Another Trump Trade Deadline

Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Thursday imposing new tariff rates on trading partners that take effect Friday, the White House said. 

The signing will take place “at some point this afternoon or later this evening,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during a news briefing, adding that “Aug. 1, the reciprocal rates will be going into effect.”

It’s unclear how many orders Trump will need to sign to enact the new policies.

Bloomberg Washington Correspondents Joe Mathieu and Kailey Leinz deliver insight and analysis on the latest headlines from the White House and Capitol Hill, including conversations with influential lawmakers and key figures in politics and policy. On this edition, Joe and Kailey speak with:

• Bloomberg Washington Correspondent Tyler Kendall.
• Former US Trade Ambassador Ron Kirk.
• Bloomberg Politics Contributor Jeanne Sheehan Zaino and Echo Canyon Consulting CEO Jon Seaton.
• Economic Consultant Kathryn Edwards.
• Republican Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis of New York.
• Firehouse Strategies Partner Alex Conant.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at
noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
We are approaching this midnight deadline for countries to reach
trade agreements or not with the United States and face
the implementation of them tomorrow, August first, and of course
later on today, Joe. We will also hear from President
Trump himself as he's getting set to sign executive orders
and welcoming the press in as he does.

Speaker 3 (00:41):
So I have to admit, I mean, there's always tomorrow,
but this just feels like one of those days when
he walks into the briefing room.

Speaker 4 (00:46):
It could be one of those.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Days when he wants to can't rule anything out.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
Shape the narrative here, because we're all asking the same questions,
is that it remember ninety deals in ninety days. We
technically got eight deals in one hundred and twenty days.
Realizing one of those deals includes the full block of
the EU, we could frame that as more than one deal.
I guess but look, we could get more where this
came from. As we mentioned earlier, Kaylee, the update on

(01:10):
Canada is not good. As the President says, its decision
to recognize a Palestinian state as a deal breaker when
it comes to trade, Mexico gets a ninety day reprieve.
Let's go to the White House to see what else
we may have learned here in the last twenty four hours.
Bloomberg Washington correspondent Tyler Kendall is on the north lawn
of the White House right now. To bring more to
us here, Tyler, what's happening in that building behind you?

Speaker 4 (01:31):
Is the President done?

Speaker 5 (01:34):
Hey Joe.

Speaker 6 (01:34):
At this point it's not really clearer though. At four
pm Eastern, as Cayley mentioned there, he's going to welcome
the press into the Oval Office sign some executive orders.
We'll have to see if those include actually putting pen
to paper when it comes to putting these different terror
freights into effect, because keep in mind, so far, all
we've really gotten are these truth social posts, the letters

(01:55):
that he sent, but we actually have to see the
formal documents to see what's actually in the text and
going to go into place now you mentioned there, of course,
Mexico was pretty big news today getting that ninety day reprieve.
That was perhaps unexpected considering that the White House had
said that there would not be any extension when it
came to that August first deadline. That we should keep

(02:16):
in mind that Mexico is actually the United States largest
trading partner, perhaps why we've heard administration officials say that
the country would get a little bit more of a
preferential position when it comes to these negotiations. A lot though,
that we're still tracking, and a lot more that could
still be on the table. Keep in mind you mentioned Canada.
We also haven't heard about Australia, for example. And then

(02:38):
two countries Joe and Kelly, I'll put on your radar
that we could get an update later today, Thailand and Cambodia.
The Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik last night said that they
had finished those agreements, but we've yet to see what
that lower rate could be. Right now, they're facing a
thirty six percent tariff, comparatively higher to what their neighboring
nations have gotten in that region.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
Well, what we consider that region, tyler, in which of
course China features incredibly heavily. Do we have an understanding
of how it went when the Treasury Secretary Scott vesstt
USTR Jamison Greer brief President Trump on their negotiations with
China in Stockholm earlier this week.

Speaker 6 (03:17):
So we've heard from President Trump that it's gone positively.
In an interview earlier today, the Treasury Secretary said that
they were still working out some of the technical pieces
when it came to an updates to the trade talks. There,
we are expecting a ninety day pause to go into
effect when it does come to keeping this de escalation
on track, because essentially that's what those Stockholm talks were, right.

(03:39):
We heard the USTR basically amount them to a check
in make sure that both sides are living up to
the agreement that was reached in London, which is really
about the agreement that was reached in Geneva. Make sure
that those magnets are flowing into the United States and
that the US is upholding its end in terms of
perhaps loosening some export controls for less advanced semiconductor chips.

(03:59):
They want to this process going and make sure that
they're still talking, but we know that there are a
lot of sticking points on the table. These are going
to be talks that take a long time to accomplish,
just one that we haven't really spoken about a lot.
But we heard the Commerce Secretary in an interview earlier
this week say that the TikTok deal is happening adjacent
to these talks. Things like that that really do come

(04:19):
into the picture and the negotiating picture that just make
this all the more complicated.

Speaker 3 (04:24):
I don't know what they're trucking in there, Tyler, but
if you need to get out of the way there
in the driveway, this is a working White House, obviously, Tyler.

Speaker 4 (04:31):
Thank you so much, as always for being with us.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
Bloomberg Washington correspondent Tyler Kendall live on the North lawn
at the White House. We try to seek voices of experience, practitioners,
people who have been in the process of, in this case,
cutting trade deals to get a better sense of what's
happening here at the White House. Kaylee, We've talked so
much about the lack of paper, the lack of detail,

(04:54):
and we thought we'd talked to somebody who's actually been
in the room for these deals to get a better
sense of what they mean.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
Yeah, I'm pleased to say joining US now here on
balance of power is a former US Trade Representative himself,
Ron Kirk, who served in that position from twenty nine
to twenty thirteen in the Obama administration. Ambassador, thank you
for being with us once again on Bloomberg TV and radio.
As we consider what are being described as deals here.
Does it meet your definition of a deal? Do any

(05:19):
of them?

Speaker 7 (05:21):
You know?

Speaker 8 (05:21):
They are not trade deals in the traditional sense of
a formal treating like the USMCA or other agreements that
are enforceable, or even agreements in which Congress signs all
phone them. But I think our partner countries have accepted

(05:44):
the fact that we are just in uncharted waters in
terms of this administration and the fact that the President
is using heretofore never used authority with these emergency economic
powers and are just trying and what could be a
horrific situation not only for them, but I keep stressing

(06:07):
the point this is not good for American business nor families,
because no matter how many times the administration says that
whatever the tariff rates are, they're going to be vastly
higher than they were last year, as essentially zero two percent,
and they're going to be paid by small businesses, large

(06:29):
American importers, and ultimately American families and consumers.

Speaker 3 (06:36):
What do you make of President Trump's conflating of geopolitics
with trade policy. We've seen this take place now with
India and Pakistan, Cambodia and Thailand. In the case of today,
Canada recognizing it, says well, we'll formally recognize the Palestinian state.

(06:57):
Donald Trump says, that's a deal breaker. We can't have
a trade deal with Canada. That would be the definition
of uncharted territory. But what does it mean for both
our trade policy and our geopolitics in our relationships.

Speaker 8 (07:10):
And in fairness, there have been cases in the past
where there were overriding geopolitical factors that prevented us from
moving forward with a trade agreement. You may remember the
Columbia Agreement, which I inherited when I served as Trade
rep for President Obama, was stalled because a member of

(07:32):
the Colombian government had murdered a US soldier. But in
this case, I think it's the lack of consistency Joe
that bothers people. A number of the member states of
the European Union have also spoken out and been even
before Canada saying that they thought there should be a
Palestinian state. But the biggest thing that troubles me and

(07:55):
talking the businesses, what they want is some sense of
what the plane field is going to be, some level
of stability. Tell them what the rules are going to be,
because all of us, I think, will to support the
President's desire to bring manufacturing back. But as you know
from talking to businesses every day, the uncertainty, the on again,

(08:20):
off again nature of these tariffs makes it impossible for
businesses to try to forecast and plan ahead. And in
the interim, you have a number of businesses, particularly small businesses,
that are just suffering under the weight of these tariffs
and looking for relief.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
Well, and of course some of those businesses in some
US states have taken to the courts to try to
find that relief. As you well know, Ambassador, there was
a court challenge on the president's use of IEPA powers,
specifically a suggestion that the legal mechanism for which he
is using to apply a lot of these tariffs may
not actually hold water. An appeals court is actually considering

(09:01):
that very question today, though it's unclear when we'll get
a ruling. What would be the course of action for
the President if indeed the appeals court decides that AIPA
is not applicable in the vast majority of these cases, if.

Speaker 8 (09:13):
The court were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs,
who in most cases have been small businesses, and that
is questionable given the latitude the courts have given this administration.
But if they were, then the President would have to
follow the traditional legal norms that Congress has put in

(09:35):
place for the President to be able to level levy
tariffs outside of the normal protocol, and those would be
the terrorists for example, that he has talked about with Brazil.
I don't want to get two technical under a three
to old one of this investigation. And then there is
a different section of the trade law that allows the

(09:58):
president to levy some terror some of the national security concerns.
But in each of those, businesses have to have the
ability to go in file share information with the administration
on how those tariffs may or may not impact their businesses.
It is a much more informed process. That's what the

(10:21):
President did the first time. I mean, I'm told he
was frustrated by that pace, and that's one reason he
has used this very novel approach of relying on an
emergency economic power that has never been used before.

Speaker 3 (10:39):
The Levy terraffs the ambassador, referring to it as a
novel approach. Ron Kirk, the President says, the deadline will
not move. Well, I guess unless you're Mexico. But if
that's the case, what's that He told.

Speaker 8 (10:55):
That the deadline wasn't going to move on Liberation Day.
He told us it wasn't good, and I think look
and not to make light of it. The one reason
I think you've seen the markets not overreact to this
is they've become a little bit dependent on the belief
that when he gets up to the point of knowing
the economic harm these tariffs would inflict, he has found

(11:19):
the way to back away. He did it with China,
did it with Mexico. Today, we've done it with Japan.
So we'll have to see, well know, by I guess
noon tomorrow or not.

Speaker 3 (11:31):
I look at the you know, I don't know if
you like Taco's ambassador, but the White House has said
that if countries want to call after the deadline, we'll
still enter negotiations and maybe we'll cut a deal after
the fact based on your experience in dealing with our
trade partners. Would they take Donald Trump up on that
offer after all these letters go out in the next
twenty four hours.

Speaker 8 (11:50):
Well, I think every country will, particularly I mean the
level of tariffs that the President is imposing. Frankly, we
don't relate to the harm that he says he's trying
to cure. And you've had enough economists speak to that,
and sadly, many of these smaller economies ironically have a

(12:13):
trade surplus with this, and yet they're still being hid
with tariffs on mostly sending US goods and trinkets for
which there's just not that big of a market going
the other way. So I think all of us expect
that if these countries can somehow get into the queue,

(12:34):
if their president can call and in our president's view
ben de knee or say the magic words, then relief
will be coming. But the most powerful factor in this, frankly,
has been the market. Every time the President has threatened
to impose you know, double digit tariffs above twenty percent,

(12:55):
the markets have spoken, and spoken quite quite quickly, and
the President is backed off, similar to when he made
the threat to fire the head of the Federal Reserve.

Speaker 2 (13:07):
Yeah, Chairman Powell, at least for now safe in his
job despite not cutting interest rates yesterday. Ambassador will see
if that changes just quickly as we look ahead to
another deadline. August first is one thing. August twelfth is another.
That's when the current trade truce between the US and
China is set to expire. In President Trump to this
point has not yet signed off on an extension. Are

(13:27):
you concerned at all that we may actually see a
rebound to the sky high level of terrorifts we experienced
between the two largest economies earlier this year.

Speaker 8 (13:35):
You know, I'm concerned, but I will tell you I am.
I think I and others are relieved that at least
the language we're hearing both out of the White House,
out of the US Trade rep and the Secretary of
Commerce's office seems like an attempt by both countries to
really sort of de escalate the tension and get to

(13:58):
a level of negotia ciation that's going to be more
beneficial to both countries. Now. To be sure, we are
in a very different place with China, and not because
of Trump administration, but because of President Chief and his
nationalist policies. But both countries have realized there's a lot
more pain to be inflicted on one another than if

(14:21):
we can find some way to at least make sure
that American industries have access to those critical minerals that
we want while protecting our basic interests. And as you
noted in your earlier comments, perhaps give the US giving
a little bit on some of the export controls.

Speaker 3 (14:44):
Thanks for bringing us inside the process, Ron Kirk, former
US Trade representative in the Obama administration. It's great to
have you with us sort of similar panel. Next only
here on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio.

Speaker 1 (14:58):
Joined listening to the Blue Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
flagship New York station. Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

Speaker 4 (15:17):
It's going to be something.

Speaker 3 (15:18):
When Figma starts trading, Are you following this fig Plug
it into your terminal Figma IPO today, these numbers just
Producer James keeps putting these prices in front of me.
It just keeps getting bigger. Figma shares now indicated to
open one hundred and five to one hundred and ten
dollars each. Remember the IPO price is thirty three. It's

(15:41):
a fascinating companies digital design firm that's got everybody excited
at the New York Stock Exchange. When it starts trading,
you know you'll hear about it right here on Bloomberg.

Speaker 4 (15:53):
This is something.

Speaker 3 (15:55):
That we're going to talk about now that has the
President very upset. It has nothing to do with triffs.

Speaker 4 (16:02):
Or trade.

Speaker 3 (16:04):
Why would one Republican, the President asks on truth Social
Senator Josh Holly from the Great State of Missouri, join
with all of the Democrats to block a review sponsored
by Senator Rick Scott and with the support of almost
all other Republicans of Nancy Pelosi's stock trading over the

(16:24):
last twenty five years. Yet this is an effort to
stop insider trading in Congress, and apparently Josh Holly is
on board. President says the information was inappropriately released just
minutes before the vote. Very much like sabotage. The Democrats,
because of our tremendous achievements and success, have been trying

(16:45):
to target me for a long period of time, and
they're using Josh Holly, who I got elected twice as
a pawn to help them. He refers to Josh Holly
as a second tier senator in this effort to combat
insider trading on Capitol Hill. He's referring to Nancy Pelosi
because she has frequently been the poster child for this

(17:08):
kind of stuff. That's where we start with our political
panels today. Genie Shanzano is with US Bloomberg Politics contributor,
Senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for the Study of
the Presidency in Congress. Of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor, as
I may have mentioned, joined today by John Seaton. It's
great to have John back, Republican strategist, founder CEO of
Echo Canyon Consulting. And so here we go, Genie. We've

(17:30):
talked about these stock bands before. A lawmaker stock trading
ban is now advancing in the Senate because of one Republican,
Josh Holly. President says he is a second rate senator
as a result. And we've got news now that Hawlly
had a good chat with Donald Trump over this. But
the stock trading bill is something that people feel pretty

(17:51):
passionate about. We've done a lot of stories on it
around here, Genie, But this kind of activity continues when
a lawmaker gets inside information via committee or something that
was said in the writing of a bill, then they
sell all the shares before the thing goes down or
vice versa.

Speaker 4 (18:06):
Will this ever stop? Is there a way to control
this by way of legislation?

Speaker 5 (18:11):
You know, I was chuckling when you were reading Donald
Trump's truth because number one again, just like he did
with Chuck Grassley the other day, he is taken to
saying he got these people elected. So he got Josh
Hally elected twice, he got Chuck Grassley elected. But the
other part of it is when he's questioning why Josh
Hawley is doing this, well, I think he may forget that.

(18:33):
Just this spring, he himself said if a bill like
this crosses his desk, he will sign it. And as
opposed to saying I disagree with this portion, or let's
work on it, let's rewrite it. The President is all
out attacking Josh Hawley, and of course he is on
the wrong side of public opinion on this. About eight
to nine out of ten Americans say that members of

(18:55):
Congress should not be trading on the stock market because
of the work they do on in Congress where they
get information that can help them, and so this is
a very popular bill. But you know, I think the
President is a bit concerned about the impact on himself,
even though now he's carved out of it so he
doesn't have to worry.

Speaker 3 (19:17):
It's actually called the Pelosi Act, John Seton. This is
the Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee that was voting on this.
It cleared eight to seven. Would ban lawmakers and their
spouses from actively holding stocks imagine the blind trust or
whatever you put all your money into ETFs. Is this

(19:38):
a good idea, John, And is it something that could
actually be passed and turned into law?

Speaker 9 (19:47):
As UNI note, it has tremendous amount of public support.
I think people are very concerned that lawmakers are getting
information before the general public and then using that information
right or wrong, to make decisions as to their stock portfolios.
So I do think it has a lot of support.
I do think that Josh Holly has been very consistent

(20:07):
on this. He is a true populist, and so I
wasn't terribly surprised to see him both the way he did.
I was a little bit surprised by the President's reaction,
But yeah, I think this thing has real legs and
would not be surprising to me if it made a
tway to the President's desk.

Speaker 3 (20:24):
The bill apparently was originally dubbed the Pelosi Act. Now
it's the Honest Act, Is that right? Ceci, she got
a name change on it. Rick Scott, the Republican from Florida,
Jeanie asks, anybody want to be poor?

Speaker 4 (20:36):
I don't. Does it come down to that. Rick Scott
already has a lot of money, doesn't he?

Speaker 5 (20:44):
He does, as do most members of the Senate.

Speaker 9 (20:47):
Not all.

Speaker 5 (20:47):
But this is why we call it the Billionaire's Club.
And you know, you go back to I think it's
a twenty twenty two New York Times study which found
Democrats and Republicans, because of course this is bipartisan, about
twenty percent or a fifth we're buying and trading stocks
in this study that benefited and they benefited from their

(21:08):
work in Congress. And you know, as John just said,
and everybody would agree, most Americans think that in a
representative democracy, you have left people send them to Congress,
not to enrich themselves by buying in trading stocks based
on information they've gotten, but doing the work of the people.
And so I do think there are concerns. By the way,

(21:28):
about this bill. I am particularly concerned about the impact
on spouse's partners, children, the like. You know, I think
there are discussions to be had, but I also agree
that we need to move forward on something that makes
sense so that we do have rules in this regard
in the Congress, but they do need to be strengthened

(21:49):
so that the American public has more confidence in the
people that they are sending to Washington, d c. Which
is at an all time low as you know today.

Speaker 4 (21:57):
Joe, John, what do you make of the modification for
President Trump? Genie mentioned this.

Speaker 3 (22:03):
It was changed to carve out President Trump here because
he's term limited and cannot seek another term. This would
be triggered by you'd have to divest within ninety days
of your intention to seek another term.

Speaker 4 (22:18):
That's how this would work.

Speaker 3 (22:19):
Rand Paul says the substitute would protect Donald Trump. He's
actively investing in a lot of things right now, John,
including crypto. Why not keep the president covered by this?

Speaker 9 (22:33):
You know, I think Republicans rightly have a lot of
concern that there has been kind of a weaponization against
this particular president and his family. It's important that this
bill moved forward, and I think the Republicans want to
make sure that it's not used kind of as yet
another cudgel against President Trump. So writing it in such
a way that he is term limited out, it can't

(22:55):
retroactively impact him or his family. But again, do the
right thing and do what the American people really do want,
which is some accountability from lawmakers and make sure that
they're not enriching themselves due to the jobs they have
in the Congress.

Speaker 3 (23:10):
I'm kind of surprised we don't hear more outcry from
voters on this. I mean, there have been sixty minutes pieces,
there's been endless coverage on Bloomberg about this. But senators,
Republican senators, with the exception of Josh Holly, are in
many cases just frozen in the headlights here. Genie Bernie
Moreno Republican from Ohio freshman, of course, a co sponsor

(23:31):
of the original Pelosi Act, voted present on the substitute amendment,
arguing that senators should not have been forced to swallow
last minute changes. Quote, if you had a gun to
my head, I could not tell you what I am
about to vote for.

Speaker 4 (23:46):
How could this be, Genie?

Speaker 7 (23:49):
It is hard to believe.

Speaker 5 (23:52):
I think it is reflective of the fact a very
simple rule in Washington that when it is called the
Pelosiac and it is Republicans aiming the gun at Democrats,
they are for it. And when it switches and it's
looked like it's aimed at the president or other Republicans,
you find Democrats on board and Republicans fall off. And

(24:13):
this is what is so troubling to the American public
about this, and that's why on this issue of the
carve out for Donald Trump, I do think that the
carve out makes sense. I also think he has been
skirting ethics, if not running up against them, as it
pertains to enriching himself and his family in ways that

(24:34):
we've never seen before. I think it's unconscionable. But I
also think it is such a politically charged issue that
if we want to move forward at all with legislation,
that carving out the current president and vice president may
be the only way to do that, or so I
would have thought until last night, when this bill, even
with the carveout, didn't get much Republican support beyond Josh Hawley.

Speaker 4 (24:57):
See Donald Trump writing.

Speaker 3 (24:58):
I don't think real Republicans w want to see their president,
who has an unprecedented success targeted because of the whims
of a second tier senator named Josh Holly.

Speaker 4 (25:08):
I guess they had a chance to talk it out.

Speaker 3 (25:10):
Coming up in our next hour with our panel, Jeannie
and John, we're going to be talking trade a lot
because we're counting down the hours here to the trade
and tariff deadline. August first, Yeah, that's tomorrow, So technically
at midnight the tariffs reciprocal tariffs will take effect.

Speaker 4 (25:27):
So here we are on the eve.

Speaker 3 (25:29):
You could argue that this is the deadline day because
once the clock strikes twelve, they're in effect. Eleven fifty
nine is technically the deadline. And John, we could get
more deals today, but I'm wondering your thoughts, and we'll
have a lot more time to explore this in our
second hour here on Balance of Power. Your thoughts on
the way this is playing with voters. Are people paying

(25:50):
attention to the details of these trade deals that are
coming out in the past couple of days.

Speaker 9 (25:55):
I don't think that people are paying a lot of attention.
I think the certainly Republican voters have been hearing this
president talk about tariff since long before he was president
of the United States, and so I don't think it's
a huge surprise at least Republican voters. And and honestly,
I think people start paying attention if they see big
changes in the cost of goods and in their in
their overall quality of life. Until then, I think it's

(26:15):
just kind of background noise and they really aren't as
tuned into it as as we are.

Speaker 3 (26:21):
Frankly, ninety deals in ninety days was the line, Genie.
We got eight deals in one hundred and twenty days,
how should we be looking at it?

Speaker 5 (26:34):
And you know my view, Joe, eight deals with no
details and not really any sign off. I'm not sure
if i'd call them deals, but okay, it's less. But
I'll tell you when people are going to start to notice.
I mean, we heard today that Sharman is going to
increase their prices come the you know, the fall, the
summer perhaps, And those are household goods that people depend on,

(26:57):
from you know, toilet paper. You know, if you see
diapers go up, if you have a children, as you know,
we all know how expensive those are, that's when people
are going to start paying attention to this. If those
prices people follow sharmon and those prices go up, which
if we get huge, you know, tariffs put in place
on all these countries in the next few hours, that

(27:19):
very well could happen.

Speaker 4 (27:21):
Don't squeeze the Sharman, John.

Speaker 3 (27:23):
The fact is that's owned by Procer and Gamble, which
said this week it would hike prices on a quarter
of its consumer products here in the United States. Is
that the kind of thing that puts fear into Republican lawmakers.

Speaker 9 (27:35):
Yeah, Look, I mean I think we saw with the
last administration we probably talked about it on this show,
that they were so slow to kind of react to
and recognize people's concerned with skyrocketing prices that by the
time they tried to do something about it, it was
really too late. So I do think that Republicans in
Congress and in the administration are going to pay very,
very close attention to the cost of those household good

(27:57):
the Genie talked about. And I do think that they'll
really want to keep an eye on it and make
sure that they do everything they can to keep prices low,
because that is something that voters definitely notice and definitely
will impact the way they behave Next November.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
I'm a little worried about another We're going to do
this whole panic buying of toilet paper again.

Speaker 4 (28:14):
Is that happening? CC?

Speaker 3 (28:16):
Do I need to run out to Costco now get
cases of Sharman. Just wait until this fall and the
back to school shopping stories kick in. Jinny Shanzano and
John Seaton, our Democrat and Republicant a great panel today.
Thank you both for the insights.

Speaker 1 (28:34):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Apple Coarclay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
us live on YouTube.

Speaker 3 (28:50):
Thursday edition of Balance of Power, the Early Side edition,
where we expected a flurry of paper today from the
White House. This is deadlines for reciprocal tariffs. They would
take effect midnight tonight, so eleven fifty nine pm. We'll
call our deadline here. But Kayley, this is not a
florry of paper about tariffs, at least not yet. It's

(29:13):
about pharma. The President just kicked out a pile of
letters to the likes of Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Eli,
Lilly Regeneron talking about requirements, and we've heard most, if
not all of this before through executive order in an
effort to lower drug prices. It's a four pronged approach,
and what's news here is he wants binding commitments from

(29:36):
these pharmaceutical companies by the twenty ninth of September. Each
is signed at the bottom in sharpie, and in the
cases where he has relationships with the chief executives, he's
actually crossed it out. In the case of Regeneron, which
is run by Leonard Schliefer, he crossed it out with
sharpie and just wrote len Yeah.

Speaker 2 (29:55):
Making these a little bit more personalized. Otherwise each letter
seems to be a carbon cop of the other. What's
a different address see on the top. But of course
this is a follow up to his executive order from
earlier this year in May around drug pricing in particular.
We're seeing it have a market reaction as the pharmaceuticals
index within the S and P five hundred is now
right around a session low, down about one and a

(30:16):
half percent. And will continue to follow those moves, knowing
that healthcare costs and drug costs are just one kind
of costs that this White House has pledged to get
down for the American people. The differences perhaps that we're
not seeing as much concrete action on other elements of
everyday costs at this time, and that was evident arguably
in today's inflation data, the Fed's preferred inflation data actually

(30:38):
PCE coming in a little bit hot year on year,
and we want to get more on that as we
look at a deadline on higher tariffs of tomorrow, which
could threaten to send inflation higher. As we turned to
Catherine Edwards's economic policy consultant and Bloomberg opinion contributor. So, Catherine,
if we are to believe the White House is going
to raise tariffs effective at midnight August first, is a

(31:00):
real deadline that these are going to stick for some time.
What's likely to happen to PCE and to inflation? And
does it mean that the Fed probably made a good
move in keeping rate study this week?

Speaker 10 (31:14):
I didn't think there was really any question that rates
were going to go down this week. I think the
bigger question is what happens in September. And to your point,
you know, that's a big if if it goes off
as planned, if they stay into a effect if they're.

Speaker 11 (31:27):
Not canceled or paused or delayed again.

Speaker 10 (31:28):
And in the meantime, we have a lot of court
cases related to the legality of these tariffs that are
still evolving. I don't think that you can plan for
the tariffs in either direction, which is why Powell and
the Fed chose to hold steady even though they saw
signs of concern in both the consumer market and the
labor market. What I worry about is the extent to
which this continued uncertainty at the highest level plagues businesses

(31:52):
and consumers.

Speaker 4 (31:54):
So is this a huge I told you so for
J Powell.

Speaker 11 (32:00):
I just don't think it's in the man's nature to
say that publicly.

Speaker 10 (32:02):
So I wouldn't want to give him I wouldn't want
to give it to him when I know he wouldn't
say it.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
Well, what we did hear him say this week, Catherine,
is that he thinks the FED is farther away from
its inflation goals than its labor market goals. He did
not seem to share the same concern around the labor
market that the dissenters, the likes of Christopher Waller, who
of course would have cut rates at this meeting had
what will we be watching for in the payrolls report
tomorrow to give us a census to whether it's Governor

(32:28):
Waller or Chairman Powell who are proving more pression on
that point.

Speaker 10 (32:33):
He's spoken in the past about how the labor market
is not as strong as the unemployment rate would necessarily predict.
That there's problems in which industries are posting job games,
are they really reflecting economic activity or an aging population?
What hiring has looked like to unemployment rate for young workers.
He's brought about all these things before, but I think
the price uncertainty question has to be paramount right now

(32:55):
and has to take priority over the labor market because
those are concern and not red flags, whereas broad tariffs
are absolutely a red flag, and the effect on prices
of broad tariffs is faster than any effect we've seen
on the labor market. So he's got to be basically
ready for the first worst thing that can happen, which
will be tariffs should they go into effect, if they

(33:18):
stay into effect.

Speaker 3 (33:20):
Yeah, we just got a headline from the White House
Press Secretary is briefing reporters right now in the briefing room.
Catherine and President Trump will sign an executive order today
on trade. We understand it will be on tariffs. So
I guess, with the exception of Mexico, these tariff rates
are in fact going to take effect at midnight tonight.

(33:43):
What will be the window before they show up in
the hard data.

Speaker 11 (33:49):
That's very hard to say.

Speaker 10 (33:50):
I think what we learned from the first big deadline
in April is that businesses have been doing a lot
of maneuvering to anticipate what is happening and protect their business,
their supply chains, and their customers before they take effect,
or assuming that they will. So I don't know how
long it'll take, but I do wonder. You know, at
some point something's got to break for a lot of businesses.

(34:12):
They either have to pass on the prices or they
have to start pulling layoffs because they can't afford it.
And so how long they can wait an uncertainty has
been an open question since we've entered the start of
this administration.

Speaker 11 (34:23):
Another big tariff announcement in the rose Garden.

Speaker 10 (34:26):
Another big cardboard with lots of pieces with lots of
numbers next to it, that just could be push a
lot of businesses over the edge, to say, you know,
whatever I've been holding back, I have to do now
that has less to do with the policy itself and
more about how well people can anticipate and protect their businesses.

Speaker 4 (34:44):
Catherine, it's great to have you, as always.

Speaker 3 (34:45):
Catherine Edwards on the eve of the tariff deadline, economic
policy consultant, find her work on the terminal. She's a
Bloomberg Opinion contributor, and we want to bring in the
voice of a lawmaker. Congresswoman Republican Nicole maly Gatak from
New York is with US New York's eleventh district now
that the home district work period is underway. Congresswomen, welcome

(35:06):
back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. There's always a lot
we'd love to talk to you about, but I'd like
to just start here with the conversation that we're having.
We're listening to Caroline Levitt and preparing for these teriff
rates to go into effect. What are you hearing from
business owners in your district when it comes to the
impact of tariffs.

Speaker 12 (35:24):
Well, look, both business owners and consumers rightfully have some
concern about what this will mean for them, what this
will mean in terms of cost. If you're a consumer,
what's your bottom line if you're a business, and how
are you going to make sure that it doesn't impact you.
But what I would say is, and I've told the
administration this multiple times, it's my hope what we will
hear from the President is that you will pause some

(35:45):
of these tariffs to continue to pause for the countries
that have been working in good faith. We have many
countries right now that are at the table, they're negotiating
and good faith. They're looking to lower their barriers of entry,
allow more American products into the country, try to make
a more balanced.

Speaker 7 (36:03):
Trade.

Speaker 12 (36:04):
And I think that if they are working with us,
then we should give them a little more time. Obviously,
it is difficult within that ninety day period to make
so many trade deals all at once because each is
very exclusive, specific to that nation and addresses different needs.
But what we have seen from the President is more
fair trade for the American company, for the American worker

(36:27):
as it relates to giving us a better deal right
making sure that our products are not hit with tariffs
when they are imported elsewhere. And we've seen this with
multiple Asian nations. We've seen it with the EU, we've
seen it UK, and there's still a slew of other
countries out there that we know are at the table negotiating,
and we should not try to put this additional.

Speaker 7 (36:49):
Tariff on them if they're acting in good faith.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
Well, when we consider the administration is also touting the
revenue that is being brought in by the existing tariffs, Congresswoman,
knowing that that revenue is coming from importers who are
paying that tax when they bring these products in to
the to the United States, is that really a better
deal for them?

Speaker 12 (37:09):
Well, it is bringing in significant revenue, and we shouldn't
be turning a blind eye to that.

Speaker 7 (37:14):
I mean, look, we're talking.

Speaker 12 (37:16):
We're talking of what could be well over a trillion dollars,
trillions of dollars over the next decade that could certainly
help pay down our debt in one respect. The thing
is you want to make sure that it's reasonable so
it's not going to again input impacts those and users
of consumers.

Speaker 7 (37:32):
We really haven't seen those consumer prices increase.

Speaker 12 (37:35):
What we have seen, by the way, is trillions of
dollars of private investment coming to the United States, whether
it's from foreign companies or domestic companies, companies that are
looking to expand their facilities.

Speaker 7 (37:46):
You mentioned the pharmaceutical industry.

Speaker 12 (37:47):
Earlier, automakers, we're seeing that they are investing in the
United States that is creating jobs.

Speaker 7 (37:54):
We saw the three percent GDP growth.

Speaker 12 (37:56):
I think you'll continue to see that now that we've
also passed the tax legislation that will be pro growth,
pro jobs, that will play a role.

Speaker 7 (38:05):
It all needs to be balanced.

Speaker 12 (38:06):
That's I think at the end of the day, what
people are looking for some type of balance here, and
tariffs is a small piece of that equation. Is a
strategic tool needs to be used though in a targeted approach,
and really we should be looking for a particular outcome
from the nation that we're dealing with, not just a
across the board slamming every country with tariffs, particularly if

(38:29):
they're working with us at this moment to get a
more fair trade deal.

Speaker 3 (38:34):
Well, it's possible we'll see more extensions before this day
is over. After Mexico got one Congress someone We've been
hearing from a lot of your Republican colleagues in the
House and a number of Republican strategists who talk to
us every day here on balance of power, who seem
to think that a government shutdown is a lot more
likely now than it was even a month ago. Following
the passage of the Recisions Package, a lot of Democrats

(38:55):
are saying we're pulling away from the table, Republicans cannot
be trusted. Does that ensure a shutdown at the end
of September.

Speaker 12 (39:03):
Well, I think Democrats not wanting to work with us
in a bipartisan manner to fund the government can certainly
lead to a shutdown, particularly when you need seven votes
in the Senate to pass any appropriations bill, and so
it is concerning. I would argue that you know, all
our appropriation bills have passed in a bipartisan manner. It

(39:27):
is the right thing to do is to avoid a
government shutdown. Make sure and I've been through this now probably.

Speaker 7 (39:33):
About five times, we've always averted the shutdown.

Speaker 12 (39:37):
So really, if we have a shutdown, it will be
because the Democrats don't want to work with us in
a bipartisan manner, because all these bills will be will
be bipartisan at the end of the day, so they
shouldn't hold their votes. And I would say that, look,
we need to be responsible here, we need to legislate.
The impact of a shutdown is very problematic and we
should really try to avoid that at all costs.

Speaker 2 (40:00):
Yeah, of course, considering there may be political consequences as
well as the midterms approach, Congresswomen, and as the midterms approach,
we have a question as to what exactly the map
is going to look like. Knowing that Texas and a
special legislation legislative session right now is actively pursuing redistricting
that could see Republicans net five seats in that state,
your governor in New York, Kathy Hochel, is now threatening

(40:23):
to try to take action of her own. She says,
I won't sit by while Donald Trump and Texas Republicans
try to steal our nation's future. Are we about to
get into a dangerous jerry mandering war? Congresswoman like, I
hope not.

Speaker 12 (40:36):
As somebody who is a victim of jerry mandering, I
don't care if it's the Republicans or the Democrats that
are doing it. It's wrong and it should not be done.
We have to make sure people are electing their representatives,
and to try to alter a map to tilt the
scale is wrong. We had to sue the governor in
twenty twenty two when they try to really tilt the

(40:58):
scale in my case put in very heavily Democrat areas
of Brooklyn. It was the most ludicrous map and because
of my district, the whole state map was thrown out.

Speaker 7 (41:08):
And I think the Democrats learned a lesson there.

Speaker 12 (41:10):
When we had an independent person draw the map, they
ended up losing two incumbents and then multiple seats in
addition to that. And so what I would simply say is,
whether it's Republicans or Democrats, jerrymandering is wrong. It should
not be done, is corrupt, and we have to make
these maps as fair and balanced and competitive as possible.
And perhaps we need to move toward computer generated maps

(41:34):
or just court independently drawn maps. But I don't support
the jerrymandering, and I could speak about that from first
yet experience.

Speaker 3 (41:44):
Yeah, I know this hits close to home for you,
Congress when it sounds like you agree with Democrats in
Texas though that this should not happen.

Speaker 12 (41:52):
Look, I agree with anyone who does not want to jerrymander, because,
like I said, it is just not the right thing
to do. And I think that at the end of
the day, we should be making these maps. And by
the way, it shouldn't be made also to protect incumbents,
which is the thing we see here in New York.

Speaker 7 (42:10):
These maps, whether they're at the state or federal level.

Speaker 12 (42:13):
Are drawn to protect incumbents, and they're not competitive. My
seat happens to be a competitive seat. It's one of
the only competitive seats. Actually, I think it is the
only competitive seat in the City of New York on
the federal level.

Speaker 7 (42:26):
And that's the way it should be. So the voters
have a say on whether they want me to represent
them for another two years.

Speaker 12 (42:31):
Unfortunately, it's not like that throughout the state, and it
shouldn't be an incumbent protection program either.

Speaker 2 (42:39):
All right, we appreciate your candor, Congresswoman, and you joining
us as always, Congresswoman Nicole Maley Takis, the Republican representing
New York's eleventh districts.

Speaker 1 (42:49):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm e's during
on Apple Cocle and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
You can so listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.

Speaker 3 (43:08):
This, of course is the eve of the big deadline day,
and President Trump has already said he is not moving it.
So put your tacos aside for a moment. Tariffs are
going to take effect eleven fifty nine pm right because
it's well midnight here, so we're calling this the deadline day. Tomorrow,
they will be in effect when you wake up. We're

(43:28):
anticipating a flurry of paper, an avalanche actually of paper,
because you've got the the countries the President has announced
arrangements with, but then everybody else gets another letter looks
like how this is going to work, and those will
be going out tonight and into tomorrow.

Speaker 4 (43:43):
But we actually have.

Speaker 3 (43:44):
News on two important trading partners right here in the hemisphere. Yeah,
you've been asking what about Canada and what about Mexico.
It's not looking great for Canada. As the President said
just yesterday posting on truth Social Wow exclamation point, Canada
has just announce is backing statehood for Palestine. That will
make it very hard for us to make a trade

(44:04):
deal with them. Oh Canada, three exclamation points. We knew
that things were not going well with Mark Carney. He
was looking to get a deal done by his own deadline.
That was then extended in Canada. Looks like it's in
nowhere Land at the moment, but keep in mind the
USMCA exceptions. Now we turn to Mexico again, but the

(44:26):
taco aside.

Speaker 4 (44:28):
Donald J.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
Trump, I have just concluded a telephone conversation with the
President of Mexico, Claudia Shinbaum, which was very successful in
that more and more we're getting to know and understand
each other. Guess what, everybody, we have an extension we
agreed to extend for a ninety day period. He writes,
the exact same deal as we had for the last
short period of time, namely that Mexico will continue to

(44:50):
pay a twenty five percent fentanyl tear of twenty five
percent tariff on cars, fifty percent tariff on steel, aluminum
and copper, immediately terminating its non tariff trees barrier. So
that might be all we get in terms of actual
specific deals or frameworks with countries. The rest would be letters.
And as the President says, the letter is as good

(45:11):
as a deal. And this is where we start a
conversation with Alex Conan Firehouse Strategies Republican strategist. Alex It's
great to have you back, and I'm pretty sure you
were sitting here the day after Liberation Day. I feel
like we met right after these first went out, and boy,
there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then.

Speaker 4 (45:28):
So here we have deadline day tomorrow.

Speaker 3 (45:30):
I know that some of these dates are moving depending
on the country, and we have a lot of questions
about some of these deals. But how are you feeling
about it when you look back the last ninety days?
Was this a success a good strategy?

Speaker 13 (45:40):
I remember when I was here about ninety days ago,
and I told you he's going to walk these back.
The tariffs that he announced on Liberation Day would have
crushed the American economy. They would have been bad for consumers,
ultimately bad for Trump's political standing, wildly unpopular around the Hill,
and that we should expect him to walk up back.
And we have seen a steady walk back of those

(46:00):
to the point where he started gett embarrassed, right.

Speaker 4 (46:02):
The so called taco trade.

Speaker 13 (46:03):
Every you know, Trump's always caves, and he said enough,
August first is going to be the day when all
these tariffs are going into But it also I think
helped him with his negotiating power to go to the
countries and say, look, you haven't told us one to
cut a deal. Really put a lit a fire under
the trade negotiators. He has announced all sorts of trade
deals now, which is mostly just US racing tariffs, not

(46:25):
as much as he originally said, but still racing tariffs
on some of our biggest trading partners. The devil will
be in the detail on those, right. We have yet
to see the fine print on any of those deals.
I think the market, I think companies are eager importers.
I think I think you know, if I'm a customs agent,
I want to see the details right now. So I think,
you know, it'll be interesting to see the details of
those which they'll have to produce very quickly, and will

(46:48):
also be interested to see if these hold or if
we see more walkbacks in the future with some of
our big trading partners. You know, the tariffs that he's
talking about on Canada, that's really going to hurt the
US economy. I mean, the US economy is deeply intertwined
with Mexico and the Canadian economy. Says why he's done
the delay for the Mexico one. It'll be interesting to
see if the candle won.

Speaker 3 (47:06):
Actually, well, it sounds like you see the jury as
still being out. We thought we'd have a deal with India,
that was one of the first countries that came up.

Speaker 4 (47:14):
Didn't happen.

Speaker 3 (47:15):
You wonder if these threats result in one because they've said, well,
this is a deadline on August first. Anybody can call
a president make a deal at the time they want.
So how much of this will continue to roll into
the fall?

Speaker 13 (47:26):
Yeah, Well, and I think one of the issues is
that the we talked about the ninety days ago, and
I think it remains true that the administration still has
not laid out a clear rationale for why we are
embarking all these new tariffs around the world. Some of
it is, look, we need to crack down on China
and we need to like really raise tariffs on China.
China actually is getting let off relatively easy so far.

(47:46):
And you have a lot of companies who are in
China who are looking at well, India would be a
good place to move jobs, move that.

Speaker 4 (47:51):
Many fright, and now the tariffs in India are even worse.
So I think there's a.

Speaker 13 (47:56):
Disconnect with this this about China is about raising revenue,
because sure it's raising some revenue, but not as much,
nearly as much as I promised it. At the same time,
you're seeing it's starting to really drag on GDP, which
ultimately is also going to impact you know, uh, tax return,
tax receipts. Or is this about restoring American jobs because
we haven't seen any evidence of that yet either. So

(48:17):
you know, I think the administration does have some challenges here.
You know, ultimately this is driven by what Trump believes,
which is that tariffs are good. Is the one thing
he's been consistent on for his entire adult life that
he wants more tariffs, and we're going to see and
that's what we're finally seeing. And I think the economic
impact once they are actually in place, it'll be real.

Speaker 3 (48:36):
What do you make of the messaging that's coming out
of this White House that it's not inflationary tariffs or
maybe a one time adjustment When we hear from the
likes of Procter and Gamble this week, we're hiking prices
on a quarter of our goods. You're a political practitioner.
At some point this makes its way to the consumer,
to the voter that may not be consumed or even
interested in any of this talk of tariffs or what

(48:56):
these deals include. At some point though, it lands on
the kitchen table, and that's that's where the political operative
is right.

Speaker 13 (49:01):
I mean, look, as Joe Biden found out the hard way,
inflation is the number one killer.

Speaker 4 (49:06):
Of a presidency.

Speaker 13 (49:08):
And tariffs are inflationary full stop. I mean, tariff's literally
arising the prices of imported goods and you can make
them in the US, but they're going to be more
expensive in the US. And as for the consumer, that
means ultimately they're going to be paying more for many
of the goods and services. Look, if you like avocados,
and these tariffs going into effecting Mexico, the price of
avocados are going up, the price of g guacamoala's are

(49:30):
going up, and so it like the consumers will ultimately
see that and they will hold the White House accountable.
And you know, look, if inflation is not going up,
that's because demand's going down. And that's what we saw
in the in the inflation numbers that came out this morning,
where inflation hadn't was up but not as much as
we feared, in part because demand is falling. So look,

(49:52):
either consumers are buying less, which is not great for
the economy or for consumers, or inflation is going to
go up, you know, either as a political loser for
Trump in.

Speaker 4 (50:00):
The long run.

Speaker 13 (50:01):
Now, look, there's going to be a lag and and
you know, last time I was here in ninety days ago,
I was like, look, Trump is really putting threatening Christmas. Well,
a lot of the stuff that people are going to
be buying for Christmas has already been imported, So you know,
a lot of this won't show up until twenty twenty six.
Unfortunately for Trump and the Republicans, there happens to be
a pretty big election in twenty twenty six.

Speaker 4 (50:21):
Well, that's very true.

Speaker 3 (50:22):
The timeline here could be very difficult for Republicans. Knowing
of course that you can't have a taco without avocado.
You mentioned guacamulla. You reach for this, Alex Conant on
what producer James reminds us is National Avocado Day. How
does this happen July thirty. First, the avocado, as I read,

(50:43):
is a food without rival among the fruits, the veritable
fruit of paradise that could come back to bite Donald Trump.

Speaker 4 (50:50):
I was born in nineteen eighty.

Speaker 13 (50:52):
When I grew up, we did not have avocados like
I don't. I mean, when I was a teenager, I
had never had guacamole. Now I'm from Minnesota, so like
you know, I don't have a whole lot of Mexican
food member ort Minnesota. But I swear that this is
a The fact that Americans enjoy avocados and like the
mas quantities that we do is because of NAFTA.

Speaker 4 (51:10):
How about that it's because.

Speaker 13 (51:11):
Of NAFTA And Americans aren't going to stop buying avocados,
but they might start paying a lot more for them,
and you know what, they're not going to like that.

Speaker 3 (51:18):
That's wild. And boy, isn't that the truth. I never
saw a taco when I was growing up in northeastern
can I you wouldn't even know what that was.

Speaker 4 (51:25):
A bagel was exotic.

Speaker 3 (51:27):
So bring this down to the congressional level, because you've
got lawmakers who are on recess right now and they've
got to carry all this water uncertainty about tariffs. Maybe
there's some support for tariffs if you're talking to steel workers.
It depends on what your district is. But you know,
particularly these states along the Canadian border, this is a
real issue. People are talking about it all the time.

(51:49):
You add Jeffrey Epstein, you add some of the other
issues that have been coming out of Washington lately. What
do you tell a Republican lawmaker trying to have a
town hall.

Speaker 13 (51:56):
Well, look, first off, like it's not all doom and
gloom out there. I mean, the president has had I
would argue, wildly successful opening to the first six months
of his presidency. You look at his successes in the Mideast,
we Sivia Iran. You look at the tax bill that
they just passed, some of the regulatory efforts that he's got,

(52:18):
which I think are very popular. I think the tax bill,
I know Democrats are very excited about because it's poles poorly,
but I think once Americans start recognizing some of the
benefits from it, Look, no taxes on tips, no taxes
on Social Security, those are going to be election winners.
And a lot of this stuff that dominate the headlines,
the cuts in healthcare that I think will ultimately not
be popular, A lot of that doesn't come into effect

(52:40):
for quite a while, you know, most of it not
until after the twenty twenty six mid term. So if
I'm a Congression Republican, I'm back right now I'm pointing
at Look. GDP is high, it's growing, you know where
the GDP growth is fine, Inflation is low, unemployment is low.
You know, the world seems safer now than it seems
nine months ago.

Speaker 4 (52:58):
That is all you can You can craft an elevator
pitch that. Yeah.

Speaker 13 (53:02):
And by the way, you don't have to pay tax
on your tips this year, Like this is all pretty
good stuff. So yeah, I think the Republicans are in
good shape right as we sit right now. I just
I do think the tariffs add a lot of uncertainty
into the economy. Uh and how you know how the
economy looks a year from now, It's gonna be different
than it is now. And you know there are some
clear clearly some headwinds.

Speaker 4 (53:22):
If you look at the data, I've got about a
minute left, you run an odds for a shutdown. Yeah,
it doesn't look good.

Speaker 13 (53:28):
I mean, look, here's the issue. You need Democrats to out. Yeah,
you need Democrats to to you know, to to keep
the government open. And the Democrats have you know, their
base really wants them to fight. You know, their base
was furious when they did the cr earlier this year.

Speaker 4 (53:44):
To keep the lights on recisions was the real sin though, right, Yeah, one, they.

Speaker 13 (53:48):
Don't like the I mean, I think they don't like
the recessions. It was nine billion dollars like, but I
think the I think the larger is larger issue is
that they are feeling immense amounts of pressure from their
base to not cooperate with Republicans. That so, I do
think it's gonna be cheld. There's gonna be a big
fight this fall.

Speaker 4 (54:02):
It's gonna hap to wait August.

Speaker 3 (54:03):
If I don't see you before, then let's get back
together when Lawmaker's return and see where we are. Let's
always a great pressure to spend time with Alex Conant
Firehouse Strategies. Happy Avocado Day. Thanks for listening to the
Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you
haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts,

(54:24):
and you can find us live every weekday from Washington,
DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.