June 26, 2025 • 40 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
A Senate rulekeeper determination that several major provisions focused on cutting Medicaid spending violate the chamber’s rules deals a heavy blow to Senate Republicans’ tax and spending bill.
Senators have been scrambling to finalize their tax bill—a major priority for President Donald Trump—this week to meet a self-imposed July 4 passage deadline. The chamber’s independent rulekeeper’s decision, announced early Thursday in a release from Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), could delay lawmakers’ attempts to pass the legislation (H.R. 1) under reconciliation without needing Democratic support.
The rulings from Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough could result in more than $250 billion in health care cuts being removed from the bill, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement.
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.
- Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Vice President Bill Hoagland.
- Republican Congressman Troy Downing of Montana.
- Bloomberg Politics Contributors Rick Davis and Jeanne Sheehan Zaino.
- Principal at WestExec Advisors and former Cyber Executive for the Intelligence Community Laura Galante.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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, Cockley 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):
This is balance of power here in Washington where we're
having to walk out a little bit today in terms
of procedure in the United States Senate as they try
to move forward on this budget reconciliation package. The mechanism,
of course, reconciliation the one that Republicans are relying on
to make sure that they can pass the president's legislative
agenda only on a party line vote, no Democrats required.
The problem is, if you want to use that process,
(00:47):
the elements of the package need to pass muster with
the Senate parliamentarian, and some of it, Elizabeth McDonough said,
parliamentarian ruled today Joe does not indeed pass her test
at least this time.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
The birdbath is happening as we speak. The bird droppings
are piling up, and one of them here is, to
your point, blowing a pretty big hole in this bill.
We are doing a deep walk out today.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
You have to do this to.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Understand what we're talking about and looking forward to that
as no one else we'd walk out with other than
Bill Hogland. But first we want to get to Bloomberg's
Tyler Kendall, who has the latest on these changes to
the bill and what it might mean for the timeline.
Speaker 6 (01:25):
Tyler, Yeah, hey, Joe. So, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that
the provision lowering the Medicaid provider tax doesn't comply with
the rules required for reconciliation that Kaylee was just laying
out there now. The Senate plan would have lowered the
Medicaid provider tax over time to three and a half
percent for those states that did expand coverage under the
(01:46):
Affordable Care Act. Essentially, according to that plan, that would
have meant less federal matching funds for these states. So,
on one hand, this is considered to be perhaps a
political win in that it takes off the table one
of the most politically it's ought issues that Senate Republicans
were dealing with. In fact, many of the Republicans had
raised concerns about what lowering the provider tax would mean,
(02:07):
in particular for rural hospitals that utilize it to essentially
up their funding. But on the other hand, it means
less cost savings to the tune of two hundred and
fifty billion dollars when you combine it with some of
the other healthcare provisions that have been stripped out of
this bill as part of the bird bath process. Now,
we are still waiting on some additional details and clarity
(02:28):
from the Senate Parliamentarian on why this provision in particular
does not meet that threshold that level for reconciliation, since
we know that any provision in this bill will have
to deal with budgetary matters. But at the end of
the day, Joe and Keiley sources tell us that Republicans
might try to rewrite this provision in some way to
make sure that it does get through, but that could
(02:50):
ultimately take time and delay the timeline to get this
done by July fourth.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
It's a perfect outline from Tyler Kendall.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Thank you so much, Tyler, and the idea of changes
to the provider tax to give you a sense of
how many Republicans, including Democrats, were outraged by this idea,
many of them from rural districts where local hospitals and
nursing homes were set to close. We asked Congresswoman Aaron
Houchin about this Republican from Indiana just last evening on
(03:17):
the late edition of Balance of Power.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Here's what she said.
Speaker 7 (03:20):
I'm going to hear from my hospitals back home. They're
not happy with the Senate proposed version of this bill.
We've heard from them loud and clear. We heard from
them on the House side. This is a funding mechanism
that keeps our rural hospitals alive. So whether we like
the mechanism or not, we do have to give something
in return or something at its place, and we're not
(03:40):
ready to do that yet. So I think that what
the Senate is doing goes too far. I'd like to
see him dial it back to the House version.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
The House version, of course, was a freezing of the
provider tax level, while as the Senate is looking to
actually reduce it. But again the parliamentarian says that Senate
plan as it stands right now is not going to fly.
And for more, Bigland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan
Policy Center, is joining us here in our Washington.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
D C.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Studio. So Bill the operative words really are as currently written,
this cannot fit into the reconciliation process. Do you have
a sense of what maybe it is the Parliamentarian is
identifying does not work and how it could be tweaked
in order for its past muster.
Speaker 8 (04:20):
Let me let me first address something. It's very we'rewonkey
here this afternoon. As you said, the parliamentarian does not rule. Okay, okay,
chair the chair of the Senate. Who's sitting in the chair,
she advises the chair. So first of all, we have
to there's a real concerns about the parliamentarian's ruling. She's
not ruling, she is advising who's sitting in the chair.
(04:44):
The chair can accept the advice or not accept the advice,
which is important point. Thank you, And I just want
to make that clear in terms I don't our.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
News to most people. We hear about the parliamentarian ruling
all day long. You've got senators calling for her firing today.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Built so that's I think that's so unfortunate.
Speaker 8 (05:02):
She is a career person, she's not political. She's just
abiding by the law and she is carrying out her
responsibilities effectively. Reconciliation has become something that's much more than
what it used to be, and people are using it
for things that was never intent. This is supposed to
be a budget act now. In terms of the provider tax,
(05:25):
I don't know the specifics. I can tell you that
I think we had a provision earlier this week that
was ruled that she said violated the bird rull. Had
to do with a snap program and a state to match.
It was a simple fix.
Speaker 5 (05:40):
It was a date.
Speaker 8 (05:40):
I don't know exactly what it is that's creating the
current problem, but I do have a feeling that it's
probably something that's fixable, because this does save something like
two hundred and eighty billion dollars and fifty billion dollars
over the next years. I just want to make it
clear that this is I think we're rushing to judgment here.
I think the staff now understand there may be some
(06:01):
tweaks they have to make in the legislation and may
be greater than I don't know, but I don't want
to put all this burden that the parliamentarian is ruled
she is advising well.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
I think the reason some people view this as being
potentially something more definitive is because by and large, the
signal from Republican leadership to this point has been we
will abide by the guidance of the parliamentarian. Do you
think if they cannot fix it, there's a chance that
they actually decide to ignore her advice.
Speaker 8 (06:29):
Well, exactly. Now, what happens is she tells the chair,
this particular provision violates the bird rule, a point of
order is well taken. At that particular point, the chair,
who's sitting in the chair that could be the Vice
President of the United States, could say, well, I don't
think so, and I'm not going to rule that it violates.
(06:49):
Now at that point, Milwonkee, at that point, somebody can
stand up, I question the ruling of the chair.
Speaker 5 (06:56):
And at that.
Speaker 8 (06:57):
Point it would require sixty votes to overturn the ruling
of the chair. So the chair can make the final decision,
and it would require sixty votes to overturn the chair.
So it's possible that they could. They could say, listen,
we're gonna go We're gonna roll the dice, and I'm
not going to fire the parliamentarian. We're simply going to
raise the point of water and waive the point of
(07:18):
water if it comes to that.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
So it sounds like Senator Turberville should be calling for
the firing of the chair if anyone in this particular case,
which I guess is not a very realistic idea. But
so the idea though that this goes back to the
drawing board. It can be rewritten in a way that
may satisfy.
Speaker 8 (07:33):
The absolutely and I half a feeling that say, this
does have a budgetary consequence. Clearly two hundred and fifty
billion dollars, it does have a pedgetary consequence, yes, and
so I think it can.
Speaker 5 (07:44):
It can.
Speaker 8 (07:45):
It meets that there must be something else in it,
maybe a date, it may be something. It's very restricted,
but I think this is something that probably can be
fixed by the staff. I don't know a bit fair
about it. I don't know what specifically it was that
created the point of her concerned that it violates the
bird rule.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
So we have a question of if it can be fixed.
Also a question of on what timeline. Knowing that the
Senate wanted to have a vote Arama this weekend, start
the recess come Monday, give it to the House, hope
this thing is all said and done, signed by the
President July fourth, What does that timeline look like?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Now?
Speaker 8 (08:17):
In your mind, I've been one of the more pessimistic
ones about this. I think the July fourth deadline is
kind of some arbitrary in terms. We don't have to
have this finish, and I think they can. I'm certain
that's what the President wants, is to have it on
his des but that requires getting it out of the
Senate getting it and they're changing it, so I have
to go back to the House. The houses will have
(08:39):
to be called back from recess next week to vote
on to get it there by the fourth of July.
There's still a lot of work to be done this
can It seems that you should slow down, take your time,
do it right, and get the votes right now. I
don't think they have the votes for what's in the Senate,
let alone maybe what would be in the House, so
it's going to take a little time here still works out.
So I'm the one who probably will miss miss on
(09:03):
this because boy, there's a lot of pressure to get
it done by the fourth. But I think that's a
little bit too ambitious of a schedule right now.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
We always learn something when we talked to Bill Hoagland
really appreciate this bill A tempering voice and a bit
of a reality check, right to some of the headlines
that we've been hearing with the Bipartisan Policy Center. Bill
Hogland with us in downtown Washington, d C, just a
few blocks from where Congressman Troy Downing is right now.
The Republican from Montana's second district joins us live from
Capitol Hill for his view on all of this. In Congressman,
(09:30):
it's great to have you back with us on Bloomberg
TV and radio. You hear the concerns about timeline. Now
that the parliamentarian has slightly changed the picture on the
Senate side, can you still get this done? Will the
House be ready to catch a long ball if the
Senate throws it out there, say Sunday night or Monday.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
Yeah, I think I'm optimistic.
Speaker 9 (09:51):
We have had a lot of deadlines that people were
saying there's no way we're going to hit, and we've
we've still met those and that's happened this entire Congress.
Still optimistic we can hit that deadline. I know there's
a lot of work out there, but you know, I'm
confident in the good work on the uh you know,
in the other chamber, and what we can get done
in the House.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Well, when we consider what's going on in the other
chamber today. This decision or this advice from the parliamentarian
that changes to the provider tax does not fall into
what is eligible under reconciliation. Is that a good thing
or a bad thing in your mind?
Speaker 9 (10:25):
Congressman, Well, I it's unfortunate. There's a lot of stuff
that has been you know, fallen by the wayside with
these decisions with the Parliamentarian. And I think there are
you know, opportunities to you know, bring points of order,
see what can be done on the Senate side, and
I really hope that the Senators come to a good
resolution here. But I'll say I'm really disappointed in a
(10:47):
lot of the stuff that's fallen off, you know, and
that's one of them. There's a lot of things that
we worked really hard in getting consensus into getting really
good policy. And the part that is the most frustrating
about this is I think that you know, it wasn't
perfect for everybody, but we good, we got a really
good product through the House, something that we can get
pasted in the House, and now that it's being kind
(11:08):
of taken apart or these parts are taken out because
it all works together, you know, intricately, and so it's
frustrating for us on the House side to see it
going through this process.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
But I'm hoping that the.
Speaker 9 (11:19):
Other chamber can you know, get to some consensus to
get some of this stuff back in. And a lot
of these are key components that will need to continue
to have the sport that we have had on the House.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
Of course, you don't have a parliamentarian to deal with
on the House side, Congressman, right, so you're speaking slightly
different languages here, and I wonder how worried you are
about what else we could hear from the parliamentarian if
she has a problem, for instance, with the current policy baseline,
the method of an account of accounting that you were
using in the House.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
That would be a game changer, would it not.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
It would be a game changer.
Speaker 9 (11:52):
And it really comes down to the you know, the
same thing I just said is is we worked really hard.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
You know, leadership, word worked, the rank and file work.
Speaker 9 (11:59):
We all worked really hard on getting some good policy
together that all works together really well. I mean we're
looking at, you know, just how good this bill is
in terms of the tax cuts, in terms of securing
the border, of supporting our military everything that's in there,
making sure that we are protecting medicaid for those who
are actually entitled to it. There's so much good policy
in here, and it is a little frustrating to see
(12:21):
things happening over there. But I'm still optimistic that we're
going to get some resolution there, that the Senate is
going to work hard getting this through so it still
passes muster and we get a good product that we
can pass quickly in the House.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
At this point in Congressman, as you hear from your
colleagues across the conference, are you more concerned that fiscal
conservatives in the Freedom Caucus or the Salt Caucus could
ultimately be ones that act as the greatest barrier to
making sure this thing gets requisite votes.
Speaker 9 (12:49):
Well, you know, here's the thing is, they both have
strong voices, and of course we all have to listen
to both sides of that to get something through. And
we got this through in the House by one vote majority.
So it's it's a fine line there of making sure
that we are finding as best consensus as we can
amongst these different parts of it.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
You know, everything you know, like you mentioned from the.
Speaker 9 (13:09):
Freedom Caucuses concerns and you know, a lot of those
I share to you know, the concerns we have on
the other side, and you know some of those I share.
You know, it's a very fine line that we got
this through. Those voices are all meaningful because we can
only you know, we can't lose that many votes and
still get this pass. So we need to make sure
that we are, you know, finding not the perfect, but
(13:32):
the good. And I think what we have right now
is a really good bill. And if we can continue
listening to both sides of this and understand that not
everybody's going to get everything that they want, but this
is a very important bill to the American people.
Speaker 5 (13:44):
It's a very important.
Speaker 9 (13:45):
Bill to my district in central and eastern Montana, and
I do believe that we are going to find that
consensus and get something that.
Speaker 5 (13:53):
Is a very strong bill through here.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
When you talk to your colleagues from New York, New
Jersey and some of the other salt states, or at
least lawmakers with salt districts, Congressman, what's the conversation, like,
you don't believe any of them would actually vote no
and allow people's taxes to go up over the specific
singular issue of salt.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
Do you.
Speaker 9 (14:14):
Well, that's been a big conversation that I've heard bits
and pieces, and you know, a lot of the colleagues
that I have on that side, I mean, they've been
very very strong in their convictions there.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
Whether they would do that or not, I got to
tell you, I don't know. I'm not really comfortable.
Speaker 9 (14:30):
Putting them to the test because because I don't know,
and it's really important to me, it's really important to
my constituents that we get these tax cuts and we
get these spending cuts.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
In all right, Congressman, we appreciate you joining us live
from Capitol Hill. That's Republican Congressman Troy Downing, representing Montana's
second district, live with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Thank you so much. Of course, we're going to be
hearing more about this one Big Beautiful Bill later on
this afternoon from the President of the United States himself,
holding an event slated for four pm Eastern Time, dubbed
(15:02):
the One Big Beautiful Event. He's going to be trying
hard to make the case for this legislation and everything
he says it will do for Americans.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Least, he's staying on brand with this that's going to
coincide with the closing bell, at least by the schedule here,
it's going to be joined by what they're calling everyday
Americans at the White House. It's the East Room. We're
going to be hearing from a number of different workers, stakeholders.
I guess who could benefit from this bill. The President
could also make some comments about Iran. Yes, and we're
going to get into that coming up next with our
(15:29):
panel Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano. Or with us You
saw that news conference of the Pentagon this morning, huh yeah, with.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
The Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, also watching the press conference
from Caroline Leavitt or the briefing rather, she says no
talks are scheduled yet between the US and Iran. We'll
have more next here. On Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast ketches
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 em and as on Alexa
from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa played
Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
A lot of us started our morning started our days
with eyes on the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth in a news
conference alongside the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff as
announced by the President of the United States last evening,
they got behind the podiums just around eight a m.
With a room full of reporters. The Pentagon Press Corps
(16:27):
was assembled for an update on the mission over Iran, and,
as the President put it, to defend the dignity of
the pilots who flew the B two bombers and the
other aircraft, not to mention the support crew that was
part of that entire massive precision strike against Iran. We
(16:48):
didn't learn a lot more about intelligence, although we did
talk about it quite a bit. Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs showed a video about this bunker busting bomb its capabilities.
They had satellite photos of the four doh site, for instance,
in Iran that we attacked, but there wasn't new intelligence
to share. The headline on the terminal says it all.
(17:10):
Heg Seth berates media as questions linger on Iran strike impact.
The Secretary of Defense went out of his way to
castigate reporters in the room.
Speaker 10 (17:20):
Listen because you and I mean specifically you the press,
specifically you the press corps, because you cheer against Trump
so hard. It's like in your DNA and in your blood,
cheer against Trump because you want him not to be
successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy
(17:42):
of these strikes.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
So let's play this now to our political panel. Rick
Davis and Jeanie Schanzeno are both with US Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick,
of course partner at Stone Court Capital and Republican strategists.
Genie or democratic analyst and senior democracy fellow at the
Center for the Study of the Presidency. And Rick, as
we see the Defense secretary quite literally calling out the press,
who was in the room for this press conference, what
(18:08):
do you make of this strategy by the administration to
undermine basically the news media and its coverage of this,
rather than trying to iron out for sure first what
we actually do and do not know about how effective
these strikes actually were without having the intelligence in hand.
Speaker 5 (18:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 11 (18:27):
Look, I mean I don't think it's anything new. I mean,
we've all lived through the era during George W. Bush,
where the Secretary of Defense then Don Rumsfeld would berate
the press on a daily basis talk about, you know,
how they didn't understand what was going on, or that
he had intelligence that they didn't have and he wasn't
going to share it, and so this is nothing.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
New in that regard.
Speaker 11 (18:53):
I would say it would do the press some good
not to chase the speeding truck every time it leaves
the garage. And what I mean by that is there's
a leak report. It's a draft report, you know, and
yet the press reported it as this is the conclusion,
(19:13):
and we all know that they're still working on this thing.
Today the CIA came out and said it was Fedora
was severely damaged much more, echoing the president's initial comments.
We don't know where the President's getting his information, and
we don't know the conclusions of this storyline when it
comes to what is or isn't the future of the
(19:35):
Iranian nuclear program. But you would think that it was
a disaster, the attack that the US put on Iran.
And so do I feel for the Secretary of Defense
and his frustration he can't control the media. But I
think the media needs to learn to control itself a
little bit because it is almost borderline insulting to the
(20:00):
military who risked their lives to do the attack. To
begin with, the last thing I would say about second farriers,
he ought to quit call on the President of United
States Trump.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
He should call him the president.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
It's his boss.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
And if I kept.
Speaker 11 (20:17):
Repeating my last name of my boss over and over again,
I think he would fire me, and I think that
would be justified.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (20:26):
All right, a pretty interesting read from Rick, and a
pretty even handed one, Genie. And I'm curious your thoughts
on this, because, of course, blaming the media is the
oldest trick in the book, and it's not something that
we're unfamiliar with when it comes to this administration. Do
we also need, however, to acknowledge the fact that the
(20:46):
Pentagon Press.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Corps is a little bit different.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
These are specialized reporters in many cases who are not
on TV every day, and they're not chasing every lead
that comes out of the White House. Many have been
there for thirty years or more, including our own Tony OsO,
who is in the front row for that event today.
Is it their job to question what's going on right now,
Genie or wait for a more complete assessment.
Speaker 12 (21:11):
They are doing their job. I mean, this should be
called out for what it is it is distraction, and
who better to get us distracted than the media that
everybody likes to pound on. There was not one report
that I saw, and I would love if somebody would
share it with me, of anybody who reported on that
assessment from the DIA which said that this is the
(21:33):
final word, this is it. Nobody said that. They said
it was a preliminary assessment. And if they did say that,
they're wrong, and they can be called out on that.
But this is all a distraction from the real issue,
which when Pete Hegseth was asked about, he too sidestepped it,
which is what happened to the enriched uranium and the
centrifuges that were not at those three facilities that presumably
(21:56):
survived the strikes. That means that Iran has the elements
to reconstitute their nuclear program. When he was asked that
by the crazy press, he didn't answer. And so that
is what needs to be addressed. What is the state
of the scientific community in Iran? Where does the knowledge
lie to reconstitute this, because you cannot bomb away that
(22:20):
kind of knowledge. He sidestepped that all in his effort
to do what this administration doesn't quite Frankly, a lot
of administrations do is to try to distract the public
with nonsense. Go ahead, attack the press. They are doing
their jobs. But give us the answers we deserve and need.
And by the way, if the assessment is not ready,
(22:42):
then just say that. But that's not what they've said.
They have discounted the assessment. They don't politically and like
in favor of one that is equally as preliminary, and
that is the one the CIA won. So they often conflict.
That's pretty standard. We can wait for the assessments, but
answer the question the uranium and the state of reconstitution
(23:02):
in Iran well.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
The White House Press Secretary Caroline Lovitt is in the
process of answering questions from the press in the briefing
room right now as we speak, and no surprise, Iran
is featuring heavily in the questions from reporters. Some of
the things we've heard from Caroline Lovitt include that no
talks are yet scheduled with Iran, but the US is
on a diplomatic path with Iran, and that the goal
of meeting with Iran would be to work towards a
(23:27):
lasting piece. She also noted to the conversation we were
just having that. Only tidbits of the Iran intelligence report
were leaked to CNN and The New York Times. But
Rick on this idea of talks, in particular, knowing the
President in the Netherlands yesterday at the NATO summit said
he doesn't think it's necessary to have a diplomatic deal
(23:47):
with Iran. How do you see this actually moving forward?
Is it actually necessary? Do you believe the President still
wants to be able to say he made a deal
with Troan?
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Yeah, I think that certainly.
Speaker 11 (24:00):
Republican senators, more hawkish guys, I know, they want to
see an agreement with Iran, and they want to see
Iron agree to do no more processing of nuclear fuel, right,
I mean like they they want an agreement that is
verifiable by i EI and other inspectors and and and
(24:20):
and and bypass this whole debate as to whether they
could or couldn't do it, and get them to commit
to not doing it. And if they commit to not
doing it, then we can start doing things like taking
off sanctions and looking at better diplomatic relations and all
those things that we want to have. But it comes
at a price. It comes at a price. To you know,
(24:42):
the Western societies that want fewer nuclear weapons running around
the world. And so I think that initially the President's
probably you know, first reaction of hey, you know, they
they can't make a weapon. Now that may be technically true,
but the real question Israel is going to ask, and
(25:02):
people like Lindsey Graham and John Thune and others are
going to say, is what can we do to tie
up around so that this never becomes another issue where
we have to get beef two bombers over their airspace.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
They're talking as well in the White House briefing about
the sharing of intelligence with Congress and questions about limiting
that information, Genie, something that we've talked about quite a
bit this week. There was, in fact a briefing schedule
for today with lawmakers, a Senate briefing that had been
limited to just Pete Hegseth. We understand Tulsea Gabbert, who
(25:43):
testified in March, of course that our intelligence agencies assessed
that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon notably absent
from this briefing. What do you make of this turning
of the screws on intel sharing with Congress?
Speaker 12 (26:00):
Yeah, you know, they've been talking a lot about this leak,
and absolutely, if there is a leak and that leak
is coming from wherever it's coming, it should be investigated
and they should plug the hole. But that does not
mean that they get to bypass the law which says
that they have to alert Congress and they have to
brief them within forty eight hours. And so I'm happy
the briefing is occurring today. It should be a full
(26:22):
throttle briefing. So it is concerning when people are kept out,
but that's obviously the administration's decision to make.
Speaker 6 (26:31):
You know.
Speaker 12 (26:31):
It is fascinating by the way that you have Donald
Trump on the one hand saying that no talks are needed,
but yet he cannot provide proof that the nuclear program
is gone, because what would they do to ensure Iran
can comply will comply with this no rebuilding? I mean,
that is the question that needs to be answered. And
(26:53):
if you're not going to talk with them, how do
you ensure that? And Congress has a right to know
all of that. And so we are once again in
a position where anybody who takes power in Iran going
forward is going to say we were hit because we
didn't have nuclear weapons. The deterrent is nuclear, let us
go under ground aka North Korea's model, and let us reconstitute.
(27:18):
And the President because he wants to say this was
one and done decades and I solved the problem in
twelve days or twelve hours or whatever, he says, he
doesn't want to deal with that very real what would
be a catastrophe for the West that Rick was just
talking about. And that's what Congress deserves to know from
our defense sector.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
For what it's worth.
Speaker 4 (27:39):
Today, the reporting is that Pete Hagseth is along with
Marco Rubio, John Ratcliffe, General Dan Caine will be part
of that briefing, just to be clear, and not Tulcy Gabbard.
Last evening, we've spoke with Senator Tammy Duckworth who suggested
that hag Seth may alone be briefing them. Great conversation
and thanks to both the Eugenie Schanzano and Rick Davis
Bloomberg Politics contributors with us here on Balance of Power
(28:01):
Alive from Washington Thursday edition alongside Kaylee Lines, I'm Joe
Matthew as we turn to the cyber threat against the
United States, but also the way this information is collected
Kaylee and disseminated. We've got a real expert on this
coming up.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
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 4 (28:35):
Thank you for being with us on the Thursday edition,
the early edition of Balance of Power on Bloomberg Radio
on the satellite channel one twenty one Bloomberg Originals.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Yes, YouTube as well.
Speaker 4 (28:44):
If you're not on YouTube right now, it's a good
time to come on in search Bloomberg Business News Live
because we have something special for you here. Following the
news conference this morning at the Pentagon with Pete Hagsath
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Course Secretary of
Defense castigating the media for getting the story wrong on
Iran and not celebrating our men and women in uniform,
(29:06):
there are still massive questions about the intelligence complex behind
this claim that we destroyed Iran's nuclear program. We're going
to get into that because Laura is a true expert,
having helped to run the intelligence community. By the way,
that's got a capital I and a capital C. I'll
explain that in just a moment, but we want to
(29:26):
zoom in first on the cyber threats also part of
Laura's specialty against US banks. This is something that came
up in testimony this week that we brought you live
on Bloomberg when Fedchaer J.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Powell went up to the house.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Remember he had two days of testimony this week, and
of course we focused on his commentary about inflation, interest rates, tariffs,
But how about cyber threats from Iran against US banks.
This is a conversation with Congressman Gotttheimer who was questioning
the FED chair.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Let's listen.
Speaker 13 (29:55):
We're in touch with the other regulators and the parts
of the government that that work on cyber as you know,
and you know we're in touch with the banks to say,
you know, for people to be on the alert for
things like that to happen. And also we're on the
alert because you know we're a target as well, so
you're right to raise it. You know, it's a big issue.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Enter Laura Galante, now principal at West exec Advisor's former
as I mentioned cyber executive for the intelligence community. Yes,
that's a capital I and a capital C. And just
to explain, this is a coalition, as self described of
eighteen separate US government agencies that analyze and disseminate intelligence.
(30:39):
The intelligence community that you ran cyber for stitches all
of this together into one composite which we're still waiting
for when it comes to Iran, and I want to
ask you about that in a moment. Laura, welcome back.
It's really great to have you on Bloomberg.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
Nice to be here, Jo to hear.
Speaker 4 (30:52):
That out in the open in a congressional hearing. What
is the FED prepared for and what threat are we
facing cyber threat from Iran?
Speaker 14 (31:01):
Chairman Paul has been laying out cyber threats as a
key issue for Wall Street for years, and with the
Iranian activity the bombs dropped on Saturday, we're definitely in
a heightened environment in terms of what Iran's willing to
do now in terms of Wall Street and the threat
to banks and the financial sector, they're always on alert.
These are platinum security programs that the banks have, but
(31:22):
where Iran is going to play as on the psychological
the influence operations being really loud and taking credit for
activity so where the banks have to focus is where's
there going to be something disruptive where an actor from
Iran can claim that they've had an impact on Wall Street,
on the financial sector, and the Iranian government want to
use that to their advantage at home and domestically.
Speaker 4 (31:44):
Yeah, how much of this stuff do we never hear
about because nobody wants to say openly that they've been
attacked or hacked, and nobody wants to take credit for
the attack to begin with.
Speaker 14 (31:55):
Well, there's a couple pieces to disclosure. The banks in
particular have a lot of regulators and are really incentive
and do a great job about communicating where when they're threatened.
There's other sectors I'll give you water for example, who
don't have the same incentive structure to be able to
detect and then be able to talk about the cyber
attacks that are hitting them. And this is where Iranian
(32:17):
activity could get really interesting and threatening for the next
few months. Yeah, water sector, energy sector, even transportation. Where
Ranian cyberacetors have focused in the past is getting into
the industrial control systems, sort of the tech interface that
controls water levels, chlorine water pumps, that sort of thing.
(32:37):
Planting and disrupt problem much later, right, Yeah, even turning
them off. In other cases, they'll put up the equivalent
of kind of digital graffiti, a note that says Israel
to take down Israel, this device was made in Israel.
Iran is here really threatening again, kind of a psychological effect.
(32:58):
But different municipalities have had to take down their water
systems as a result of this just in the last
couple of years.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
So is this Iran or China or both?
Speaker 14 (33:07):
This is Iran in the case we're talking about now,
China's got prepositioned access at a pretty deep level across
the energy sector. The thought prepositioned access you know, Director Ray,
the former FBI director, called them sleeper cells. But essentially
they've got cyber access in networks that they could use
at a time and place that they're choosing. And the
(33:30):
thought process for China, who's a real strategic actor here,
and it's the Chinese military who's doing this, is use
that strategic leverage to change how US political will works.
Will China be able to deter the US from coming
to Taiwan's aid or another ally in the Asia Pacific?
And they're using those cyber accesses or lying in weight
(33:51):
to use those if.
Speaker 10 (33:52):
They need them.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Very scary.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
We're talking about a ceasefire with Iran, making a deal
with Iran. We're going to sit down at the table
next week. The missiles aren't flying, but these threats continue.
Shouldn't this be part of a ceasefire agreement or a
piece deal with Iran.
Speaker 14 (34:09):
Iranian cyber activity has been happening in the last week.
Albania was actually yeah, Albania has actually been the victim
of some of this. They harbor a pro Iranian group.
So the actors here are on it now. The question
in the next couple weeks, but even months, is what
can Iran touch in terms of US targets, US critical
(34:30):
infrastructure targets and be able to tout the impact of
that and potentially use that as a way to get
more leverage in the ceasefire discussions, in other negotiations that
are going to be happening.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
Amazing, This is exactly the conversation that I thought it
might be, Laura, because we learn a lot when we
talk to you, and I want to ask you about
the debate that's going on surrounding the use of the
dissemination of the politicization.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Of intelligence in Washington.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
At the moment you saw the Defense Secretary of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs this mor trying to stitch
together a composite to back up claims that Iran's nuclear
program has been obliterated. As the President puts it, we
had an initial assessment that was apparently leaked to some
news organizations, including the Washington Post, CNN, New York Times,
(35:17):
suggesting that we set.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Them back by only months.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
And I know that the President has been very angry
about this in the Pentagon, as least as led by
the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, suggesting that we've insulted
the dignity of the pilots who flew this incredible mission
that I think we all agree was quite impressive and
might have revolutionized the way we do this. Talk to
us about the process, because we're told it'll take weeks
(35:39):
before we really know what happened.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
You were part of an organization that.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
In fact oversaw eighteen different agencies. How many are working
on this? How long will it take to have a
real answer?
Speaker 14 (35:52):
Putting together a damage assessment, especially when it's complex, is
what we're seeing after Saturday, Multiple targets, multiple different ways
to read how that destruction happened against those targets. This
is going to take time, and one of the things
that folks in the intelligence community are going to be
incredibly diligent about is making sure that they're taking a
(36:12):
variety of sources. Some of that sourcing will come from allies,
some of that sourcing will come from reports on the ground.
It'll come from a myriad of sources, and they need
to take that into account to really understand what the
damage looks like. So these first preliminary days, it's wild
that this is playing out in the public sphere. The
debates around how to gauge this damage and how to
(36:35):
convey that and how to explain it is where these
eighteen agencies are going to be having really fruitful discussions
and then putting that together for the President in a
variety of intelligence products. That's going to be the key
work here, and it is it's tough when you have
Pentagon leadership, when you have DoD coming out and saying
some of this. But one of the lines that Cain
(36:55):
said that I think is worth seizing on is DoD
doesn't create its own homework. The intelligence community does the
damage assessment, and that's a really key point here, so
let the intelligence community really get down to it and
understand what's happening.
Speaker 4 (37:08):
Well, once again, it is really the civilian leadership that's
taking this stand right. We haven't heard official Pentagon, beginning
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, say exactly what
the President has said. I don't want to pull you
into a political conversation here, but it is remarkable and
I'm guessing your phone's been blowing up with a lot
of folks from the intell community. Remarkable to see this
administration and specifically this president, having denigrated the intelligence community
(37:33):
for many years, now turning to it for support to
back up this argument.
Speaker 14 (37:39):
The intelligence community strength at its core, and you have
so many professionals in there who've really dedicated their time
and service to an unbiased approach to the facts.
Speaker 10 (37:49):
And what they're really going.
Speaker 14 (37:51):
To focus on here is not being politicized and getting
straight down to here's what we know has happened, here's
what we don't know, and then using what we call
confidence language caveats a way to explain that room and
political leadership. And it is remarkable to see Trump, you know,
so involved in the discussions with intelligence community assessments right
(38:12):
now when he wrote them off so much in the
first in the first administration. But this is this is
the work, and this is the moment when everybody should
really be looking to the intelligence community to understand the picture,
and that picture has to inform our actions. If we
lose that and politicize that, that's when we're really not
(38:33):
going to have a clear understanding of what's going on,
and that will not be good.
Speaker 3 (38:36):
For the Are these leaks politically motivated?
Speaker 4 (38:38):
When you hear about an initial assessment from a single
agency knocking around certain quarters of the news media, does
that bother you?
Speaker 14 (38:45):
I can't say leaks are always bothered someone classified intelligence.
To put it mildly right, they shouldn't be out there.
The question is can these agencies get the space that
they deserve to have the debates internally to see it first?
Speaker 5 (39:02):
Right?
Speaker 14 (39:03):
This isn't something that makes any sense, and in fact,
it's really anathetical to national security to be having these
intelligence debates on the outside. You want to give professionals
the space to really batter around to the facts, bat
around different.
Speaker 10 (39:16):
Sources, and get to a conclusion that they agree on.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
In our remaining moment, here does this go public when
there's a final product, or is this something that we'll
only hear about years later.
Speaker 14 (39:27):
That's going to be up to the decision makers and
the intelligence community on what's releasable and what needs to
stay within channels. And a lot of that's about protecting sources.
It's about a long term view on American intelligence and
what we preserve in what makes sense to put out publicly.
So we'll have to wait and see.
Speaker 4 (39:44):
Is there an initial just to add on to that,
an initial reading that's used internally by the Pentagon, for instance,
to decide if they need to go back in hit
it again.
Speaker 14 (39:51):
There's going to be a variety of intelligence products that
are created over time that different policymakers and the Pentagon
and elsewhere will rely upon. But this is going to
be a really dynamic and important focus across the agencies.
Speaker 4 (40:03):
We've got to do this again, stay close to us
while we figured this out. It's really great to have
you back. I told you this would be an important
conversation with Laura Galante, and there you have it. Where
else are you going to hear a conversation like that?
But here this hour on Bloomberg, Principal West exec advisor's
former cyber executive for the Intelligence community, Google that the
intelligence community capital I capital C. You might learn something
(40:25):
while you're at it. Thanks for listening to the Balance
of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already,
at Apple, Spotify.
Speaker 3 (40:36):
Or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 4 (40:39):
You can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC
at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.
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, Cockley 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):
This is balance of power here in Washington where we're
having to walk out a little bit today in terms
of procedure in the United States Senate as they try
to move forward on this budget reconciliation package. The mechanism,
of course, reconciliation the one that Republicans are relying on
to make sure that they can pass the president's legislative
agenda only on a party line vote, no Democrats required.
The problem is, if you want to use that process,
(00:47):
the elements of the package need to pass muster with
the Senate parliamentarian, and some of it, Elizabeth McDonough said,
parliamentarian ruled today Joe does not indeed pass her test
at least this time.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
The birdbath is happening as we speak. The bird droppings
are piling up, and one of them here is, to
your point, blowing a pretty big hole in this bill.
We are doing a deep walk out today.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
You have to do this to.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Understand what we're talking about and looking forward to that
as no one else we'd walk out with other than
Bill Hogland. But first we want to get to Bloomberg's
Tyler Kendall, who has the latest on these changes to
the bill and what it might mean for the timeline.
Speaker 6 (01:25):
Tyler, Yeah, hey, Joe. So, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that
the provision lowering the Medicaid provider tax doesn't comply with
the rules required for reconciliation that Kaylee was just laying
out there now. The Senate plan would have lowered the
Medicaid provider tax over time to three and a half
percent for those states that did expand coverage under the
(01:46):
Affordable Care Act. Essentially, according to that plan, that would
have meant less federal matching funds for these states. So,
on one hand, this is considered to be perhaps a
political win in that it takes off the table one
of the most politically it's ought issues that Senate Republicans
were dealing with. In fact, many of the Republicans had
raised concerns about what lowering the provider tax would mean,
(02:07):
in particular for rural hospitals that utilize it to essentially
up their funding. But on the other hand, it means
less cost savings to the tune of two hundred and
fifty billion dollars when you combine it with some of
the other healthcare provisions that have been stripped out of
this bill as part of the bird bath process. Now,
we are still waiting on some additional details and clarity
(02:28):
from the Senate Parliamentarian on why this provision in particular
does not meet that threshold that level for reconciliation, since
we know that any provision in this bill will have
to deal with budgetary matters. But at the end of
the day, Joe and Keiley sources tell us that Republicans
might try to rewrite this provision in some way to
make sure that it does get through, but that could
(02:50):
ultimately take time and delay the timeline to get this
done by July fourth.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
It's a perfect outline from Tyler Kendall.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Thank you so much, Tyler, and the idea of changes
to the provider tax to give you a sense of
how many Republicans, including Democrats, were outraged by this idea,
many of them from rural districts where local hospitals and
nursing homes were set to close. We asked Congresswoman Aaron
Houchin about this Republican from Indiana just last evening on
(03:17):
the late edition of Balance of Power.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Here's what she said.
Speaker 7 (03:20):
I'm going to hear from my hospitals back home. They're
not happy with the Senate proposed version of this bill.
We've heard from them loud and clear. We heard from
them on the House side. This is a funding mechanism
that keeps our rural hospitals alive. So whether we like
the mechanism or not, we do have to give something
in return or something at its place, and we're not
(03:40):
ready to do that yet. So I think that what
the Senate is doing goes too far. I'd like to
see him dial it back to the House version.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
The House version, of course, was a freezing of the
provider tax level, while as the Senate is looking to
actually reduce it. But again the parliamentarian says that Senate
plan as it stands right now is not going to fly.
And for more, Bigland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan
Policy Center, is joining us here in our Washington.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
D C.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Studio. So Bill the operative words really are as currently written,
this cannot fit into the reconciliation process. Do you have
a sense of what maybe it is the Parliamentarian is
identifying does not work and how it could be tweaked
in order for its past muster.
Speaker 8 (04:20):
Let me let me first address something. It's very we'rewonkey
here this afternoon. As you said, the parliamentarian does not rule. Okay, okay,
chair the chair of the Senate. Who's sitting in the chair,
she advises the chair. So first of all, we have
to there's a real concerns about the parliamentarian's ruling. She's
not ruling, she is advising who's sitting in the chair.
(04:44):
The chair can accept the advice or not accept the advice,
which is important point. Thank you, And I just want
to make that clear in terms I don't our.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
News to most people. We hear about the parliamentarian ruling
all day long. You've got senators calling for her firing today.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Built so that's I think that's so unfortunate.
Speaker 8 (05:02):
She is a career person, she's not political. She's just
abiding by the law and she is carrying out her
responsibilities effectively. Reconciliation has become something that's much more than
what it used to be, and people are using it
for things that was never intent. This is supposed to
be a budget act now. In terms of the provider tax,
(05:25):
I don't know the specifics. I can tell you that
I think we had a provision earlier this week that
was ruled that she said violated the bird rull. Had
to do with a snap program and a state to match.
It was a simple fix.
Speaker 5 (05:40):
It was a date.
Speaker 8 (05:40):
I don't know exactly what it is that's creating the
current problem, but I do have a feeling that it's
probably something that's fixable, because this does save something like
two hundred and eighty billion dollars and fifty billion dollars
over the next years. I just want to make it
clear that this is I think we're rushing to judgment here.
I think the staff now understand there may be some
(06:01):
tweaks they have to make in the legislation and may
be greater than I don't know, but I don't want
to put all this burden that the parliamentarian is ruled
she is advising well.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
I think the reason some people view this as being
potentially something more definitive is because by and large, the
signal from Republican leadership to this point has been we
will abide by the guidance of the parliamentarian. Do you
think if they cannot fix it, there's a chance that
they actually decide to ignore her advice.
Speaker 8 (06:29):
Well, exactly. Now, what happens is she tells the chair,
this particular provision violates the bird rule, a point of
order is well taken. At that particular point, the chair,
who's sitting in the chair that could be the Vice
President of the United States, could say, well, I don't
think so, and I'm not going to rule that it violates.
(06:49):
Now at that point, Milwonkee, at that point, somebody can
stand up, I question the ruling of the chair.
Speaker 5 (06:56):
And at that.
Speaker 8 (06:57):
Point it would require sixty votes to overturn the ruling
of the chair. So the chair can make the final decision,
and it would require sixty votes to overturn the chair.
So it's possible that they could. They could say, listen,
we're gonna go We're gonna roll the dice, and I'm
not going to fire the parliamentarian. We're simply going to
raise the point of water and waive the point of
(07:18):
water if it comes to that.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
So it sounds like Senator Turberville should be calling for
the firing of the chair if anyone in this particular case,
which I guess is not a very realistic idea. But
so the idea though that this goes back to the
drawing board. It can be rewritten in a way that
may satisfy.
Speaker 8 (07:33):
The absolutely and I half a feeling that say, this
does have a budgetary consequence. Clearly two hundred and fifty
billion dollars, it does have a pedgetary consequence, yes, and
so I think it can.
Speaker 5 (07:44):
It can.
Speaker 8 (07:45):
It meets that there must be something else in it,
maybe a date, it may be something. It's very restricted,
but I think this is something that probably can be
fixed by the staff. I don't know a bit fair
about it. I don't know what specifically it was that
created the point of her concerned that it violates the
bird rule.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
So we have a question of if it can be fixed.
Also a question of on what timeline. Knowing that the
Senate wanted to have a vote Arama this weekend, start
the recess come Monday, give it to the House, hope
this thing is all said and done, signed by the
President July fourth, What does that timeline look like?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Now?
Speaker 8 (08:17):
In your mind, I've been one of the more pessimistic
ones about this. I think the July fourth deadline is
kind of some arbitrary in terms. We don't have to
have this finish, and I think they can. I'm certain
that's what the President wants, is to have it on
his des but that requires getting it out of the
Senate getting it and they're changing it, so I have
to go back to the House. The houses will have
(08:39):
to be called back from recess next week to vote
on to get it there by the fourth of July.
There's still a lot of work to be done this
can It seems that you should slow down, take your time,
do it right, and get the votes right now. I
don't think they have the votes for what's in the Senate,
let alone maybe what would be in the House, so
it's going to take a little time here still works out.
So I'm the one who probably will miss miss on
(09:03):
this because boy, there's a lot of pressure to get
it done by the fourth. But I think that's a
little bit too ambitious of a schedule right now.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
We always learn something when we talked to Bill Hoagland
really appreciate this bill A tempering voice and a bit
of a reality check, right to some of the headlines
that we've been hearing with the Bipartisan Policy Center. Bill
Hogland with us in downtown Washington, d C, just a
few blocks from where Congressman Troy Downing is right now.
The Republican from Montana's second district joins us live from
Capitol Hill for his view on all of this. In Congressman,
(09:30):
it's great to have you back with us on Bloomberg
TV and radio. You hear the concerns about timeline. Now
that the parliamentarian has slightly changed the picture on the
Senate side, can you still get this done? Will the
House be ready to catch a long ball if the
Senate throws it out there, say Sunday night or Monday.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
Yeah, I think I'm optimistic.
Speaker 9 (09:51):
We have had a lot of deadlines that people were
saying there's no way we're going to hit, and we've
we've still met those and that's happened this entire Congress.
Still optimistic we can hit that deadline. I know there's
a lot of work out there, but you know, I'm
confident in the good work on the uh you know,
in the other chamber, and what we can get done
in the House.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Well, when we consider what's going on in the other
chamber today. This decision or this advice from the parliamentarian
that changes to the provider tax does not fall into
what is eligible under reconciliation. Is that a good thing
or a bad thing in your mind?
Speaker 9 (10:25):
Congressman, Well, I it's unfortunate. There's a lot of stuff
that has been you know, fallen by the wayside with
these decisions with the Parliamentarian. And I think there are
you know, opportunities to you know, bring points of order,
see what can be done on the Senate side, and
I really hope that the Senators come to a good
resolution here. But I'll say I'm really disappointed in a
(10:47):
lot of the stuff that's fallen off, you know, and
that's one of them. There's a lot of things that
we worked really hard in getting consensus into getting really
good policy. And the part that is the most frustrating
about this is I think that you know, it wasn't
perfect for everybody, but we good, we got a really
good product through the House, something that we can get
pasted in the House, and now that it's being kind
(11:08):
of taken apart or these parts are taken out because
it all works together, you know, intricately, and so it's
frustrating for us on the House side to see it
going through this process.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
But I'm hoping that the.
Speaker 9 (11:19):
Other chamber can you know, get to some consensus to
get some of this stuff back in. And a lot
of these are key components that will need to continue
to have the sport that we have had on the House.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
Of course, you don't have a parliamentarian to deal with
on the House side, Congressman, right, so you're speaking slightly
different languages here, and I wonder how worried you are
about what else we could hear from the parliamentarian if
she has a problem, for instance, with the current policy baseline,
the method of an account of accounting that you were
using in the House.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
That would be a game changer, would it not.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
It would be a game changer.
Speaker 9 (11:52):
And it really comes down to the you know, the
same thing I just said is is we worked really hard.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
You know, leadership, word worked, the rank and file work.
Speaker 9 (11:59):
We all worked really hard on getting some good policy
together that all works together really well. I mean we're
looking at, you know, just how good this bill is
in terms of the tax cuts, in terms of securing
the border, of supporting our military everything that's in there,
making sure that we are protecting medicaid for those who
are actually entitled to it. There's so much good policy
in here, and it is a little frustrating to see
(12:21):
things happening over there. But I'm still optimistic that we're
going to get some resolution there, that the Senate is
going to work hard getting this through so it still
passes muster and we get a good product that we
can pass quickly in the House.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
At this point in Congressman, as you hear from your
colleagues across the conference, are you more concerned that fiscal
conservatives in the Freedom Caucus or the Salt Caucus could
ultimately be ones that act as the greatest barrier to
making sure this thing gets requisite votes.
Speaker 9 (12:49):
Well, you know, here's the thing is, they both have
strong voices, and of course we all have to listen
to both sides of that to get something through. And
we got this through in the House by one vote majority.
So it's it's a fine line there of making sure
that we are finding as best consensus as we can
amongst these different parts of it.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
You know, everything you know, like you mentioned from the.
Speaker 9 (13:09):
Freedom Caucuses concerns and you know, a lot of those
I share to you know, the concerns we have on
the other side, and you know some of those I share.
You know, it's a very fine line that we got
this through. Those voices are all meaningful because we can
only you know, we can't lose that many votes and
still get this pass. So we need to make sure
that we are, you know, finding not the perfect, but
(13:32):
the good. And I think what we have right now
is a really good bill. And if we can continue
listening to both sides of this and understand that not
everybody's going to get everything that they want, but this
is a very important bill to the American people.
Speaker 5 (13:44):
It's a very important.
Speaker 9 (13:45):
Bill to my district in central and eastern Montana, and
I do believe that we are going to find that
consensus and get something that.
Speaker 5 (13:53):
Is a very strong bill through here.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
When you talk to your colleagues from New York, New
Jersey and some of the other salt states, or at
least lawmakers with salt districts, Congressman, what's the conversation, like,
you don't believe any of them would actually vote no
and allow people's taxes to go up over the specific
singular issue of salt.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
Do you.
Speaker 9 (14:14):
Well, that's been a big conversation that I've heard bits
and pieces, and you know, a lot of the colleagues
that I have on that side, I mean, they've been
very very strong in their convictions there.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
Whether they would do that or not, I got to
tell you, I don't know. I'm not really comfortable.
Speaker 9 (14:30):
Putting them to the test because because I don't know,
and it's really important to me, it's really important to
my constituents that we get these tax cuts and we
get these spending cuts.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
In all right, Congressman, we appreciate you joining us live
from Capitol Hill. That's Republican Congressman Troy Downing, representing Montana's
second district, live with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Thank you so much. Of course, we're going to be
hearing more about this one Big Beautiful Bill later on
this afternoon from the President of the United States himself,
holding an event slated for four pm Eastern Time, dubbed
(15:02):
the One Big Beautiful Event. He's going to be trying
hard to make the case for this legislation and everything
he says it will do for Americans.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Least, he's staying on brand with this that's going to
coincide with the closing bell, at least by the schedule here,
it's going to be joined by what they're calling everyday
Americans at the White House. It's the East Room. We're
going to be hearing from a number of different workers, stakeholders.
I guess who could benefit from this bill. The President
could also make some comments about Iran. Yes, and we're
going to get into that coming up next with our
(15:29):
panel Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano. Or with us You
saw that news conference of the Pentagon this morning, huh yeah, with.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
The Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, also watching the press conference
from Caroline Leavitt or the briefing rather, she says no
talks are scheduled yet between the US and Iran. We'll
have more next here. On Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast ketches
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 em and as on Alexa
from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa played
Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
A lot of us started our morning started our days
with eyes on the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth in a news
conference alongside the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff as
announced by the President of the United States last evening,
they got behind the podiums just around eight a m.
With a room full of reporters. The Pentagon Press Corps
(16:27):
was assembled for an update on the mission over Iran, and,
as the President put it, to defend the dignity of
the pilots who flew the B two bombers and the
other aircraft, not to mention the support crew that was
part of that entire massive precision strike against Iran. We
(16:48):
didn't learn a lot more about intelligence, although we did
talk about it quite a bit. Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs showed a video about this bunker busting bomb its capabilities.
They had satellite photos of the four doh site, for instance,
in Iran that we attacked, but there wasn't new intelligence
to share. The headline on the terminal says it all.
(17:10):
Heg Seth berates media as questions linger on Iran strike impact.
The Secretary of Defense went out of his way to
castigate reporters in the room.
Speaker 10 (17:20):
Listen because you and I mean specifically you the press,
specifically you the press corps, because you cheer against Trump
so hard. It's like in your DNA and in your blood,
cheer against Trump because you want him not to be
successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy
(17:42):
of these strikes.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
So let's play this now to our political panel. Rick
Davis and Jeanie Schanzeno are both with US Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick,
of course partner at Stone Court Capital and Republican strategists.
Genie or democratic analyst and senior democracy fellow at the
Center for the Study of the Presidency. And Rick, as
we see the Defense secretary quite literally calling out the press,
who was in the room for this press conference, what
(18:08):
do you make of this strategy by the administration to
undermine basically the news media and its coverage of this,
rather than trying to iron out for sure first what
we actually do and do not know about how effective
these strikes actually were without having the intelligence in hand.
Speaker 5 (18:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 11 (18:27):
Look, I mean I don't think it's anything new. I mean,
we've all lived through the era during George W. Bush,
where the Secretary of Defense then Don Rumsfeld would berate
the press on a daily basis talk about, you know,
how they didn't understand what was going on, or that
he had intelligence that they didn't have and he wasn't
going to share it, and so this is nothing.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
New in that regard.
Speaker 11 (18:53):
I would say it would do the press some good
not to chase the speeding truck every time it leaves
the garage. And what I mean by that is there's
a leak report. It's a draft report, you know, and
yet the press reported it as this is the conclusion,
(19:13):
and we all know that they're still working on this thing.
Today the CIA came out and said it was Fedora
was severely damaged much more, echoing the president's initial comments.
We don't know where the President's getting his information, and
we don't know the conclusions of this storyline when it
comes to what is or isn't the future of the
(19:35):
Iranian nuclear program. But you would think that it was
a disaster, the attack that the US put on Iran.
And so do I feel for the Secretary of Defense
and his frustration he can't control the media. But I
think the media needs to learn to control itself a
little bit because it is almost borderline insulting to the
(20:00):
military who risked their lives to do the attack. To
begin with, the last thing I would say about second farriers,
he ought to quit call on the President of United
States Trump.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
He should call him the president.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
It's his boss.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
And if I kept.
Speaker 11 (20:17):
Repeating my last name of my boss over and over again,
I think he would fire me, and I think that
would be justified.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (20:26):
All right, a pretty interesting read from Rick, and a
pretty even handed one, Genie. And I'm curious your thoughts
on this, because, of course, blaming the media is the
oldest trick in the book, and it's not something that
we're unfamiliar with when it comes to this administration. Do
we also need, however, to acknowledge the fact that the
(20:46):
Pentagon Press.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Corps is a little bit different.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
These are specialized reporters in many cases who are not
on TV every day, and they're not chasing every lead
that comes out of the White House. Many have been
there for thirty years or more, including our own Tony OsO,
who is in the front row for that event today.
Is it their job to question what's going on right now,
Genie or wait for a more complete assessment.
Speaker 12 (21:11):
They are doing their job. I mean, this should be
called out for what it is it is distraction, and
who better to get us distracted than the media that
everybody likes to pound on. There was not one report
that I saw, and I would love if somebody would
share it with me, of anybody who reported on that
assessment from the DIA which said that this is the
(21:33):
final word, this is it. Nobody said that. They said
it was a preliminary assessment. And if they did say that,
they're wrong, and they can be called out on that.
But this is all a distraction from the real issue,
which when Pete Hegseth was asked about, he too sidestepped it,
which is what happened to the enriched uranium and the
centrifuges that were not at those three facilities that presumably
(21:56):
survived the strikes. That means that Iran has the elements
to reconstitute their nuclear program. When he was asked that
by the crazy press, he didn't answer. And so that
is what needs to be addressed. What is the state
of the scientific community in Iran? Where does the knowledge
lie to reconstitute this, because you cannot bomb away that
(22:20):
kind of knowledge. He sidestepped that all in his effort
to do what this administration doesn't quite Frankly, a lot
of administrations do is to try to distract the public
with nonsense. Go ahead, attack the press. They are doing
their jobs. But give us the answers we deserve and need.
And by the way, if the assessment is not ready,
(22:42):
then just say that. But that's not what they've said.
They have discounted the assessment. They don't politically and like
in favor of one that is equally as preliminary, and
that is the one the CIA won. So they often conflict.
That's pretty standard. We can wait for the assessments, but
answer the question the uranium and the state of reconstitution
(23:02):
in Iran well.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
The White House Press Secretary Caroline Lovitt is in the
process of answering questions from the press in the briefing
room right now as we speak, and no surprise, Iran
is featuring heavily in the questions from reporters. Some of
the things we've heard from Caroline Lovitt include that no
talks are yet scheduled with Iran, but the US is
on a diplomatic path with Iran, and that the goal
of meeting with Iran would be to work towards a
(23:27):
lasting piece. She also noted to the conversation we were
just having that. Only tidbits of the Iran intelligence report
were leaked to CNN and The New York Times. But
Rick on this idea of talks, in particular, knowing the
President in the Netherlands yesterday at the NATO summit said
he doesn't think it's necessary to have a diplomatic deal
(23:47):
with Iran. How do you see this actually moving forward?
Is it actually necessary? Do you believe the President still
wants to be able to say he made a deal
with Troan?
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Yeah, I think that certainly.
Speaker 11 (24:00):
Republican senators, more hawkish guys, I know, they want to
see an agreement with Iran, and they want to see
Iron agree to do no more processing of nuclear fuel, right,
I mean like they they want an agreement that is
verifiable by i EI and other inspectors and and and
(24:20):
and and bypass this whole debate as to whether they
could or couldn't do it, and get them to commit
to not doing it. And if they commit to not
doing it, then we can start doing things like taking
off sanctions and looking at better diplomatic relations and all
those things that we want to have. But it comes
at a price. It comes at a price. To you know,
(24:42):
the Western societies that want fewer nuclear weapons running around
the world. And so I think that initially the President's
probably you know, first reaction of hey, you know, they
they can't make a weapon. Now that may be technically true,
but the real question Israel is going to ask, and
(25:02):
people like Lindsey Graham and John Thune and others are
going to say, is what can we do to tie
up around so that this never becomes another issue where
we have to get beef two bombers over their airspace.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
They're talking as well in the White House briefing about
the sharing of intelligence with Congress and questions about limiting
that information, Genie, something that we've talked about quite a
bit this week. There was, in fact a briefing schedule
for today with lawmakers, a Senate briefing that had been
limited to just Pete Hegseth. We understand Tulsea Gabbert, who
(25:43):
testified in March, of course that our intelligence agencies assessed
that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon notably absent
from this briefing. What do you make of this turning
of the screws on intel sharing with Congress?
Speaker 12 (26:00):
Yeah, you know, they've been talking a lot about this leak,
and absolutely, if there is a leak and that leak
is coming from wherever it's coming, it should be investigated
and they should plug the hole. But that does not
mean that they get to bypass the law which says
that they have to alert Congress and they have to
brief them within forty eight hours. And so I'm happy
the briefing is occurring today. It should be a full
(26:22):
throttle briefing. So it is concerning when people are kept out,
but that's obviously the administration's decision to make.
Speaker 6 (26:31):
You know.
Speaker 12 (26:31):
It is fascinating by the way that you have Donald
Trump on the one hand saying that no talks are needed,
but yet he cannot provide proof that the nuclear program
is gone, because what would they do to ensure Iran
can comply will comply with this no rebuilding? I mean,
that is the question that needs to be answered. And
(26:53):
if you're not going to talk with them, how do
you ensure that? And Congress has a right to know
all of that. And so we are once again in
a position where anybody who takes power in Iran going
forward is going to say we were hit because we
didn't have nuclear weapons. The deterrent is nuclear, let us
go under ground aka North Korea's model, and let us reconstitute.
(27:18):
And the President because he wants to say this was
one and done decades and I solved the problem in
twelve days or twelve hours or whatever, he says, he
doesn't want to deal with that very real what would
be a catastrophe for the West that Rick was just
talking about. And that's what Congress deserves to know from
our defense sector.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
For what it's worth.
Speaker 4 (27:39):
Today, the reporting is that Pete Hagseth is along with
Marco Rubio, John Ratcliffe, General Dan Caine will be part
of that briefing, just to be clear, and not Tulcy Gabbard.
Last evening, we've spoke with Senator Tammy Duckworth who suggested
that hag Seth may alone be briefing them. Great conversation
and thanks to both the Eugenie Schanzano and Rick Davis
Bloomberg Politics contributors with us here on Balance of Power
(28:01):
Alive from Washington Thursday edition alongside Kaylee Lines, I'm Joe
Matthew as we turn to the cyber threat against the
United States, but also the way this information is collected
Kaylee and disseminated. We've got a real expert on this
coming up.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
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 4 (28:35):
Thank you for being with us on the Thursday edition,
the early edition of Balance of Power on Bloomberg Radio
on the satellite channel one twenty one Bloomberg Originals.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Yes, YouTube as well.
Speaker 4 (28:44):
If you're not on YouTube right now, it's a good
time to come on in search Bloomberg Business News Live
because we have something special for you here. Following the
news conference this morning at the Pentagon with Pete Hagsath
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Course Secretary of
Defense castigating the media for getting the story wrong on
Iran and not celebrating our men and women in uniform,
(29:06):
there are still massive questions about the intelligence complex behind
this claim that we destroyed Iran's nuclear program. We're going
to get into that because Laura is a true expert,
having helped to run the intelligence community. By the way,
that's got a capital I and a capital C. I'll
explain that in just a moment, but we want to
(29:26):
zoom in first on the cyber threats also part of
Laura's specialty against US banks. This is something that came
up in testimony this week that we brought you live
on Bloomberg when Fedchaer J.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Powell went up to the house.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Remember he had two days of testimony this week, and
of course we focused on his commentary about inflation, interest rates, tariffs,
But how about cyber threats from Iran against US banks.
This is a conversation with Congressman Gotttheimer who was questioning
the FED chair.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Let's listen.
Speaker 13 (29:55):
We're in touch with the other regulators and the parts
of the government that that work on cyber as you know,
and you know we're in touch with the banks to say,
you know, for people to be on the alert for
things like that to happen. And also we're on the
alert because you know we're a target as well, so
you're right to raise it. You know, it's a big issue.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Enter Laura Galante, now principal at West exec Advisor's former
as I mentioned cyber executive for the intelligence community. Yes,
that's a capital I and a capital C. And just
to explain, this is a coalition, as self described of
eighteen separate US government agencies that analyze and disseminate intelligence.
(30:39):
The intelligence community that you ran cyber for stitches all
of this together into one composite which we're still waiting
for when it comes to Iran, and I want to
ask you about that in a moment. Laura, welcome back.
It's really great to have you on Bloomberg.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
Nice to be here, Jo to hear.
Speaker 4 (30:52):
That out in the open in a congressional hearing. What
is the FED prepared for and what threat are we
facing cyber threat from Iran?
Speaker 14 (31:01):
Chairman Paul has been laying out cyber threats as a
key issue for Wall Street for years, and with the
Iranian activity the bombs dropped on Saturday, we're definitely in
a heightened environment in terms of what Iran's willing to
do now in terms of Wall Street and the threat
to banks and the financial sector, they're always on alert.
These are platinum security programs that the banks have, but
(31:22):
where Iran is going to play as on the psychological
the influence operations being really loud and taking credit for
activity so where the banks have to focus is where's
there going to be something disruptive where an actor from
Iran can claim that they've had an impact on Wall Street,
on the financial sector, and the Iranian government want to
use that to their advantage at home and domestically.
Speaker 4 (31:44):
Yeah, how much of this stuff do we never hear
about because nobody wants to say openly that they've been
attacked or hacked, and nobody wants to take credit for
the attack to begin with.
Speaker 14 (31:55):
Well, there's a couple pieces to disclosure. The banks in
particular have a lot of regulators and are really incentive
and do a great job about communicating where when they're threatened.
There's other sectors I'll give you water for example, who
don't have the same incentive structure to be able to
detect and then be able to talk about the cyber
attacks that are hitting them. And this is where Iranian
(32:17):
activity could get really interesting and threatening for the next
few months. Yeah, water sector, energy sector, even transportation. Where
Ranian cyberacetors have focused in the past is getting into
the industrial control systems, sort of the tech interface that
controls water levels, chlorine water pumps, that sort of thing.
(32:37):
Planting and disrupt problem much later, right, Yeah, even turning
them off. In other cases, they'll put up the equivalent
of kind of digital graffiti, a note that says Israel
to take down Israel, this device was made in Israel.
Iran is here really threatening again, kind of a psychological effect.
(32:58):
But different municipalities have had to take down their water
systems as a result of this just in the last
couple of years.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
So is this Iran or China or both?
Speaker 14 (33:07):
This is Iran in the case we're talking about now,
China's got prepositioned access at a pretty deep level across
the energy sector. The thought prepositioned access you know, Director Ray,
the former FBI director, called them sleeper cells. But essentially
they've got cyber access in networks that they could use
at a time and place that they're choosing. And the
(33:30):
thought process for China, who's a real strategic actor here,
and it's the Chinese military who's doing this, is use
that strategic leverage to change how US political will works.
Will China be able to deter the US from coming
to Taiwan's aid or another ally in the Asia Pacific?
And they're using those cyber accesses or lying in weight
(33:51):
to use those if.
Speaker 10 (33:52):
They need them.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Very scary.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
We're talking about a ceasefire with Iran, making a deal
with Iran. We're going to sit down at the table
next week. The missiles aren't flying, but these threats continue.
Shouldn't this be part of a ceasefire agreement or a
piece deal with Iran.
Speaker 14 (34:09):
Iranian cyber activity has been happening in the last week.
Albania was actually yeah, Albania has actually been the victim
of some of this. They harbor a pro Iranian group.
So the actors here are on it now. The question
in the next couple weeks, but even months, is what
can Iran touch in terms of US targets, US critical
(34:30):
infrastructure targets and be able to tout the impact of
that and potentially use that as a way to get
more leverage in the ceasefire discussions, in other negotiations that
are going to be happening.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
Amazing, This is exactly the conversation that I thought it
might be, Laura, because we learn a lot when we
talk to you, and I want to ask you about
the debate that's going on surrounding the use of the
dissemination of the politicization.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Of intelligence in Washington.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
At the moment you saw the Defense Secretary of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs this mor trying to stitch
together a composite to back up claims that Iran's nuclear
program has been obliterated. As the President puts it, we
had an initial assessment that was apparently leaked to some
news organizations, including the Washington Post, CNN, New York Times,
(35:17):
suggesting that we set.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Them back by only months.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
And I know that the President has been very angry
about this in the Pentagon, as least as led by
the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, suggesting that we've insulted
the dignity of the pilots who flew this incredible mission
that I think we all agree was quite impressive and
might have revolutionized the way we do this. Talk to
us about the process, because we're told it'll take weeks
(35:39):
before we really know what happened.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
You were part of an organization that.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
In fact oversaw eighteen different agencies. How many are working
on this? How long will it take to have a
real answer?
Speaker 14 (35:52):
Putting together a damage assessment, especially when it's complex, is
what we're seeing after Saturday, Multiple targets, multiple different ways
to read how that destruction happened against those targets. This
is going to take time, and one of the things
that folks in the intelligence community are going to be
incredibly diligent about is making sure that they're taking a
(36:12):
variety of sources. Some of that sourcing will come from allies,
some of that sourcing will come from reports on the ground.
It'll come from a myriad of sources, and they need
to take that into account to really understand what the
damage looks like. So these first preliminary days, it's wild
that this is playing out in the public sphere. The
debates around how to gauge this damage and how to
(36:35):
convey that and how to explain it is where these
eighteen agencies are going to be having really fruitful discussions
and then putting that together for the President in a
variety of intelligence products. That's going to be the key
work here, and it is it's tough when you have
Pentagon leadership, when you have DoD coming out and saying
some of this. But one of the lines that Cain
(36:55):
said that I think is worth seizing on is DoD
doesn't create its own homework. The intelligence community does the
damage assessment, and that's a really key point here, so
let the intelligence community really get down to it and
understand what's happening.
Speaker 4 (37:08):
Well, once again, it is really the civilian leadership that's
taking this stand right. We haven't heard official Pentagon, beginning
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, say exactly what
the President has said. I don't want to pull you
into a political conversation here, but it is remarkable and
I'm guessing your phone's been blowing up with a lot
of folks from the intell community. Remarkable to see this
administration and specifically this president, having denigrated the intelligence community
(37:33):
for many years, now turning to it for support to
back up this argument.
Speaker 14 (37:39):
The intelligence community strength at its core, and you have
so many professionals in there who've really dedicated their time
and service to an unbiased approach to the facts.
Speaker 10 (37:49):
And what they're really going.
Speaker 14 (37:51):
To focus on here is not being politicized and getting
straight down to here's what we know has happened, here's
what we don't know, and then using what we call
confidence language caveats a way to explain that room and
political leadership. And it is remarkable to see Trump, you know,
so involved in the discussions with intelligence community assessments right
(38:12):
now when he wrote them off so much in the
first in the first administration. But this is this is
the work, and this is the moment when everybody should
really be looking to the intelligence community to understand the picture,
and that picture has to inform our actions. If we
lose that and politicize that, that's when we're really not
(38:33):
going to have a clear understanding of what's going on,
and that will not be good.
Speaker 3 (38:36):
For the Are these leaks politically motivated?
Speaker 4 (38:38):
When you hear about an initial assessment from a single
agency knocking around certain quarters of the news media, does
that bother you?
Speaker 14 (38:45):
I can't say leaks are always bothered someone classified intelligence.
To put it mildly right, they shouldn't be out there.
The question is can these agencies get the space that
they deserve to have the debates internally to see it first?
Speaker 5 (39:02):
Right?
Speaker 14 (39:03):
This isn't something that makes any sense, and in fact,
it's really anathetical to national security to be having these
intelligence debates on the outside. You want to give professionals
the space to really batter around to the facts, bat
around different.
Speaker 10 (39:16):
Sources, and get to a conclusion that they agree on.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
In our remaining moment, here does this go public when
there's a final product, or is this something that we'll
only hear about years later.
Speaker 14 (39:27):
That's going to be up to the decision makers and
the intelligence community on what's releasable and what needs to
stay within channels. And a lot of that's about protecting sources.
It's about a long term view on American intelligence and
what we preserve in what makes sense to put out publicly.
So we'll have to wait and see.
Speaker 4 (39:44):
Is there an initial just to add on to that,
an initial reading that's used internally by the Pentagon, for instance,
to decide if they need to go back in hit
it again.
Speaker 14 (39:51):
There's going to be a variety of intelligence products that
are created over time that different policymakers and the Pentagon
and elsewhere will rely upon. But this is going to
be a really dynamic and important focus across the agencies.
Speaker 4 (40:03):
We've got to do this again, stay close to us
while we figured this out. It's really great to have
you back. I told you this would be an important
conversation with Laura Galante, and there you have it. Where
else are you going to hear a conversation like that?
But here this hour on Bloomberg, Principal West exec advisor's
former cyber executive for the Intelligence community, Google that the
intelligence community capital I capital C. You might learn something
(40:25):
while you're at it. Thanks for listening to the Balance
of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already,
at Apple, Spotify.
Speaker 3 (40:36):
Or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 4 (40:39):
You can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC
at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.