August 4, 2025 • 41 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
Texas Democratic lawmakers said they left the state in an effort to temporarily block Republicans from redrawing its congressional maps — a redistricting initiative pushed by President Donald Trump to help retain GOP control of the US House of Representatives in the midterms.
Many have gone to the Chicago area, selecting a location where local and state governments are led by Democrats. Some the politicians also went to Boston and Albany, New York.
“I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that they’re welcome here, that they have the ability to stay as long as they need to and want to,” Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said at a press conference in Carol Stream, flanked by the Texas lawmakers.
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 International Economics and Policy Correspondent Michael McKee.
- Republican Congressman Bryan Steil of Wisconsin.
- Bloomberg Texas Bureau Chief Julie Fine.
- Bloomberg Politics Contributors Rick Davis and Jeanne Sheehan Zaino.
- US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker.
- Bloomberg White House and National Security Editor Michelle Jamrisko.
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, Cocklay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube's.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Pretty incredible to see that move on American Eagle on
the back of a true Social posts from President Trump.
Of course, that is not all he's used about on
true social today. We've heard from him on a number
of issues, including, as Charlie mentioned, the threat to raise
tariffs on India over purchases of Russian oil, but also
a doubling down of allegations that began last Friday, shortly
after the jobs report, that somehow the data put out
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was ricked. This is
(00:48):
something the President said on social media earlier today, that
these were numbers, fake political numbers that were concocted to
quote him in order to make a great Republican success
look less stellar. We would reiterate that night. Either the
President or anyone else in the administration has actually provided
hard evidence to support these claims. But of course President
Trump has not just talked about it online, He's spoken
(01:08):
with reporters about it as well. And what's going to
come next for the BLS. Listen to a few of
his comments from over the weekend.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
We'll be announcing a new statistician sometime over the next
three four days. We had no confidence.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
I mean, the.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Numbers were ridiculous what she announced, but that was just
one negative number.
Speaker 5 (01:27):
All the numbers seem to be great.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
We'll see what happened.
Speaker 6 (01:30):
But we just found out that I have a open
spot on the federalis Ave Board.
Speaker 7 (01:36):
I'm very happy about that.
Speaker 8 (01:39):
And with two jobs to phill, we turned to Michael
McKee for help. Bloomberg's International Economics and Policy correspondent, who
of course covers the FED, travels to Washington, where Kayley
and I sit now to cover this very complex that
the President is talking about, and he's with us now
from world headquarters in New York. Mike, we've got two
different things here. There's wrong and there's rigged. As far
(02:02):
as wrong, the revisions are part of the process, as
we've been discussing. In many cases, respondents are slow to
get back to the government survey. But when you hear
Kevin Hassen on Sunday Morning television saying, the revisions are
the hard evidence. How do we go forward from there?
Speaker 6 (02:22):
Well, it's an interesting question because I'm sure that Kevin
knows better and he's just saying it because he works
for Donald Trump. The revisions are revisions, and there's a
reason for the revisions, and that is that statistics is imperfect.
One of the problems that the BLS has, along with
the other statistical agencies, is that since the pandemic, response
(02:45):
rates from businesses have been falling a lot, so they
don't get as much information into the first release as
they do into the later releases. And they also have
to do some statistical abstraction, but that doesn't mean that
the numbers are false. It's the best statistically that one
could do. They also have a problem in that there
(03:08):
are fewer people working at these agencies because Congress for
years has starved the statistical agencies of cash. And so
it all comes together in this situation where we had
a couple of months that were revised significantly downward. But
when I looked at the data, the response rate for
the first May survey, which was revised down significantly by
(03:32):
the third one in July was forty two percent, so
less than half of the businesses that are supposed to respond.
So the Labor Department probably did some extrapolation and came
up with a larger number that then when they got
more data, was pushed back down. I think the final
data number was eighty nine percent response rate. The President
(03:55):
also is you know, I don't know he's lying deliberately
or whether he doesn't even know what he's talking about.
But when he said that the BLS released data to
make the Harris campaign look good right before the election,
the BLS actually on November first, four days before the election,
(04:19):
announced that in October there had been only twelve thousand
jobs created. So if anybody was favored by that, it
would have been the Trump campaign. So it's kind of
hard to know where you go from that when they're
living at the White House in such a fantasy world.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Well, and of course, that more than eight hundred thousand
revision number we talked about from twenty twenty four actually
happened during the Democratic National Convention. Joe and I were
in Chicago. It was well before the election, So Mike,
that's on the BLS side. Of course, President Trump is
talking about not just filling that role, but a new
role on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as well.
How should we be reading into who ultimately he names,
(04:56):
potentially as soon as this week, and what it will
mean to who ultimately is go to succeed your own
Powell as FED chair.
Speaker 6 (05:03):
He said he'd been naming somebody in a few days.
I tend to doubt that based on his history and
also based on the thinking that has to go into this.
Scott Besson has started a process, I'm not sure how
far along he is and vetting somebody to replace J.
Powell as chair and, in theory, at the same time,
replace Adriana Kugler in her governor's spot. And the Cougler
(05:28):
vacancy may be the only one that the president gets
because J. Powell, in theory, could stay on as governor
until twenty twenty eight. His term is chair is over
in twenty twenty six, but he could stay on as
governor even if he were not chair. So if there's
no opening, he can't appoint anyone else, which sets up
kind of a musical chairs game. Does he want to
(05:50):
put in somebody to Coogler's seat? Who's going to be
seen as the chair in waiting and create that shadow
chair situation that we have talked about. The markets would
probably assume whoever is chosen would be that, or does
he put somebody in and then say, I'll decide later
who's going to be chaired, even if Powell stays around.
I'll pick somebody like I could pick somebody like Chris
(06:12):
Waller or Nicky Bowman or this person I'm just naming now,
and set up, as somebody put it today, an Apprentice
like situation where you have three people for six months
competing with each other to not be fired. So it
is kind of an unusual situation that will be interesting
to watch and it might be a little painful for
the markets.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
All right, Michael McKee, Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent
here with us on Balance of Power. Thank you so much,
and we want to add the voice now as we
consider both of these vacancies that will have to be filled.
A member of the House Financial Services Committee also chair
of the House Administration Committee, Republican Congressman Brian Style of
Wisconsin is back with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Congressman,
(06:55):
welcome back to the show. It's good to have you.
If we could just begin with the Bureau of Labors
to sticks chief being fired over the jobs data. Have you,
as a member of the Financial Services Committee, seen evidence
to support the president's claims, and in the absence of
that evidence, do you think this firing was justified.
Speaker 7 (07:13):
I don't have evidence of those claims, but I do
believe that the president has a right to make sure
that he has a man or woman in that position
that he has full faith and confidence in. The job
market has been very difficult to analyze at a period
of time. Is the gig economy is dramatically ticked up,
as we have seen a shift in jobs as it
relates to foreign born or natural born citizens, and so
(07:36):
making sure the president has someone in that position that
he has full faith and confidence in is his prerogative.
Speaker 8 (07:43):
Do you think that when he goes to fill the
vacancy on the FED board here following Governor Kugler's resignation
on Friday, Congressman, that that person in fact will be
the FED chair the new FED chair in waiting.
Speaker 7 (08:01):
I don't have information one way or the other, but
I do think it's important to recognize that the decisions
made by the Federal Reserve are not made by any
one individual. Often we see the Federal Reserve Board act
with unanonymity, but that may or may not be the case,
and so we may see more divisions and votes. And
I don't think that's an inherently bad thing for the
(08:23):
Federal Reserve. And so it's a group of people. The
key is that they are making these decisions based on
the data in front of them, not based on any
other ulterior motive.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Well, so when the President suggests that the person he
wants to chair the FED ultimately and very well, the
person he'd like to select is the governor that replaces Kogler,
that he wants them to have a low interest rate bias. Congressman,
do you see that as a problem if lower interest
rates may or may not be justified by the data.
Speaker 7 (08:54):
Well, again, what we want is these decisions made by
the FED based on the data in front of them. Again,
having disagreement different points of view brought to the Federal
Reserve Board, I don't think is an inherently negative thing.
And the Federal Reserve has been criticized for decades by
different administrations. President Trump just doing it more publicly than
maybe President Nixon, where we found out later when the
(09:15):
tapes were revealed, and so putting pressure on the Fed
is nothing new. I think what we're seeing is just
to play out in a little bit more of a
public manner. Although the Federal Reserve is independent of the
executive that does not mean it's immune to criticism from
the administration.
Speaker 8 (09:31):
Congressman, we had a look at the town hall meeting
that you held last week that got pretty chippy. There
were a number of folks who were booing, and we've
been talking about the potential for some confrontational town halls
this August recess, following the passage of the President's Big
Beautiful Bill and of course the recisions package that followed.
I just want to give our listeners and viewers a
(09:52):
taste of what you ran into the other night. Let's
watch and listen, Tommy, the dire circumstances that trigger is hoarse.
Speaker 7 (10:02):
Very.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Telling out veterans hatch out of the gates. I just
want to say thank you for your service to our country.
Is as we look, as we look at that back
and forth that's going on with the administration, this really,
at its core needs to be an opportunity to make
sure that other countries are treated in the United States, Farlom.
Speaker 8 (10:28):
You know, so a big round of booing there, and
as we read in the local media, Congressman, protesters actually
walked to your home with a cardboard coffin to represent
the people they say would die from cuts to medicaid.
I'm just curious what your thoughts are coming out of
(10:50):
a session like that and how you respond to these constituents.
Speaker 7 (10:54):
I've done dozens and dozens of town halls across Wisconsin
over the years. Media report said that probably out of
a room of roughly four hundred people, there are maybe
thirty to fifty protesters inside. Rest assured they were loud.
I don't think that that group of protesters, the small
group that was inside the room, we're really representative of
the views of most people in southeast Wisconsin. This was
(11:17):
a group that tried to obstruct the pledge of allegiance.
Bood what we said, let's have a productive conversation. And
so at the end of the day, I think what's
really challenging right now across the board in the United
States is a willingness to really engage in productive conversation
about what needs to be done. To move our country forward,
and so far too often individuals resort to disruptive tactics
(11:41):
rather than engaging. Was really needed of a substantive conversation
a period of time where we're massively driving a debt
further and further up, where we have global challenges from
a national security perspective, where we've made I think great
progress on securing in the US Mexico border. So maybe
it's a point in time and reflection for the whole
country to reflect and analyze how we can have a
(12:02):
much more productive dialogue, which is going to be really
essential based on the challenges that are in front of us.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Well, have you had any productive engagement around issues constituents
may have around the way in which this one big,
beautiful bill threatens to affect them or they're worried will
affect them. Does it give you pause about any elements
of the piece of legislation that you voted for.
Speaker 7 (12:26):
Well, there's a lot of misinformation that's circulating on key
provisions of the bill, which is why I was hoping
to use this forum as an opportunity to provide folks
and residents across Wisconsin better information about what's actually in
the legislation that's become law. We use a number of
different venues to do this, through email, telephone calls, in person,
town halls just being one of the ways in which
(12:47):
I try to communicate with folks. But there's a lot
of misinformation, in particular as it relates to medicaid. In
regards to medicaid, what we're seeing in Wisconsin is mostly
a shift towards work requirements for able bodied, childless adults
in the state. Was consting that's an eighty twenty issue
because it's common sense that we know that we can
help lift people up out of poverty as long as
(13:07):
a job as a core component of that.
Speaker 8 (13:10):
Yeah. Well, look, I think that everyone deserves a lot
of credit for being at that town hall on both
sides of this, including you, Congressman. As a lawmaker, making
a decision to interact with constituents has not been terribly
popular from what we've seen lately, and I just I
wonder if you actually can hear from the voters who
were upset about debt and deficits seeing some four trillion
(13:33):
dollars added to ours in the so called Big Beautiful Bill.
There has been, I know, a conversation about coming back
around to lower the debt impact of this legislation is
that what the next move should be.
Speaker 7 (13:45):
We had questions on that exact topic, and I think
it's important to know that as the Washington DC accountants
analyze that cost, large chunks of that are the overwhelming
majority of that is actually just simply making the twenty
seventeen tax cuts permanent, simply built on that by providing
tax relief to seniors on Social Security, those individuals working
overtime or earning tips, and so the bulk of the
(14:07):
cost is really shown up by simply doubling down and
making sure that we're making permanent the twenty seventeen tax
cuts that had a real substantive positive impact on real
wages for families across the state. And so it's reasonable
that people can have different views on any given policy,
but this is where making sure individuals have the information
they need to be able to make their decisions is
(14:28):
so absolutely essential. And why a small group of individuals
who protested the town hall was a bit disappointing for
the countless individuals that wanted to hear what I was
trying to provide.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Congressman, we just have thirty seconds left but when you
return to Washington come September, what odds do you put
around a government shutdown?
Speaker 7 (14:47):
We can't allow a government shutdown to occur. I know
there's a lot of my Democratic colleagues that are actually
hoping that we do shut down. I don't view that
as productive. I'd rather make sure that we come together
address the spending challenges we face into what we need
to do to avoid a shutdown at the end of September.
Speaker 8 (15:05):
Appreciate your joining us here from what looks like a
beautiful day in Wisconsin. By the way, Congressman will do
this again soon, I'm sure and certainly when you're back
in the Capitol. It's Brian's style. Republican Congressman from Wisconsin's
first District, I'm Joe Matthew, alongside Hayley Lions in Washington,
will assemble our panel next. As Democrats in the state
of Texas flee the lone star state who avoid reaching
(15:26):
a quorum that could prompt a redrawing of congressional maps,
we'll lot the story next on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
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.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Here in Washington, where the town has been a bus
for weeks now about the potential of redistricting wars heading
into the twenty twenty six midterm, the talk, of course,
of which began a few weeks ago when President Trump
openly suggested that Texas should redraw its congressional map in
order to carve out five more Republican seats to give
(16:14):
the Republicans a better chance of retaining the majority in
the House of Representatives. Texas, of course, began a special
legislative session a few weeks ago to undertake that effort,
as well as others, including the relief for the devastating
floods that hit the state last month. But to take
forward action on any of them, you need a quorum.
Two thirds of the Texas legislature needs to actually be
(16:35):
present in order to vote on these matters, redistricting included,
and Democratic lawmakers in the state have decided not to
provide that quorum as they attempt to block this Republican
effort on jerrymandering have fled blue states like New York
or even Illinois to outside of Chicago, including a Texas
legislature member, James Tellerico, who we spoke with on this
(16:57):
program one week ago today when we asked him about
this possibility, and this is what he told us.
Speaker 9 (17:03):
We've had to figure out how to use every tool
in our toolbox, whether that's the rules, whether it's our platforms,
or whether it is denying quorum. That's obviously a dramatic step,
and it's one that shouldn't be taken lightly. My Democratic
colleagues and I are willing to do whatever it takes
to stop this power grab and to protect the democratic
(17:26):
process here in Texas and around the country, because if
President Trump succeeds with this power grab in Texas, I
worry that he will do the same thing in every
red state across the country.
Speaker 8 (17:38):
That was one week ago here on Balance of Power.
Fast forward to today and James tall Rico is now
one of fifty seven Democrats it was chosen to leave
the state preventing from Republicans or preventing Republicans from i
should say, reaching a quorum, and therefore at least temporarily
blocking this redrawing from happening. We want to get into
this with Julie Fine, Bloomberg's Texas Bureau chief, who is
(18:00):
been very busy on this story now for a couple
of weeks with us from Dallas. Julie. It's an interesting
move here, but it can only go so far.
Speaker 10 (18:07):
Right.
Speaker 8 (18:07):
Governor Greg Abbot can call as many special sessions as
he wants. So is the effort here to simply publicize
what's happening?
Speaker 11 (18:14):
Well, I think the effort here is to draw attention
to it.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Certainly.
Speaker 11 (18:18):
However, they are working very hard to make sure that
this doesn't happen very soon. I mean, when you look
at the redistricting bill, this is the first bill that
has come up for the House to vote on. I
think that infuriated many, knowing that it would be put
on the clock so that they would have to stay
there because you leave and you have flooding on as well.
(18:40):
So obviously this is a choice that they decided to make,
and they know that Republicans will discuss that this Joe,
You've discussed this before, is temporary because at the end
of the day, when you talk about the tools in
the toolbox. One of them is not the majority, and
that's what you really need to get something through here,
so they can stay out. They'll draw attention to it, certainly,
(19:03):
but I think what they're also trying to do is
make sure that other states that can redistrict pay attention
to what's happening.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Well, Julie, when we talk about tools in the toolbox,
what about the tools available to opponents of what Democrats
are doing here, Like for Governor Abbott or the Attorney
General Ken Paxton, who has floated the idea of arresting
these lawmakers who have left the state, What real consequence
could these individuals face.
Speaker 11 (19:31):
Well, that certainly depends, and that would explain why they
are in Illinois. That is a democratic state, and you
heard Governor Pritzker at the news conference say last night
he will do everything he can to protect them. The
question is when they go back to Texas. So clearly
they understand that this is a risk that they are taking.
(19:51):
But certainly the Attorney General has made it very clear
that he thinks that they can be arrested. Governor Abbott
now threatening their seats talking about them. So in the
next few days, I think you're going to really see
what direction this is headed in this session lasts two
more weeks.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
All right, Bloomberg's Texas Bear chief, Julie Fine, appreciate your
recording on this, Thank you so much. And as Julie mentioned,
we did see the Governor of Illinois jab Pritzker greeting
members yesterday outside of Chicago. Let's get a taste of
what he said.
Speaker 5 (20:24):
Trump came up with a news scheme rig the system
by ramming through a corrupt mid decade redistricting plan that
would steal five congressional seats, silencing millions of voices, especially
black and Latino voters. Let's be clear, this is not
just rigging the system in Texas. It's about rigging the
(20:45):
system against the rights of all.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Americans and for those with US on radio and not
YouTube or TV. It's worth noting that Jbipritzker dot Com
was pasted multiple times as the backdrop for these remarks.
So let's get into this now with our political panel.
Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanie Schanzano are with us.
Rick Davis, of course Stone Court Capital partner and Republican strategists.
(21:08):
Genie are Democratic analyst and senior Democracy fellow at the
Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Jeanie.
We've talked about, or we were just talking about with Julie,
how all of this is a chance for Democrats to
publicize what's going on in Texas. But is it also
a chance for the likes of JB. Pritzker, a potential
twenty twenty eight candidate.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
It absolutely is, And I'm so glad you mentioned what
was behind him, because, Kaylie, you can save democracy and
raise money apparently at the same time for your rest
of twenty eight. But this is really a precursor, not
just to the midterms, but to twenty eight. And you're
giving a lot of state and local democrats the chance
to show Americans that they are willing to fight for them,
(21:50):
and that is what many Democrats on the ground want.
I think one of the ironies of this entire story
is the fact that this is allowed because the Supreme
Court said it is constitutional to politically jerrymander, and that
has gotten us into this position where you now have
Texas and sure to follow other states, whether California and
(22:11):
New York, they Illinois, they will try to jerrymander and
the losers here are the American public, Republican and Democrat,
because what you're doing is denying people a choice at
the ballot box, making our house districts less competitive, and
that is anti democratic with a small D.
Speaker 8 (22:31):
I know we've seen this move before, Rick, but what
kind of strategy is in is this here? You go
to hang out with Pritzker in Chicago, Kathy Hochel in Albany.
I guess some of the others are in Boston right now,
but you have to come home eventually, might have to
pay fines when you do it, and then the governor
simply schedules other special session. This doesn't keep anything from happening,
(22:52):
does it.
Speaker 12 (22:53):
Yeah, it's not a winning formula from what I can tell.
And I don't know, but most Texans I would think
hanging out those Democratic leaders in Yankee States is probably
not exactly a positive for them coming back to their
home districts. So, I mean, I can't believe that's going
to work. And then on the top of it, you've
got another liberal Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, saying he's going
(23:15):
to do the same thing they're doing in Texas. So like,
I'm sorry, sounds like you've adopted the same strategy. So
why are these people hiding? I honestly don't think it's
a winning issue for Democrats. Nobody's ever won an election
that I can recall, you know, decrying the negative state
of redistricting. I mean, even the Supreme Court says, you
(23:37):
know what districts are set by political means, and that's
exactly what they're talking about doing. So the likelihood that
any of this is going to result in a successful
lawsuit not you know, devil's into details, but that's been
tried before and very rarely does it succeed.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
So I don't know.
Speaker 12 (23:54):
I mean, I think this takes Democrats off their game,
puts them in an awkward spot where some of the
leaders are claiming to want to do the same thing
and others are harboring people who are trying to avoid it.
So where are you, Democrats? Are you for this or
are you against it?
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Well, so let's add the voice of another Democratic governor.
Rick of course mentioned that California Governor Gavin Newsom has
floated the idea of pursuing something similar, but so too
earlier today that it did. The governor of New York,
Kathy Hochel to.
Speaker 13 (24:22):
Refuse to stand up and fight for our democracy as
we are joining in solidarity with our friends from Texas.
Means one thing, you won't fight for democracy, you're doomed
to lose it. Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules
to give themselves an advantage. Then they're leaving us no choice.
We must do the same. There's a phrase you get
(24:43):
to fight fire with fire. That is a true statement
of how we're feeling right now.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Genie, is the more fire strategy the right one here?
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Yeah, and we're hearing that strategy you mentioned Newsom Hocal Pritzker.
Also people like Holder, who famously has been against this
strategy until he is for it. Now, you know, the
party has no choice, as they see it. Once one
party goes down this direction, the other one is going
to follow, whether you like it or not. But I'm
(25:15):
not sure this makes the Republicans seem strong. We've seen
two examples in the last few days to me of
Donald Trump feeling very nervous. Number One, he gets bad
job numbers. He's so concerned he fires the messenger. Number Two,
it doesn't seem like they feel they can win the
mid term unless they rig the districts in Texas and
(25:37):
potentially other states. So to me, I think it screams
that the GOP has a bigger issue here than redistricting,
which is why can't they run fairly on their message?
And you were just talking to Representative Style about the
difficult count falls he and I'm sure other Republicans are
having as they go out to sell this wildly unpopular bill.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
So I think this.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
Scream's concern about holding the House because the public isn't
seeing what they've done so far in a positive light.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
Well, it's of course, I mean it would potentially be
an issue either way with a majority of three or
whatever the Speaker is dealing with right now. Rick, you
mentioned nobody's ever won elected office beating the drum on jerrymandering.
But what do you make of the potential math at
hand here? Donald Trump is convinced if they redraw these maps,
add five seats they go red, Republicans keep the House.
(26:32):
Is that a dangerous bet?
Speaker 12 (26:34):
Yeah, it's a dangerous bet. I mean, look, historically the
party in power loses, Yeah, twenty five thirty five seats,
I mean like five seats in Texas in that average
is not going to make a debt, and so you're
spending all this political capital to maybe win four or
five of those, right. I mean, like, I've seen so
(26:56):
many redistricting battles where you think you're going to pick
up seats and you don't, and so at the end
of the day, it's a high leverage situation. But look,
he's sitting on government, he's got two hundred million dollars
in a super pack, and he's got all these options,
and so why not trigger a few of these options.
It's not the first out of cycle redistricting Texas is done,
(27:20):
and arguably they picked up Republican seats.
Speaker 8 (27:24):
Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano, Bloomberg Politics contributors. Many thanks
to both of you for a great conversation. Here on
the Monday edition of Balance of Power, we have breaking
news coming from NATO. In fact, the US ambassador to
NATO is going to join US ahead on providing weapons
to Ukraine. It's next on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Alma Coarklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Thanks for being with us on the Monday edition of
Balance of Power or We've covered some of the domestic
issues that are a buzz in Washington in the greater
political universe today, one being of course, the President's ability
now to appoint not just a new head of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, but also a new Federal Reserve governor,
potentially impacting our economic path forward, but also, of course
(28:21):
the redistricting effort that the President himself is pushing in Texas.
President Trump also weighed in on American eagle in the
Sydney Sweeney Ad earlier today. We don't need to get
into that though. President Trump though not stopping there, as
he threatens today to raise tariffs on India for purchases
they continue to make of Russian oil. Of course, the
threat to impose things like higher tariffs or secondary sanctions
(28:43):
on countries that purchase Russian energy part of what has
been a bit of a tone shift from President Trump
when it comes to Russia's ongoing war with Ukraine. That,
of course, was further evidence last month as well by
an announcement that was made that the US would be
providing more weaponry to Ukraine, but that that would actually
be handled by NATO and that NATO countries Joe would
(29:04):
pay for it. And today we got the announcement of
the first country that is making such a purchase.
Speaker 9 (29:09):
It's the Netherlands, that's right.
Speaker 8 (29:10):
We had a lot of questions at the time about
how exactly this would work, but it's being laid out
before our eyes. They're calling it Pearl, I believe, is
the acronym priority. Ukraine requirements list a financing mechanism worth
about five hundred million euros about five hundred seventy eight
million dollars. Indeed, the Dutch are stepping up first here,
(29:31):
and we're lucky to have the US Ambassador to NATO
to help us understand a little bit more about this.
Matthew Whittaker is with us live from Brussels, and Ambassador,
it's great to have you back on Bloomberg TV and radio.
There was a reference here to patriot missiles. Will these
be essentially defensive weapons in this first trash for Ukraine.
Speaker 14 (29:52):
Yeah, well, it's good to be with you. Miss. I'm
obviously exciting new something we've been working on since the
announcement last month. In the office where I was there
with President Trump and Secretary of General Ruta. And the
announcement of five hundred and seventy eight million dollars worth
of American weapons and munitions going to sold to the
(30:13):
Netherlands and then provided to Ukraine is a big step forward.
And this is probably the first announcement of many that
are going to be following on. But you know, we
I think should expect that, you know, weapons and munitions
obviously are defensive, especially when you're talking about patriot missile
(30:34):
and radar and those types of things. But you can
also you know, see that most expectedly there will be
things like artillery shells and bullets and ammunition.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
And how quickly will all of that, ambassador be in
the hands of Ukraine. Now that this purchase has been announced.
Speaker 14 (30:56):
Well, obviously we're moving out very fast, you know, and
expectation of this and after the announcement, the folks that
are doing the logistics have already had some of this
material in process, and so it's moving in the typical
channels that you would expect. You know, I just want
to say that, you know, while this announcement of the
(31:18):
Netherlands purchasing American equipment is important. Remember why they're doing this.
It's because Ukraine wants American equipment. Ukraine wants our weapons
and our ammunition because it's the best in the world,
and you know, a lot of it is manufacturing in
the United States, and that's why. You know, one of
the things that I'm working on here in NATO is
to make sure that American manufacturing continues to thrive and
(31:41):
grow and expand. And you know, those are those are
really hand and glove as to what we're doing in
the work we're doing here to make sure that Europe
can ultimately defend itself long term.
Speaker 8 (31:53):
Well, let's talk more about that, because there was a
concern about our own stock piles here, which is why
at one point at least that was the justification by
the Pentagon for halting temporarily weapons shipments to Ukraine, because
we were getting down to concerning levels at this point here.
If we're in fact providing more weaponry to Ukraine, realizing
that others are paying for it, is there a limit
(32:15):
to what we can send?
Speaker 14 (32:17):
Well, yes there is, and we want to make sure
that the United States is never at a strategic disadvantage
or puts ourselves in a vulnerable position, and so what
we're providing is what would be considered excess in addition
to what we need to defend ourselves strategically. But at
the same time, we're still manufacturing. Whether it's you know,
(32:39):
missiles that go with the Patriots system, or whether it's
artillery shells or everything in between. All of these armaments
are continued to be manufactured in the United States and
quite frankly all across the NATO Alliance. And so we
see the need in Ukraine. We've then, you know, people
(33:00):
at the Pentagon, especially the generals that manage a lot
of these important programs, looked and determined what we could
sell to our NATO allies and then they could provide
them to Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
As you see it, Ambassador, when we considered the situation
in Ukraine and a war that Russia has signaled no
desire to stop at this time, despite the President's consistent
push for a ceasefire, are sanctions needed to supplement this
further weaponry, even secondary sanctions perhaps which the President has
(33:34):
suggested could go into place as soon as the end
of this week with the ten day deadline he announced
last week.
Speaker 14 (33:41):
Yeah, well, President Trump's been clear that this war needs
to end. That the death and carnage and slaughter we're
seeing on the battlefield every single day, where thousands of
soldiers are dying, and you know, of course the attacks
into some cities inside Ukraine as well, where civilians are
ending up being casually it needs to end. There's no
(34:01):
resolution on the battlefield. A diplomatic solution is the only way.
And President Trump is creating the environment that Russia will
come to the table and negotiate a ceasefire because that's
what's necessary in the killing. And I think secondary sanctions
and tariffs against those that are paying for this war,
like China, India and Brazil by buying the oil that
(34:25):
Russia is producing is an obvious next step to try
to bring this war to an end. And we'll see.
You know, President Trump said just the other day that
Russia is very good at avoiding sanctions and evading these things.
But I think this is going to really hit them
where it counts, and that is in their main revenue source,
(34:45):
which is the sale of oil to these countries. And
so President Trump, you know, is playing this card. You know,
if Russia can't negotiate a ceasefire, but at the same time,
you know, Russia just needs to end this war. They're
not going to win on the battlefield. They're making marginal,
if any gains, and they had they've really been struggling
(35:06):
because of the situation on the front line. And so
we just need to end this war. And I think
these sanctions are the next step. But again, President Trump's
going to continue to work on creating the environment that's
necessary to bring rush to the table and to get
a ceasefire.
Speaker 8 (35:19):
Is there anything when we consider the weapons shipments that
we will not send to Ukraine? Ambassador, I remember the
big debates that we had over the shipping of F
sixteen's providing M one abrams tanks, attack them, missiles and
so forth. If somebody else is placed in the order
and doing the buying, do we care what they get?
Speaker 14 (35:39):
Well, obviously, I'd say the rule number one is the
United States will not make ourselves strategically vulnerable in any way.
So we're not going to you know, cut too deep
or or give amounts or sell amounts that are going
to put us at a strategic disadvantage. But you know,
we're going to make sure that Ukraine has everything they
need to defend themselves. They have like the way the
(36:02):
US air defense systems especially have performed, as they're every
night attacked by drones and missiles and all the things
that Russia is sending their way. And so I mean,
they obviously want more of those systems because they know
they work and they know that they're very successful in
eliminating those threats. But at the same time, you know,
(36:24):
they need to be able to defend themselves on the
front line where they're encountering the Russians and the waves
of poorly trained Russian soldiers that are being paid a
significant amount of money and expectation that most likely they're
going to die. It's really a sad situation on the
front line, and we just need to end it. President
Trump sees that for what it is, and you know,
let's just hope that as we take steps into August here,
(36:48):
we can get this war to a ceaspar.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Ambassador, just quickly before we let you go, President Trump
announced on Friday that he would be deploying two nuclear
subs into an appropriate region in order to counteract what
he saw is escalatory rhetoric coming from Russia. Can you
confirm whether or not those subs actually have been deployed
and DONATO allies worry about that kind of escalatory move No.
Speaker 14 (37:11):
I'm not going to confirm our strategic movement of any submarines. Obviously,
that's one of the many systems we have available that
make us very strong as a country and provide the
necessary strategic ambiguity that we can move things around. And
submarines obviously are very important to what's in our arsenal.
(37:34):
But there's no reason for me to talk about any
of those things right now.
Speaker 4 (37:41):
I had to ask it.
Speaker 8 (37:41):
Matthew Whitaker, Thank you so much, US ambassador to NATO.
It's great to have you with us. Hear and appreciate
the update here on weapons for Ukraine. As we had
the voice of Michelle jim Risco, Bloomberg's White House National
Security Editor with us back at the table in Washington. Michelle,
it's great to see you. We just kind of covered
the bases with the ambassador here. But this is a
pretty significant update. Having had so many questions about the
(38:03):
way this program would work, or whether it would work
at all, what does it tell us that the Netherlands
are first and are there any limits to this program?
Speaker 10 (38:10):
Well, I you know that remains to be seen as
so many developments in this space. I mean, I think
you heard from the ambassador that it's such a sense
of urgency right now they're underscoring in terms of trying
to end the war. And you see all these kind
of crosshairs getting involved in this from you know, the
trade tariffs as well, and we were talking about India earlier,
and also the urgency of resources. And of course, notwithstanding
(38:35):
the ambassador and others hesitance to give away too much
in terms of the strategy and military details, we do
know that, you know, they're trying to figure out how
to move these assets and to maintain you know, support
for Ukraine while also not escalating. As Kaylee mentioned.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Well on India, the threat of higher tariffs of an
amount that he did not specify, is that likely to
change India's behavior? Are they signaling they're going to stop
purchasing Russian oil?
Speaker 10 (39:02):
I think we're seeing the very high bar that successive
US presidents have dealt with in trying to persuade India
on a moralistic line in terms of purchases. I mean,
I can remember even two years ago now when we
were having this conversation with Indian Energy Minister at the
time about the Russian oil purchases and the US is
(39:22):
distained for it, and he had something to say about
how it was an altruism, it's not philanthropy. They know
they're making these purchases for their domestic population, the most
populous nation in the world, on the basis of pragmatism,
and they're just not going to budge right now on that.
Speaker 8 (39:36):
Well that's important because the President says they don't care
how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the
Russian war machine. First of all, remarkable to hear him
use that the phrase Russian war machine. I'm not sure
we would have heard that even weeks ago. But to
the point that India is being framed this way by
the President would suggest that they've talked about this. Did
(39:59):
this come up with Modi?
Speaker 10 (40:00):
Well, we can't get inside, you know, his head on
the conversations he's personally had with Modi, but we do know,
of course, he's had warm relations with the Indian leader
for some time, I mean dating back to campaign trail,
you know, meetings and events and that sort of thing.
So it really just does again underscore, you know, the
toughness which which India's is using you know, their leverage
(40:24):
and saying no, we're not going to sway on this.
And by the way, we don't appreciate they said in
a statement last hour that you know, the EU and
the US are being somewhat hypocritical in this, and they're
pointing to you know, purchases of different goods by those
two entities too, so from Russia. So there's a lot
of you know, war of words going on right now,
(40:44):
and it's you know, the India tariff deal is just
one thing that's being caught in this sense of urgency
that Trump has renewed over ending the war in Ukraine
that he, by the way, campaigned on finishing on day one.
So we'll see.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Yeah, twenty four hours was a promise at one point.
Michelle Jean Risco Bloomberg White a National security editor, thank
you so much.
Speaker 8 (41:04):
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern 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, Cocklay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube's.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Pretty incredible to see that move on American Eagle on
the back of a true Social posts from President Trump.
Of course, that is not all he's used about on
true social today. We've heard from him on a number
of issues, including, as Charlie mentioned, the threat to raise
tariffs on India over purchases of Russian oil, but also
a doubling down of allegations that began last Friday, shortly
after the jobs report, that somehow the data put out
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was ricked. This is
(00:48):
something the President said on social media earlier today, that
these were numbers, fake political numbers that were concocted to
quote him in order to make a great Republican success
look less stellar. We would reiterate that night. Either the
President or anyone else in the administration has actually provided
hard evidence to support these claims. But of course President
Trump has not just talked about it online, He's spoken
(01:08):
with reporters about it as well. And what's going to
come next for the BLS. Listen to a few of
his comments from over the weekend.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
We'll be announcing a new statistician sometime over the next
three four days. We had no confidence.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
I mean, the.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Numbers were ridiculous what she announced, but that was just
one negative number.
Speaker 5 (01:27):
All the numbers seem to be great.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
We'll see what happened.
Speaker 6 (01:30):
But we just found out that I have a open
spot on the federalis Ave Board.
Speaker 7 (01:36):
I'm very happy about that.
Speaker 8 (01:39):
And with two jobs to phill, we turned to Michael
McKee for help. Bloomberg's International Economics and Policy correspondent, who
of course covers the FED, travels to Washington, where Kayley
and I sit now to cover this very complex that
the President is talking about, and he's with us now
from world headquarters in New York. Mike, we've got two
different things here. There's wrong and there's rigged. As far
(02:02):
as wrong, the revisions are part of the process, as
we've been discussing. In many cases, respondents are slow to
get back to the government survey. But when you hear
Kevin Hassen on Sunday Morning television saying, the revisions are
the hard evidence. How do we go forward from there?
Speaker 6 (02:22):
Well, it's an interesting question because I'm sure that Kevin
knows better and he's just saying it because he works
for Donald Trump. The revisions are revisions, and there's a
reason for the revisions, and that is that statistics is imperfect.
One of the problems that the BLS has, along with
the other statistical agencies, is that since the pandemic, response
(02:45):
rates from businesses have been falling a lot, so they
don't get as much information into the first release as
they do into the later releases. And they also have
to do some statistical abstraction, but that doesn't mean that
the numbers are false. It's the best statistically that one
could do. They also have a problem in that there
(03:08):
are fewer people working at these agencies because Congress for
years has starved the statistical agencies of cash. And so
it all comes together in this situation where we had
a couple of months that were revised significantly downward. But
when I looked at the data, the response rate for
the first May survey, which was revised down significantly by
(03:32):
the third one in July was forty two percent, so
less than half of the businesses that are supposed to respond.
So the Labor Department probably did some extrapolation and came
up with a larger number that then when they got
more data, was pushed back down. I think the final
data number was eighty nine percent response rate. The President
(03:55):
also is you know, I don't know he's lying deliberately
or whether he doesn't even know what he's talking about.
But when he said that the BLS released data to
make the Harris campaign look good right before the election,
the BLS actually on November first, four days before the election,
(04:19):
announced that in October there had been only twelve thousand
jobs created. So if anybody was favored by that, it
would have been the Trump campaign. So it's kind of
hard to know where you go from that when they're
living at the White House in such a fantasy world.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Well, and of course, that more than eight hundred thousand
revision number we talked about from twenty twenty four actually
happened during the Democratic National Convention. Joe and I were
in Chicago. It was well before the election, So Mike,
that's on the BLS side. Of course, President Trump is
talking about not just filling that role, but a new
role on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as well.
How should we be reading into who ultimately he names,
(04:56):
potentially as soon as this week, and what it will
mean to who ultimately is go to succeed your own
Powell as FED chair.
Speaker 6 (05:03):
He said he'd been naming somebody in a few days.
I tend to doubt that based on his history and
also based on the thinking that has to go into this.
Scott Besson has started a process, I'm not sure how
far along he is and vetting somebody to replace J.
Powell as chair and, in theory, at the same time,
replace Adriana Kugler in her governor's spot. And the Cougler
(05:28):
vacancy may be the only one that the president gets
because J. Powell, in theory, could stay on as governor
until twenty twenty eight. His term is chair is over
in twenty twenty six, but he could stay on as
governor even if he were not chair. So if there's
no opening, he can't appoint anyone else, which sets up
kind of a musical chairs game. Does he want to
(05:50):
put in somebody to Coogler's seat? Who's going to be
seen as the chair in waiting and create that shadow
chair situation that we have talked about. The markets would
probably assume whoever is chosen would be that, or does
he put somebody in and then say, I'll decide later
who's going to be chaired, even if Powell stays around.
I'll pick somebody like I could pick somebody like Chris
(06:12):
Waller or Nicky Bowman or this person I'm just naming now,
and set up, as somebody put it today, an Apprentice
like situation where you have three people for six months
competing with each other to not be fired. So it
is kind of an unusual situation that will be interesting
to watch and it might be a little painful for
the markets.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
All right, Michael McKee, Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent
here with us on Balance of Power. Thank you so much,
and we want to add the voice now as we
consider both of these vacancies that will have to be filled.
A member of the House Financial Services Committee also chair
of the House Administration Committee, Republican Congressman Brian Style of
Wisconsin is back with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Congressman,
(06:55):
welcome back to the show. It's good to have you.
If we could just begin with the Bureau of Labors
to sticks chief being fired over the jobs data. Have you,
as a member of the Financial Services Committee, seen evidence
to support the president's claims, and in the absence of
that evidence, do you think this firing was justified.
Speaker 7 (07:13):
I don't have evidence of those claims, but I do
believe that the president has a right to make sure
that he has a man or woman in that position
that he has full faith and confidence in. The job
market has been very difficult to analyze at a period
of time. Is the gig economy is dramatically ticked up,
as we have seen a shift in jobs as it
relates to foreign born or natural born citizens, and so
(07:36):
making sure the president has someone in that position that
he has full faith and confidence in is his prerogative.
Speaker 8 (07:43):
Do you think that when he goes to fill the
vacancy on the FED board here following Governor Kugler's resignation
on Friday, Congressman, that that person in fact will be
the FED chair the new FED chair in waiting.
Speaker 7 (08:01):
I don't have information one way or the other, but
I do think it's important to recognize that the decisions
made by the Federal Reserve are not made by any
one individual. Often we see the Federal Reserve Board act
with unanonymity, but that may or may not be the case,
and so we may see more divisions and votes. And
I don't think that's an inherently bad thing for the
(08:23):
Federal Reserve. And so it's a group of people. The
key is that they are making these decisions based on
the data in front of them, not based on any
other ulterior motive.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Well, so when the President suggests that the person he
wants to chair the FED ultimately and very well, the
person he'd like to select is the governor that replaces Kogler,
that he wants them to have a low interest rate bias. Congressman,
do you see that as a problem if lower interest
rates may or may not be justified by the data.
Speaker 7 (08:54):
Well, again, what we want is these decisions made by
the FED based on the data in front of them. Again,
having disagreement different points of view brought to the Federal
Reserve Board, I don't think is an inherently negative thing.
And the Federal Reserve has been criticized for decades by
different administrations. President Trump just doing it more publicly than
maybe President Nixon, where we found out later when the
(09:15):
tapes were revealed, and so putting pressure on the Fed
is nothing new. I think what we're seeing is just
to play out in a little bit more of a
public manner. Although the Federal Reserve is independent of the
executive that does not mean it's immune to criticism from
the administration.
Speaker 8 (09:31):
Congressman, we had a look at the town hall meeting
that you held last week that got pretty chippy. There
were a number of folks who were booing, and we've
been talking about the potential for some confrontational town halls
this August recess, following the passage of the President's Big
Beautiful Bill and of course the recisions package that followed.
I just want to give our listeners and viewers a
(09:52):
taste of what you ran into the other night. Let's
watch and listen, Tommy, the dire circumstances that trigger is hoarse.
Speaker 7 (10:02):
Very.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Telling out veterans hatch out of the gates. I just
want to say thank you for your service to our country.
Is as we look, as we look at that back
and forth that's going on with the administration, this really,
at its core needs to be an opportunity to make
sure that other countries are treated in the United States, Farlom.
Speaker 8 (10:28):
You know, so a big round of booing there, and
as we read in the local media, Congressman, protesters actually
walked to your home with a cardboard coffin to represent
the people they say would die from cuts to medicaid.
I'm just curious what your thoughts are coming out of
(10:50):
a session like that and how you respond to these constituents.
Speaker 7 (10:54):
I've done dozens and dozens of town halls across Wisconsin
over the years. Media report said that probably out of
a room of roughly four hundred people, there are maybe
thirty to fifty protesters inside. Rest assured they were loud.
I don't think that that group of protesters, the small
group that was inside the room, we're really representative of
the views of most people in southeast Wisconsin. This was
(11:17):
a group that tried to obstruct the pledge of allegiance.
Bood what we said, let's have a productive conversation. And
so at the end of the day, I think what's
really challenging right now across the board in the United
States is a willingness to really engage in productive conversation
about what needs to be done. To move our country forward,
and so far too often individuals resort to disruptive tactics
(11:41):
rather than engaging. Was really needed of a substantive conversation
a period of time where we're massively driving a debt
further and further up, where we have global challenges from
a national security perspective, where we've made I think great
progress on securing in the US Mexico border. So maybe
it's a point in time and reflection for the whole
country to reflect and analyze how we can have a
(12:02):
much more productive dialogue, which is going to be really
essential based on the challenges that are in front of us.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Well, have you had any productive engagement around issues constituents
may have around the way in which this one big,
beautiful bill threatens to affect them or they're worried will
affect them. Does it give you pause about any elements
of the piece of legislation that you voted for.
Speaker 7 (12:26):
Well, there's a lot of misinformation that's circulating on key
provisions of the bill, which is why I was hoping
to use this forum as an opportunity to provide folks
and residents across Wisconsin better information about what's actually in
the legislation that's become law. We use a number of
different venues to do this, through email, telephone calls, in person,
town halls just being one of the ways in which
(12:47):
I try to communicate with folks. But there's a lot
of misinformation, in particular as it relates to medicaid. In
regards to medicaid, what we're seeing in Wisconsin is mostly
a shift towards work requirements for able bodied, childless adults
in the state. Was consting that's an eighty twenty issue
because it's common sense that we know that we can
help lift people up out of poverty as long as
(13:07):
a job as a core component of that.
Speaker 8 (13:10):
Yeah. Well, look, I think that everyone deserves a lot
of credit for being at that town hall on both
sides of this, including you, Congressman. As a lawmaker, making
a decision to interact with constituents has not been terribly
popular from what we've seen lately, and I just I
wonder if you actually can hear from the voters who
were upset about debt and deficits seeing some four trillion
(13:33):
dollars added to ours in the so called Big Beautiful Bill.
There has been, I know, a conversation about coming back
around to lower the debt impact of this legislation is
that what the next move should be.
Speaker 7 (13:45):
We had questions on that exact topic, and I think
it's important to know that as the Washington DC accountants
analyze that cost, large chunks of that are the overwhelming
majority of that is actually just simply making the twenty
seventeen tax cuts permanent, simply built on that by providing
tax relief to seniors on Social Security, those individuals working
overtime or earning tips, and so the bulk of the
(14:07):
cost is really shown up by simply doubling down and
making sure that we're making permanent the twenty seventeen tax
cuts that had a real substantive positive impact on real
wages for families across the state. And so it's reasonable
that people can have different views on any given policy,
but this is where making sure individuals have the information
they need to be able to make their decisions is
(14:28):
so absolutely essential. And why a small group of individuals
who protested the town hall was a bit disappointing for
the countless individuals that wanted to hear what I was
trying to provide.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Congressman, we just have thirty seconds left but when you
return to Washington come September, what odds do you put
around a government shutdown?
Speaker 7 (14:47):
We can't allow a government shutdown to occur. I know
there's a lot of my Democratic colleagues that are actually
hoping that we do shut down. I don't view that
as productive. I'd rather make sure that we come together
address the spending challenges we face into what we need
to do to avoid a shutdown at the end of September.
Speaker 8 (15:05):
Appreciate your joining us here from what looks like a
beautiful day in Wisconsin. By the way, Congressman will do
this again soon, I'm sure and certainly when you're back
in the Capitol. It's Brian's style. Republican Congressman from Wisconsin's
first District, I'm Joe Matthew, alongside Hayley Lions in Washington,
will assemble our panel next. As Democrats in the state
of Texas flee the lone star state who avoid reaching
(15:26):
a quorum that could prompt a redrawing of congressional maps,
we'll lot the story next on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
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.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Here in Washington, where the town has been a bus
for weeks now about the potential of redistricting wars heading
into the twenty twenty six midterm, the talk, of course,
of which began a few weeks ago when President Trump
openly suggested that Texas should redraw its congressional map in
order to carve out five more Republican seats to give
(16:14):
the Republicans a better chance of retaining the majority in
the House of Representatives. Texas, of course, began a special
legislative session a few weeks ago to undertake that effort,
as well as others, including the relief for the devastating
floods that hit the state last month. But to take
forward action on any of them, you need a quorum.
Two thirds of the Texas legislature needs to actually be
(16:35):
present in order to vote on these matters, redistricting included,
and Democratic lawmakers in the state have decided not to
provide that quorum as they attempt to block this Republican
effort on jerrymandering have fled blue states like New York
or even Illinois to outside of Chicago, including a Texas
legislature member, James Tellerico, who we spoke with on this
(16:57):
program one week ago today when we asked him about
this possibility, and this is what he told us.
Speaker 9 (17:03):
We've had to figure out how to use every tool
in our toolbox, whether that's the rules, whether it's our platforms,
or whether it is denying quorum. That's obviously a dramatic step,
and it's one that shouldn't be taken lightly. My Democratic
colleagues and I are willing to do whatever it takes
to stop this power grab and to protect the democratic
(17:26):
process here in Texas and around the country, because if
President Trump succeeds with this power grab in Texas, I
worry that he will do the same thing in every
red state across the country.
Speaker 8 (17:38):
That was one week ago here on Balance of Power.
Fast forward to today and James tall Rico is now
one of fifty seven Democrats it was chosen to leave
the state preventing from Republicans or preventing Republicans from i
should say, reaching a quorum, and therefore at least temporarily
blocking this redrawing from happening. We want to get into
this with Julie Fine, Bloomberg's Texas Bureau chief, who is
(18:00):
been very busy on this story now for a couple
of weeks with us from Dallas. Julie. It's an interesting
move here, but it can only go so far.
Speaker 10 (18:07):
Right.
Speaker 8 (18:07):
Governor Greg Abbot can call as many special sessions as
he wants. So is the effort here to simply publicize
what's happening?
Speaker 11 (18:14):
Well, I think the effort here is to draw attention
to it.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Certainly.
Speaker 11 (18:18):
However, they are working very hard to make sure that
this doesn't happen very soon. I mean, when you look
at the redistricting bill, this is the first bill that
has come up for the House to vote on. I
think that infuriated many, knowing that it would be put
on the clock so that they would have to stay
there because you leave and you have flooding on as well.
(18:40):
So obviously this is a choice that they decided to make,
and they know that Republicans will discuss that this Joe,
You've discussed this before, is temporary because at the end
of the day, when you talk about the tools in
the toolbox. One of them is not the majority, and
that's what you really need to get something through here,
so they can stay out. They'll draw attention to it, certainly,
(19:03):
but I think what they're also trying to do is
make sure that other states that can redistrict pay attention
to what's happening.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Well, Julie, when we talk about tools in the toolbox,
what about the tools available to opponents of what Democrats
are doing here, Like for Governor Abbott or the Attorney
General Ken Paxton, who has floated the idea of arresting
these lawmakers who have left the state, What real consequence
could these individuals face.
Speaker 11 (19:31):
Well, that certainly depends, and that would explain why they
are in Illinois. That is a democratic state, and you
heard Governor Pritzker at the news conference say last night
he will do everything he can to protect them. The
question is when they go back to Texas. So clearly
they understand that this is a risk that they are taking.
(19:51):
But certainly the Attorney General has made it very clear
that he thinks that they can be arrested. Governor Abbott
now threatening their seats talking about them. So in the
next few days, I think you're going to really see
what direction this is headed in this session lasts two
more weeks.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
All right, Bloomberg's Texas Bear chief, Julie Fine, appreciate your
recording on this, Thank you so much. And as Julie mentioned,
we did see the Governor of Illinois jab Pritzker greeting
members yesterday outside of Chicago. Let's get a taste of
what he said.
Speaker 5 (20:24):
Trump came up with a news scheme rig the system
by ramming through a corrupt mid decade redistricting plan that
would steal five congressional seats, silencing millions of voices, especially
black and Latino voters. Let's be clear, this is not
just rigging the system in Texas. It's about rigging the
(20:45):
system against the rights of all.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Americans and for those with US on radio and not
YouTube or TV. It's worth noting that Jbipritzker dot Com
was pasted multiple times as the backdrop for these remarks.
So let's get into this now with our political panel.
Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanie Schanzano are with us.
Rick Davis, of course Stone Court Capital partner and Republican strategists.
(21:08):
Genie are Democratic analyst and senior Democracy fellow at the
Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Jeanie.
We've talked about, or we were just talking about with Julie,
how all of this is a chance for Democrats to
publicize what's going on in Texas. But is it also
a chance for the likes of JB. Pritzker, a potential
twenty twenty eight candidate.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
It absolutely is, And I'm so glad you mentioned what
was behind him, because, Kaylie, you can save democracy and
raise money apparently at the same time for your rest
of twenty eight. But this is really a precursor, not
just to the midterms, but to twenty eight. And you're
giving a lot of state and local democrats the chance
to show Americans that they are willing to fight for them,
(21:50):
and that is what many Democrats on the ground want.
I think one of the ironies of this entire story
is the fact that this is allowed because the Supreme
Court said it is constitutional to politically jerrymander, and that
has gotten us into this position where you now have
Texas and sure to follow other states, whether California and
(22:11):
New York, they Illinois, they will try to jerrymander and
the losers here are the American public, Republican and Democrat,
because what you're doing is denying people a choice at
the ballot box, making our house districts less competitive, and
that is anti democratic with a small D.
Speaker 8 (22:31):
I know we've seen this move before, Rick, but what
kind of strategy is in is this here? You go
to hang out with Pritzker in Chicago, Kathy Hochel in Albany.
I guess some of the others are in Boston right now,
but you have to come home eventually, might have to
pay fines when you do it, and then the governor
simply schedules other special session. This doesn't keep anything from happening,
(22:52):
does it.
Speaker 12 (22:53):
Yeah, it's not a winning formula from what I can tell.
And I don't know, but most Texans I would think
hanging out those Democratic leaders in Yankee States is probably
not exactly a positive for them coming back to their
home districts. So, I mean, I can't believe that's going
to work. And then on the top of it, you've
got another liberal Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, saying he's going
(23:15):
to do the same thing they're doing in Texas. So like,
I'm sorry, sounds like you've adopted the same strategy. So
why are these people hiding? I honestly don't think it's
a winning issue for Democrats. Nobody's ever won an election
that I can recall, you know, decrying the negative state
of redistricting. I mean, even the Supreme Court says, you
(23:37):
know what districts are set by political means, and that's
exactly what they're talking about doing. So the likelihood that
any of this is going to result in a successful
lawsuit not you know, devil's into details, but that's been
tried before and very rarely does it succeed.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
So I don't know.
Speaker 12 (23:54):
I mean, I think this takes Democrats off their game,
puts them in an awkward spot where some of the
leaders are claiming to want to do the same thing
and others are harboring people who are trying to avoid it.
So where are you, Democrats? Are you for this or
are you against it?
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Well, so let's add the voice of another Democratic governor.
Rick of course mentioned that California Governor Gavin Newsom has
floated the idea of pursuing something similar, but so too
earlier today that it did. The governor of New York,
Kathy Hochel to.
Speaker 13 (24:22):
Refuse to stand up and fight for our democracy as
we are joining in solidarity with our friends from Texas.
Means one thing, you won't fight for democracy, you're doomed
to lose it. Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules
to give themselves an advantage. Then they're leaving us no choice.
We must do the same. There's a phrase you get
(24:43):
to fight fire with fire. That is a true statement
of how we're feeling right now.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Genie, is the more fire strategy the right one here?
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Yeah, and we're hearing that strategy you mentioned Newsom Hocal Pritzker.
Also people like Holder, who famously has been against this
strategy until he is for it. Now, you know, the
party has no choice, as they see it. Once one
party goes down this direction, the other one is going
to follow, whether you like it or not. But I'm
(25:15):
not sure this makes the Republicans seem strong. We've seen
two examples in the last few days to me of
Donald Trump feeling very nervous. Number One, he gets bad
job numbers. He's so concerned he fires the messenger. Number Two,
it doesn't seem like they feel they can win the
mid term unless they rig the districts in Texas and
(25:37):
potentially other states. So to me, I think it screams
that the GOP has a bigger issue here than redistricting,
which is why can't they run fairly on their message?
And you were just talking to Representative Style about the
difficult count falls he and I'm sure other Republicans are
having as they go out to sell this wildly unpopular bill.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
So I think this.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
Scream's concern about holding the House because the public isn't
seeing what they've done so far in a positive light.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
Well, it's of course, I mean it would potentially be
an issue either way with a majority of three or
whatever the Speaker is dealing with right now. Rick, you
mentioned nobody's ever won elected office beating the drum on jerrymandering.
But what do you make of the potential math at
hand here? Donald Trump is convinced if they redraw these maps,
add five seats they go red, Republicans keep the House.
(26:32):
Is that a dangerous bet?
Speaker 12 (26:34):
Yeah, it's a dangerous bet. I mean, look, historically the
party in power loses, Yeah, twenty five thirty five seats,
I mean like five seats in Texas in that average
is not going to make a debt, and so you're
spending all this political capital to maybe win four or
five of those, right. I mean, like, I've seen so
(26:56):
many redistricting battles where you think you're going to pick
up seats and you don't, and so at the end
of the day, it's a high leverage situation. But look,
he's sitting on government, he's got two hundred million dollars
in a super pack, and he's got all these options,
and so why not trigger a few of these options.
It's not the first out of cycle redistricting Texas is done,
(27:20):
and arguably they picked up Republican seats.
Speaker 8 (27:24):
Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano, Bloomberg Politics contributors. Many thanks
to both of you for a great conversation. Here on
the Monday edition of Balance of Power, we have breaking
news coming from NATO. In fact, the US ambassador to
NATO is going to join US ahead on providing weapons
to Ukraine. It's next on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Alma Coarklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Thanks for being with us on the Monday edition of
Balance of Power or We've covered some of the domestic
issues that are a buzz in Washington in the greater
political universe today, one being of course, the President's ability
now to appoint not just a new head of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, but also a new Federal Reserve governor,
potentially impacting our economic path forward, but also, of course
(28:21):
the redistricting effort that the President himself is pushing in Texas.
President Trump also weighed in on American eagle in the
Sydney Sweeney Ad earlier today. We don't need to get
into that though. President Trump though not stopping there, as
he threatens today to raise tariffs on India for purchases
they continue to make of Russian oil. Of course, the
threat to impose things like higher tariffs or secondary sanctions
(28:43):
on countries that purchase Russian energy part of what has
been a bit of a tone shift from President Trump
when it comes to Russia's ongoing war with Ukraine. That,
of course, was further evidence last month as well by
an announcement that was made that the US would be
providing more weaponry to Ukraine, but that that would actually
be handled by NATO and that NATO countries Joe would
(29:04):
pay for it. And today we got the announcement of
the first country that is making such a purchase.
Speaker 9 (29:09):
It's the Netherlands, that's right.
Speaker 8 (29:10):
We had a lot of questions at the time about
how exactly this would work, but it's being laid out
before our eyes. They're calling it Pearl, I believe, is
the acronym priority. Ukraine requirements list a financing mechanism worth
about five hundred million euros about five hundred seventy eight
million dollars. Indeed, the Dutch are stepping up first here,
(29:31):
and we're lucky to have the US Ambassador to NATO
to help us understand a little bit more about this.
Matthew Whittaker is with us live from Brussels, and Ambassador,
it's great to have you back on Bloomberg TV and radio.
There was a reference here to patriot missiles. Will these
be essentially defensive weapons in this first trash for Ukraine.
Speaker 14 (29:52):
Yeah, well, it's good to be with you. Miss. I'm
obviously exciting new something we've been working on since the
announcement last month. In the office where I was there
with President Trump and Secretary of General Ruta. And the
announcement of five hundred and seventy eight million dollars worth
of American weapons and munitions going to sold to the
(30:13):
Netherlands and then provided to Ukraine is a big step forward.
And this is probably the first announcement of many that
are going to be following on. But you know, we
I think should expect that, you know, weapons and munitions
obviously are defensive, especially when you're talking about patriot missile
(30:34):
and radar and those types of things. But you can
also you know, see that most expectedly there will be
things like artillery shells and bullets and ammunition.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
And how quickly will all of that, ambassador be in
the hands of Ukraine. Now that this purchase has been announced.
Speaker 14 (30:56):
Well, obviously we're moving out very fast, you know, and
expectation of this and after the announcement, the folks that
are doing the logistics have already had some of this
material in process, and so it's moving in the typical
channels that you would expect. You know, I just want
to say that, you know, while this announcement of the
(31:18):
Netherlands purchasing American equipment is important. Remember why they're doing this.
It's because Ukraine wants American equipment. Ukraine wants our weapons
and our ammunition because it's the best in the world,
and you know, a lot of it is manufacturing in
the United States, and that's why. You know, one of
the things that I'm working on here in NATO is
to make sure that American manufacturing continues to thrive and
(31:41):
grow and expand. And you know, those are those are
really hand and glove as to what we're doing in
the work we're doing here to make sure that Europe
can ultimately defend itself long term.
Speaker 8 (31:53):
Well, let's talk more about that, because there was a
concern about our own stock piles here, which is why
at one point at least that was the justification by
the Pentagon for halting temporarily weapons shipments to Ukraine, because
we were getting down to concerning levels at this point here.
If we're in fact providing more weaponry to Ukraine, realizing
that others are paying for it, is there a limit
(32:15):
to what we can send?
Speaker 14 (32:17):
Well, yes there is, and we want to make sure
that the United States is never at a strategic disadvantage
or puts ourselves in a vulnerable position, and so what
we're providing is what would be considered excess in addition
to what we need to defend ourselves strategically. But at
the same time, we're still manufacturing. Whether it's you know,
(32:39):
missiles that go with the Patriots system, or whether it's
artillery shells or everything in between. All of these armaments
are continued to be manufactured in the United States and
quite frankly all across the NATO Alliance. And so we
see the need in Ukraine. We've then, you know, people
(33:00):
at the Pentagon, especially the generals that manage a lot
of these important programs, looked and determined what we could
sell to our NATO allies and then they could provide
them to Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
As you see it, Ambassador, when we considered the situation
in Ukraine and a war that Russia has signaled no
desire to stop at this time, despite the President's consistent
push for a ceasefire, are sanctions needed to supplement this
further weaponry, even secondary sanctions perhaps which the President has
(33:34):
suggested could go into place as soon as the end
of this week with the ten day deadline he announced
last week.
Speaker 14 (33:41):
Yeah, well, President Trump's been clear that this war needs
to end. That the death and carnage and slaughter we're
seeing on the battlefield every single day, where thousands of
soldiers are dying, and you know, of course the attacks
into some cities inside Ukraine as well, where civilians are
ending up being casually it needs to end. There's no
(34:01):
resolution on the battlefield. A diplomatic solution is the only way.
And President Trump is creating the environment that Russia will
come to the table and negotiate a ceasefire because that's
what's necessary in the killing. And I think secondary sanctions
and tariffs against those that are paying for this war,
like China, India and Brazil by buying the oil that
(34:25):
Russia is producing is an obvious next step to try
to bring this war to an end. And we'll see.
You know, President Trump said just the other day that
Russia is very good at avoiding sanctions and evading these things.
But I think this is going to really hit them
where it counts, and that is in their main revenue source,
(34:45):
which is the sale of oil to these countries. And
so President Trump, you know, is playing this card. You know,
if Russia can't negotiate a ceasefire, but at the same time,
you know, Russia just needs to end this war. They're
not going to win on the battlefield. They're making marginal,
if any gains, and they had they've really been struggling
(35:06):
because of the situation on the front line. And so
we just need to end this war. And I think
these sanctions are the next step. But again, President Trump's
going to continue to work on creating the environment that's
necessary to bring rush to the table and to get
a ceasefire.
Speaker 8 (35:19):
Is there anything when we consider the weapons shipments that
we will not send to Ukraine? Ambassador, I remember the
big debates that we had over the shipping of F
sixteen's providing M one abrams tanks, attack them, missiles and
so forth. If somebody else is placed in the order
and doing the buying, do we care what they get?
Speaker 14 (35:39):
Well, obviously, I'd say the rule number one is the
United States will not make ourselves strategically vulnerable in any way.
So we're not going to you know, cut too deep
or or give amounts or sell amounts that are going
to put us at a strategic disadvantage. But you know,
we're going to make sure that Ukraine has everything they
need to defend themselves. They have like the way the
(36:02):
US air defense systems especially have performed, as they're every
night attacked by drones and missiles and all the things
that Russia is sending their way. And so I mean,
they obviously want more of those systems because they know
they work and they know that they're very successful in
eliminating those threats. But at the same time, you know,
(36:24):
they need to be able to defend themselves on the
front line where they're encountering the Russians and the waves
of poorly trained Russian soldiers that are being paid a
significant amount of money and expectation that most likely they're
going to die. It's really a sad situation on the
front line, and we just need to end it. President
Trump sees that for what it is, and you know,
let's just hope that as we take steps into August here,
(36:48):
we can get this war to a ceaspar.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Ambassador, just quickly before we let you go, President Trump
announced on Friday that he would be deploying two nuclear
subs into an appropriate region in order to counteract what
he saw is escalatory rhetoric coming from Russia. Can you
confirm whether or not those subs actually have been deployed
and DONATO allies worry about that kind of escalatory move No.
Speaker 14 (37:11):
I'm not going to confirm our strategic movement of any submarines. Obviously,
that's one of the many systems we have available that
make us very strong as a country and provide the
necessary strategic ambiguity that we can move things around. And
submarines obviously are very important to what's in our arsenal.
(37:34):
But there's no reason for me to talk about any
of those things right now.
Speaker 4 (37:41):
I had to ask it.
Speaker 8 (37:41):
Matthew Whitaker, Thank you so much, US ambassador to NATO.
It's great to have you with us. Hear and appreciate
the update here on weapons for Ukraine. As we had
the voice of Michelle jim Risco, Bloomberg's White House National
Security Editor with us back at the table in Washington. Michelle,
it's great to see you. We just kind of covered
the bases with the ambassador here. But this is a
pretty significant update. Having had so many questions about the
(38:03):
way this program would work, or whether it would work
at all, what does it tell us that the Netherlands
are first and are there any limits to this program?
Speaker 10 (38:10):
Well, I you know that remains to be seen as
so many developments in this space. I mean, I think
you heard from the ambassador that it's such a sense
of urgency right now they're underscoring in terms of trying
to end the war. And you see all these kind
of crosshairs getting involved in this from you know, the
trade tariffs as well, and we were talking about India earlier,
and also the urgency of resources. And of course, notwithstanding
(38:35):
the ambassador and others hesitance to give away too much
in terms of the strategy and military details, we do
know that, you know, they're trying to figure out how
to move these assets and to maintain you know, support
for Ukraine while also not escalating. As Kaylee mentioned.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Well on India, the threat of higher tariffs of an
amount that he did not specify, is that likely to
change India's behavior? Are they signaling they're going to stop
purchasing Russian oil?
Speaker 10 (39:02):
I think we're seeing the very high bar that successive
US presidents have dealt with in trying to persuade India
on a moralistic line in terms of purchases. I mean,
I can remember even two years ago now when we
were having this conversation with Indian Energy Minister at the
time about the Russian oil purchases and the US is
(39:22):
distained for it, and he had something to say about
how it was an altruism, it's not philanthropy. They know
they're making these purchases for their domestic population, the most
populous nation in the world, on the basis of pragmatism,
and they're just not going to budge right now on that.
Speaker 8 (39:36):
Well that's important because the President says they don't care
how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the
Russian war machine. First of all, remarkable to hear him
use that the phrase Russian war machine. I'm not sure
we would have heard that even weeks ago. But to
the point that India is being framed this way by
the President would suggest that they've talked about this. Did
(39:59):
this come up with Modi?
Speaker 10 (40:00):
Well, we can't get inside, you know, his head on
the conversations he's personally had with Modi, but we do know,
of course, he's had warm relations with the Indian leader
for some time, I mean dating back to campaign trail,
you know, meetings and events and that sort of thing.
So it really just does again underscore, you know, the
toughness which which India's is using you know, their leverage
(40:24):
and saying no, we're not going to sway on this.
And by the way, we don't appreciate they said in
a statement last hour that you know, the EU and
the US are being somewhat hypocritical in this, and they're
pointing to you know, purchases of different goods by those
two entities too, so from Russia. So there's a lot
of you know, war of words going on right now,
(40:44):
and it's you know, the India tariff deal is just
one thing that's being caught in this sense of urgency
that Trump has renewed over ending the war in Ukraine
that he, by the way, campaigned on finishing on day one.
So we'll see.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Yeah, twenty four hours was a promise at one point.
Michelle Jean Risco Bloomberg White a National security editor, thank
you so much.
Speaker 8 (41:04):
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at
Bloomberg dot com.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!