty of time to think. And the thought that kept returning was: there has to be a better way.

That frustration didn’t evaporate. It became fuel. John describes properly channeled frustration as one of the powerful catalysts for innovation available to anyone, and his own career is the proof of concept.

The Bigger the Org, the Bigger the Giant

As John moved into senior roles, first at Fisher-Rosemount Systems and later at Emerson, he expected the obstacles to get easier to deal with. They didn’t. They got bigger.

Larger organizations come with more entrenched processes, more layers of skepticism, and more people whose default setting is “that’s not how we do things here.” What John learned in that environment is that transformation happens through accumulation, not force. One conversation at a time. One skeptic turned into an ally at a time. A long-term vision held steady even when the immediate response is resistance.

Doubt Is Part of the Job, Not a Disqualifier

John doesn’t pretend that any of this came easily or that he felt certain the whole way through. Quite the opposite. He’s candid that self-doubt showed up at nearly every major step forward in his career, especially when he was moving into responsibilities he hadn’t held before.

He frames it simply: growth and doubt travel together. If a leader is waiting to feel fully confident before taking on something new, they may be waiting indefinitely. The doubt isn’t a sign to stop. It’s often a sign that something worth doing is actually happening.

The One Question Worth Asking

If John could leave readers with a single habit, it would be a question to ask whenever resistance shows up: ” How can I turn this giant?

Not how do I defeat it? Not how do I avoid it? How do I turn it so that the same force working against you starts working, even partially, in your favor?

It’s a small shift in framing. But according to someone who spent a career doing exactly that, it’s the shift that makes everything else possible.

Berra develops the idea further in Turning the Giant, tracing how it took shape across a career spent turning obstacles in industrial automation into openings.

US Federal Deficit Nears $1.4 Trillion as Interest Costs Hit Record High

Economic Insider Staff 2 on July 11, 2026

The U.S. federal deficit totaled nearly $1.4 trillion through the first nine months of fiscal year 2026, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Treasury borrowing remained elevated while interest payments on the national debt increased, reflecting higher debt levels and sustained borrowing costs.

Key Takeaways

The federal deficit approached $1.4 trillion during the first nine months of FY2026.
Treasury borrowing averaged about $155 billion per month during the fiscal year.
Net interest payments on the national debt reached approximately $857 billion.
Higher debt levels and elevated interest rates increased federal interest expenses.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending also rose during the period.

The US federal deficit reached nearly $1.4 trillion during the first nine months of fiscal year 2026, according to the latest monthly budget review released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The report showed continued growth in Treasury borrowing alongside higher interest costs on the national debt, increasing pressure on the federal budget.

The fiscal year began in October 2025, and by the end of June 2026, the cumulative deficit had reached just under $1.4 trillion. That figure exceeded the deficit recorded during the same nine-month period of fiscal year 2025, indicating higher government borrowing compared with a year earlier.

Treasury borrowing averaged roughly $155 billion per month through the fiscal year to date. At the same time, the total U.S. national debt stood at approximately $39.4 trillion, accumulated across multiple administrations. The figures add to concerns raised in a related report on how the US debt surpassed GDP, illustrating the scale of the federal government’s borrowing obligations.

What Did the Congressional Budget Office Report?

The Congressional Budget Office reported that the federal government’s net interest payments on public debt reached approximately $857 billion during the first nine months of fiscal year 2026.

That amount represents an increase of roughly $100 billion, or about 13%, compared with the same period in fiscal year 2025. According to the CBO, the increase resulted from both a larger outstanding debt balance and higher long-term interest rates.

The pace of borrowing has also remained substantial. Based on the fiscal year-to-date figures, Treasury borrowing averaged about $155 billion each month, equivalent to approximately $39 billion each week.

Interest Costs Compared With Other Federal Spending

The CBO data showed that interest expenses exceeded the combined spending for several federal departments and programs. Net interest outlays were approximately $20 billion higher than the combined expenditures for the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security, Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, and refundable coronavirus tax credit programs during the reported period.

The comparison illustrates the growing share of federal resources devoted to servicing existing debt rather than funding government operations or public programs.

Why Have US Interest Payments Increased?

The increase in US Treasury interest payments reflects two primary factors identified by the Congressional Budget Office.

First, the federal government is carrying a larger amount of outstanding debt than it did one year earlier. As total borrowing increases, the amount of debt requiring interest payments also rises.

Second, long-term interest rates remain higher than levels seen in earlier years. Debt issued or refinanced at higher yields increases the government’s financing costs, raising overall interest expenses even without significant changes in federal spending programs.

As a result, net interest payments reached approximately $857 billion during the first nine months of fiscal year 2026, equivalent to roughly $24 billion each week.

The CBO attributed the higher interest costs directly to the combination of increased debt and elevated borrowing rates.

What Is Driving Federal Spending Higher?

Alongside higher interest costs, mandatory spending programs continued to account for a significant share of federal outlays.

Changes in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Outlays

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security spending increased by approximately $62 billion, or 5%, during the reporting period. The increase reflected both higher average benefit payments and a larger number of beneficiaries.

Medicare spending rose by about $58 billion, representing an increase of 8%. The CBO attributed the growth to higher enrollment and increased payment rates for healthcare services.

Medicaid spending also expanded during the period, increasing by approximately $49 billion, or 10%. The report stated that higher costs per enrollee contributed to the increase.

These mandatory spending programs remain among the largest components of the federal budget and continued to grow during fiscal year 2026.

Population data released by the U.S. Census Bureau also showed that the country’s median age increased from 39.2 years in 2024 to 39.4 years in 2025. The Census Bureau also reported an increase in the ratio of men to women within the population aged 65 and older, reflecting continued demographic changes that affect federal benefit programs.

How Does the FY2026 Deficit Compare With Last Year?

The fiscal year 2026 deficit has already surpassed the amount recorded during the same point in fiscal year 2025.

Through the first nine months of fiscal year 2025, the federal deficit totaled just over $1.3 trillion. The latest CBO figures place fiscal year 2026 at nearly $1.4 trillion over the equivalent period.

The increase reflects growth in both spending and interest costs, while borrowing has continued throughout the fiscal year.

Average monthly borrowing reached approximately $155 billion between October 2025 and June 2026. Based on those figures, weekly borrowing averaged around $39 billion.

The higher deficit also coincided with increased interest obligations, making debt servicing one of the largest categories of federal expenditures during the reporting period.

What Are Fiscal Experts Saying About the Budget Outlook?

The latest budget figures have prompted renewed attention from organizations that monitor federal fiscal policy.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated that the fiscal year 2026 deficit has already exceeded the comparable fiscal year 2025 level and indicated that total borrowing for the full fiscal year could exceed $2 trillion if current trends continue.

The organization also pointed to projected financial pressures facing Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the coming years, arguing that policymakers will need to address long-term budget sustainability.

Among the proposals supported by the committee is reducing annual federal deficits to approximately 3% of gross domestic product through a combination of spending restraint and increased revenue. Separate proposals for addressing fiscal challenges have also emerged, including Federal Reserve reform task forces focused on monetary policy and central bank governance.

The Congressional Budget Office’s latest monthly budget review provides updated data on current federal finances but does not recommend specific policy actions. Its report documents revenue, spending, borrowing, and debt service costs based on existing law and current fiscal conditions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the US federal deficit for fiscal year 2026 so far?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. federal deficit totaled nearly $1.4 trillion during the first nine months of fiscal year 2026.

Why are US Treasury interest payments increasing?

The Congressional Budget Office said higher interest payments resulted from a larger national debt and higher long-term interest rates.

How much has the US government borrowed in FY2026?

Treasury borrowing averaged approximately $155 billion per month during the first nine months of fiscal year 2026.

What factors contributed to the higher federal deficit?

Higher net interest costs, along with increased spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, contributed to the larger deficit compared with the same period in fiscal year 2025.

Royston G King Reviews Why Skepticism Became a Selling Point

Economic Insider Staff on July 11, 2026

It is unusual for someone selling anything to encourage the audience to be more skeptical. Yet a recurring surprise in his pieces is exactly that: the Malaysia-based entrepreneur tends to invite critical scrutiny rather than discourage it, treating a skeptical audience as an ally rather than an obstacle. Few themes occupy him more than this one, and Royston G King reviews why skepticism has become a selling point as a way into a larger question about trust.

The stance makes more sense in light of his broader argument. King contends that the digital economy is in a trust recession, in which confident claims have become so cheap and common that audiences have learned to discount them by default. In that environment, a business that encourages skepticism is not undermining itself. It is aligning with how careful people already think, and positioning itself as the option that welcomes the questions others fear.

This is why so many of his pieces describe an approach built around evidence and inquiry rather than persuasion. Instead of asking audiences to simply believe, the recurring move is to invite them to check, to ask for support, and to weigh claims critically. The implicit message is that a claim strong enough to survive scrutiny is worth more than one that depends on the audience not looking too closely. It is worth watching how Royston G King reviews why skepticism has become a selling point, because his method is as telling as his conclusion.

His handling of his own credentials illustrates the point. His public profile notes recognition on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list and, according to his profile, study at the University of Southern California and Columbia University. Rather than presenting these as reasons to stop questioning, he tends to frame them as context that can itself be examined, which is consistent with someone who treats skepticism as healthy rather than threatening.

Why encourage skepticism deliberately? King’s reasoning connects to artificial intelligence. As machine-generated content fills the internet with fluent material that carries the marks of expertise and little of the substance, the audiences most worth reaching are precisely the skeptical ones, because they are the ones still capable of telling signal from noise. Winning their trust, rather than the passive belief of the credulous, is the more durable prize.

Readers of his pieces often find that this reframing treats them as capable adults rather than targets. There is a respect implicit in asking someone to verify rather than to trust blindly, and that respect tends to register. In a field where much marketing assumes the audience will not check, an approach that assumes they will, and welcomes it, stands apart.

There is also a discipline required. Encouraging skepticism only works if the claims can survive it, which forces a certain honesty. A business that invites scrutiny cannot rely on exaggeration, because exaggeration is exactly what scrutiny exposes. In that sense, the posture is self-policing: it commits the person adopting it to substantiation, because the alternative would be quickly found out.

This connects to a broader theme that his pieces frequently identify, which is the preference for improving the audience’s judgement rather than exploiting its gaps. Helping people become better at evaluating claims is, in the long run, a bet that one’s own claims will hold up under that improved scrutiny. It is a confident position dressed as a modest one.

This posture also shapes the relationships that follow. A client or reader who was invited to scrutinise, and whose scrutiny the claims survived, tends to arrive at a sturdier kind of trust than one who was simply persuaded. Many of his pieces note that trust earned through verification is harder to shake than trust won through charm, because it rests on something the person checked for themselves rather than something they were told. In an environment where confidence is cheap, that difference matters. The skeptic who becomes convinced through their own examination is a more durable ally than the enthusiast who was talked into belief, and cultivating the former rather than the latter is part of what makes the approach distinctive.

It is on exactly this basis that Royston G King reviews why skepticism has become a selling point, and the conclusion he reaches is a cautiously hopeful one. For a public navigating an increasingly crowded and synthetic information landscape, the value of that emphasis is real. The most useful thing a business can offer, in King’s framing, is not the boldest promise but help in judging promises well. Encouraging skepticism, counterintuitive as it seems, is a way of doing exactly that. That inversion, treating a doubting audience as the right audience, is among the more distinctive ideas that his pieces consistently surface.

About Royston G. King

Royston G. King writes and advises on brand authority, strategic publicity, and reputation management. Learn more about his work at his website. You can also follow his insights on LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube.