They're not producing fuel to continue the same reactions, which would be a violation of conservation of energy. They're producing fuel to run a different reaction. Less "perpetual motion machine," more "spinning a turbine to charge a battery to run an EV."

Edit: A better analogy is cracking water to capture the hydrogen, to later burn it in a fuel cell.

Nonetheless, being able to produce tritium, which is the claim that appears in the headline and the article, is very useful, in part because many reactors use it as a fuel source.

There is only one place where I see "more fuel" show up, which is this single sentence:

The ability to generate tritium within the reactor is crucial. A sustainable fusion energy system needs to produce more fuel than it consumes. This development shows a path toward solving that engineering challenge.

I agree that this single sentence could have been better worded.