July 21, 2025 • 39 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
For President Donald Trump, whose political career has benefited from voter anxiety over Washington elites, the health of his predecessor and the riches of Wall Street, the past week offered a reversal of fortune.
Trump’s efforts to escape the uproar over Jeffrey Epstein failed spectacularly, after the Wall Street Journal published a story alleging he once sent a suggestive birthday letter to the disgraced financier — a claim the president denied.
The White House was forced to make a rare disclosure that Trump wasn’t in perfect health. And Trump whipsawed on the fate of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, signaling to lawmakers that he would attempt to fire him before relenting after concern about a market backlash.
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 speaks with:
- Bloomberg Senior National Political Correspondent Nancy Cook.
- Bloomberg Washington Correspondent Tyler Kendall.
- Sabato's Crystal Ball Managing Director Kyle Kondik.
- Bloomberg Politics Contributors Rick Davis and Jeanne Sheehan Zaino.
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 (00:00):
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 Coarclay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
It's great to be back here on the Monday edition
on the early side. Here a Balance of Power on
Bloomberg Radio Satellite radio Channel one twenty one. We're live
on Bloomberg Originals now, you know, as well as YouTube.
Of course, you can always find us by searching Bloomberg
Business News Live. That goes for all of our shows
from New York and Washington throughout the day. It is
one of the coolest things that we have going here
on YouTube. With Google earnings in mind later this week.
(00:47):
So here's the state of play on a cloudy Monday
in Washington. It's kind of quiet around here, to be honest,
even though lawmakers are still in town. This is it.
House and Senate are in session, and soon they'll all
be gone. This is it for the House this week.
The Senate's supposed to work through the end of the month.
Even though they're being threatened that they might stay here
in overtime to deal with some nominees, and the President
(01:09):
heads to Scotland on Friday. By the time that happens,
dog days a summer kick in here in Washington, right,
it's just us and the tourists, and I bet they'll
still be talking about Jeffrey Epstein. I haven't talked about
this at all on the air. I just didn't know
if it was really a Bloomberg story, and we were
kind of asking people should take this seriously, whether it
was tabloid. The president certainly has been taking it seriously,
(01:33):
and boy, what a situation over the weekend. Happy six months.
By the way, do you have a truth social account?
I just asked Nancy Cook this, or do you do
you look at the posts on the terminal because it
is one of many hundreds of inputs on the Bloomberg terminal,
and he was busy more than two dozen posts last night.
You go back earlier in the weekend. Wow, the president writes,
(01:57):
time flies Today is that six month anniversary of my
second term. Importantly, it's being held as one of the
most consequential periods of any president. In other words, he writes,
We got a lot of good and great things done,
including ending numerous wars of countries not related to US
other than through trade and or in certain cases friendship.
(02:18):
Six months, Donald Trump says, is not a long time
to have totally revived a major country. The posts veered
into some dark and odd places over the course of
the weekend, culminating with the two dozen that went up
on Sunday night, including a video of Barack Obama being
arrested in the Oval Office. The conventional wisdom here in
(02:38):
Washington today is that the president's trying to change the subject.
But of course we turned to Nancy Cook at times
like this Bloomberg Political correspondent, senior national political correspondent who
covered the first Trump term the campaign, and now here
in two point Oh, it's great to see you, Nancy,
welcome back. We're overdue. If I posted, if you posted
(02:59):
all of that stuff over the weekend, wouldn't people be saying,
is Nancy all right? And so is the president all right?
What is generating all of this if not an effort
to change the subject?
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Well, I think that right. It's just really an effort
to change the subject, And the White House has been
looking to change the subject on the Jeffrey Epstein story
really for the last week and a half. And you
have to remember that this is a sort of slate
of conspiracy theories that President Trump you know, used during
the campaign. Oh, you know, people are covering up things
with Jeffrey Epstein. So he is someone who perpetuated this.
(03:35):
So did his FBI director Cash Patel. So this is
like one of the many conspiracy theories that animates the
MAGA base that helped him rise to power. But now
he you know, now there's a question about his own
relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Is his name in the files?
Now he's really trying to redirect the attention, and there's
been a fracturing with the MAGA base on it. Who
(03:59):
wants to see you know, they want to see more.
But we've seen Trump really since Friday, go hard and
try to change the narrative. We saw the Office of
National Intelligence you know, release some documents related to Russia
Gate on Friday, which I was told, you know, by sources,
was an effort to change the narrative. We saw Trump,
you know, posting a bunch of things to truth social
(04:20):
He's really just doing what he usually does, which is
throwing a bunch of things at the wall and seeing
what will stick to actually change the subject.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Do you see the pictures that they're showing on YouTube
while we're talking of them together in the good old days,
the party picks and all that kind of stuff. It's
clearly not working. But it is a president and an
individual who has changed the subject just by way of
blunt force. If he continues this, do we find a
new shiny object. Maybe we get to August first, start
(04:47):
talking about trade deals again.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Well, I think that, you know, they're trying to talk
about the economy, or I think that another way he
tried to change the subject last week was by you know,
some of his aids floating. He was going to fire
Jerome Power when and then in the in the at
the White House he said, oh, of course not, I'm
not going to do that. I mean, really, they're looking
for any chance they get. I'll be curious to see
how long this particular storyline has legs. I mean, it
(05:12):
doesn't seem to be ending. There's just you know, there's
the Wall Street Journal story about that letter that Trump
sent Jeffrey Epstein. The New York Times has done a
series of stories like, I think that there's just going
to be a drumbeat of stories about what's actually in
the files and what that relationship looks like.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Now that we're seeing the big front pages. Like you said,
he's suing the Wall Street Journal, or at least said
he would. I don't know that that's been filed. He
was going to sue Rupert Murdoch News Corp. Owns the
Wall Street Journal. Then The New York Times shows up
with a big dive on their relationship, how friendly they
were and for how long you've been in this business.
For a minute, when you see a scandal, if I
can use that word, when you see a story like
(05:46):
this reaching these proportions, what does that tell you is
coming next? Does it just keep burning?
Speaker 3 (05:54):
I think it's just going to keep burning. And it's funny,
you know again, like it's just it's ironic because he
did use these conspiracy theories too rise to power. But
now it's funny that his White House is saying, Oh,
we just want to talk about our policy, when you know,
we just want to talk about immigration or the tax
built like they're trying to pivot back one of the
additional ways they're trying to pivot back is to talk
(06:15):
about the policy stuff.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
My poll numbers, he writes, within the Republican Party and
MAGA have gone up significantly since the Jeffrey Epstein hoax
was exposed by the radical left Democrats and just playing troublemakers.
He writes in a separate post, they have hit ninety
ninety two percent, ninety three percent, and ninety five percent
in various polls. Have you seen any poll showing an
approval rating in the nineties like that?
Speaker 3 (06:37):
No, I mean, I do think that he does have
a higher approval rating if you ask Republican voters than
just sort of general voters, it is higher. I think
it's more like in the seventies or eighties. But again
that depends on the issue. But you know, his approval
rating is more of what a typical president would be.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
At this point, he's threatening to block the stadium deal
for the Washington Command, which was known for some time
as Washington's football team. Remember when that's what we call
it in public? The Washington Whatever's, he writes, should immediately
change their name back to its original name. He says,
there's a big clamoring for this. He went on to
(07:18):
write further in a separate post. My statement on the
Washington football team has totally blown up, but only in
a very positive way. When you see posts like this,
does this bring us back to the old whoever spoke
to him? Last line? Was he on the phone with
a friend that got him going on the football team.
How did this become the.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Story it could be?
Speaker 3 (07:37):
You know, you have to one thing about covering Trump
for a long time, is he there's so much input
from him, and so he watches TV constantly, regardless of
what his aids will say, Oh he doesn't. You know,
he always has a TV on. You know, he is
always sort of on social media checking it out. He
also is an avid reader of newspapers. You know, he
really pays attention to what's in the New York Times,
(07:58):
what's in the New York Post, what's in the Wall
Street drone. So he just takes a lot of information.
And also he loves to get on the phone. You know,
he loves to hit up friends. You know, I think
this term he's talking to a lot more sort of
tech and Silicon Valley people than New York business people.
But he just you know, old friends. So you never
know exactly where this information is coming from But that
could have come He might have seen an article in
(08:18):
the Washington Post and had a reaction to it and.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Put it on.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
In fact, they have on land of this sure the stadium.
Yet well, you know he's talking to Howard Lutnik a lot.
Speaker 5 (08:26):
Ye.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
This story in the New Yorker is something from Money Talks,
a ten page profile. They're talking on the phone Nancy
every night. When after, by the way, Howard Lutnik gets
into bed, they get on the phone together. He said.
They talk about real stuff like tariffs. They talk about nothing,
which he described as quote sporting events. People you'd like
(08:48):
to have dinner with. What was this guy like? Can
you believe what this guy did? And to your point,
what's the TV?
Speaker 5 (08:54):
Like?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I saw this on TV? What did you think of
what that guy said on TV? It really kind of
brings you this down to the the same guy who
was meeting Elon Musk for ice cream in the White
House late at night. What is that side of Trump?
Speaker 5 (09:07):
Well?
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Trump has like never been a great sleeper and so
you know the answer.
Speaker 6 (09:12):
I know.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
And so for some reporting I did for a big
piece be did on his first one hundred days. You know,
I was told for instance, in the middle of the
night when he can't sleep, he started he has started
listening to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
How about that?
Speaker 7 (09:23):
I know?
Speaker 3 (09:24):
And so he's been listening to.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Podcast put the earbuds in I have.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I mean, I'm not there with him, but I was
just told, you know, he's become.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
An avid podcast that fantastic.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Has been listening to historical podcasts, okay, And so that's
like another thing that's added to a social media diet.
But he's always been someone who doesn't need a ton
of sleep, you know. He's always been someone you remember
from the first term who was like up tweeting at
six a m. Yeah, this is his vibe.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
But also someone who likes the cabits. Yes, he likes
to Hey are you in bed? I'm in bed. So
what you see on TV today, it's absolutely a great read.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live we days at noon and five pm Eastern
on Apple, Cockley and Android Auto with the blue Berg
Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa
from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa. Play
Bloomberg eleven thirty live.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
From Washington with our eyes on a couple of stories today,
including one that is now just developing, with Fox News
reporting that there is a criminal referral for the chair
of the Federal Reserve, Representative Anna Paulina Luna, the Republican
from Florida, putting forth this paperwork accusing J. Powell of
lying in two specific instances in congressional testimony, lying under oath,
(10:37):
of course, talking about the renovations at the Federal Reserve
building that are underway right now. That has become a
bit of a controversy as the White House looks for
ways to close in when it comes to J. Powell.
The President of course frequently mentioning his desire to fire J. Powell.
The grounds through which he may fire him on may
(10:58):
well include this, according to Anna Paulina Luna. But this
is also against the backdrop of a very chaotic time
at the White House. A week from Friday is the
deadline for tariffs. August first. We're still waiting for a
number of trade deals to be announced, as we've heard
from the Treasury Secretary, of the Commerce Secretary, and the
President himself, and much of it as well, against the
(11:20):
backdrop of a scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein with more than
two dozen social media posts last evening by President Trump alone,
in which he was not only celebrating the six month
anniversary of his new term, but also putting forth videos,
for instance, of former President Barack Obama an AI video
of him being arrested in the Oval Office. We want
(11:42):
to cut through the noise here for you and get
to the actual news beyond the distractions, with the help
of Tyler Kendall, Bloomberg's Washington correspondent is on the north
lawn of the White House right now, Tyler, what's happening
in that building behind you today?
Speaker 7 (11:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (11:57):
Hey, Joe, Well, it's hard to know where to start.
You did a really great outline there that there's a
lot vying for perhaps the attention economy, if we could
call it that. When it comes to where the White
House actually wants to focus. You mentioned the trade deals.
Of course, this Friday will mark that one week mark
until August first, and at this point the White House
hasn't given us any indication that they're going to let
(12:18):
up on that date. Our eyes are really focused when
it comes to the European Union, which has yet to
get this decisive breakthrough but it is our understanding that
EU officials are really trying to ramp up the pressure
and work towards a deal because they have prepared some
retaliation to go into effect if they are unable to
reach an end zone. When it comes to this negotiation,
(12:39):
they of course are facing a thirty percent tariff that
is higher than the fifty percent tariff, but still incredibly high,
and our reporting indicates that in these talks the US
is pushing for perhaps a baseline tariff higher than ten percent,
which our understanding had been the floor. Now we're seeing
reports that perhaps this could end up closer to that
fifteen percent range, and this would be in exchange. THEE
(13:00):
would accept perhaps this higher baseline tariff because they're trying
to get some sort of exemptions when it comes to
those sector specific terriffs as you well know, enacted under
Section two thirty two national security concerns on a totally
separate legal basis track, but that would be some sort
of quotas when it comes to steal an aluminum as
well as auto. So we really have seen this push
from the administration. They say they're still on track for
(13:22):
a deal. We heard Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik, for example,
Joe over the weekend saying that he's optimistic that they
could reach one. But then the Treasury Secretary Scott Besson
earlier this morning in an interview, did say that they
are on track, but he did allude to the fact
that this is a very difficult negotiation, but he added
that it doesn't have to get ugly.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Doe in his words, Yeah, interesting to see him out
on TV this morning. What do we make about this
referral from Representative Anna Paulina Luna? If anything, Tyler I
realized this isn't a White House story, but the president
has kind of oscillated between these threats to fire j
Powell and then recently saying he had no plans to
do that, remembering last summer he told bloomber Or he
(14:00):
wasn't going to fire the fed share. But when you
hear a story like this, it makes you.
Speaker 5 (14:04):
Wonder well, definitely, and one of my top questions to
the congresswoman would be whether or not she is working
in tangent with the administration, because we really have seen
this targeted pressure campaign. There's two important points of context
to this. One is that we actually were expecting this
the congresswoman had indicated last week that she likely was
going to do this. And second, what a criminal referral is.
Speaker 7 (14:24):
It is an.
Speaker 5 (14:24):
Official step here, she is asking the Department of Justice
to look into alleged misconduct. But that does not mean
that the dj is actually going to launch an investigation.
And that's going to be very important here whether or
not this is just messaging or if we're actually going
to see something tangible come out of it. Now, we
do know that administration officials, including the head of the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, have called for other sorts of investigation.
(14:46):
Bill Poulti, the head of the agency, told Kiley and
Me last week on Balance of Power that he is
confident that Congress will look into this. Of course, this
would this has raised scrutiny or potential that perhaps the
MIS is laying the legal groundwork here to remove j Powell,
because as you well know, Joe, that is a very
very high legal bar in order to remove a FED official,
(15:09):
they would have to launch an investigation based on cause.
But it really does seem to be adding to that
growing list of criticism that this White House has for
the fedch Here, lastly, importantly, we should say that the
FED has said that Jerome Powell's testimony to Congress has
only been truthful, and they have defended the renovation costs.
It's our understanding that there is an inspector General that
Powell has asked to look in to the renovations.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Really important, great reporting, Tyler, Thank you so much, Tyler Kendall,
cutting to the chase the real news here. That's what
we try to distill every day on balance of power.
We'll let you know what the noise is, but we'll
also let you know what the policy is and the
news that might in fact drive some decisions around here.
With Annapauline A. Luna adding to the noise. But again, yes,
a referral is not an official action against j. Powell.
(15:55):
We'll let you know if something more materializes in all
of this. There is some real action that's taking place
in Texas this week, and it's one of the most
important political stories that you might not have heard about.
A special legislative session in Texas with Republican lawmakers now
poised to redraw the state's congressional maps. It's taking place
(16:16):
over the course of the coming week with an effort
a goal here to create five new districts, five new
winnable seats, if you will, for Republican lawmakers. You might
have actually heard about this last week when President Trump
was asked about the effort in the White House driveway.
Let's listen.
Speaker 8 (16:36):
Five.
Speaker 9 (16:36):
I think we get five, and there could be some
other states. We're going to get another three or four
or five. In addition, Texas would be the biggest one,
and that'll be fine. It's a very simple redrawing. We
pick up five seats, but we have a couple of
other states where we'll pick up seats.
Speaker 7 (16:52):
Also.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Let's see how Kyle Condick feels about this as he
looks ahead to the midterms, across the and to the horizon.
He's the managing editor of Sabado's Crystal Ball at the
University of Virginia Center for Politics and author of Campaign
of Chaos. Kyle, it's great to have you back here
on Bloomberg TV and Radio, and congratulations on the book.
(17:16):
I wonder your thoughts on this move, specifically in Texas,
because there are some other states that we want to
talk about here. The idea of adding five new winnable seats,
Donald Trump said, could be enough for Republicans to maintain
control of the House. What do you say, Yeah, look.
Speaker 9 (17:33):
I mean this happened twenty years ago. In Texas, the
circumstances are a little bit different, but there's no prohibition
on mid decade redistricting in Texas. And so back in
two thousand and three, after Republicans to control a state government,
they redrew the previous map, which was sort of a
version of a there was a court drawn map, but
it was kind of really a democratic jerrymander. This time
Republicans in Texas would be modifying their own gerrymander from
(17:56):
earlier this decade that produced a twenty five to thirteen
Republican advantage in the congressional delegation. But following a twenty
twenty four election and with the White House leaning on them,
it seems possible that they can draw additional seats, and
I think there looks like they're going to try. And
then it's a question of what does the map look like,
and what's the environment next year, and do they actually
realize the gains that they'd be drawing for themselves on paper.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Well, Texas is our big example here, but when you
add a couple of other states, is this actually a
strategy to maintain control of the House.
Speaker 9 (18:28):
Yeah, looks like and I mean, Ohio, we already knew
was going to have to draw a new map. So
how is a very convoluted redistricting system. And the map
that's currently in place was only designed or was only
allowed to be in effect for two election cycles twenty
twenty two and twenty twenty four. Republicans are basically going
to have more power over the process than they did
back in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two. Ohio
(18:51):
has a ten to five Republican House delegation right now.
It's possible that maybe the Republicans could get that up
to twelve or or even thirteen to two, And so
that's another state to watch. You know, it's possible that
other states could try to reopen redistricting. Some Democrats are
thinking about trying to do that, although it's harder in
those states because a lot of the states where Democrats
(19:12):
have control of state government also has some sort of
restrictions on jerrymandering or an independent commission that draws the lines.
You know, Texas doesn't have that, and so it's just
easy for Republicans just reopen it in Texas it's a
lot harder in a state like California.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
For instance.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Let's talk about California, because Governor Gavin Newsom is always
waiting in the wings here, Kyle, at a moment like this,
he says California in fact, should try to counter states
like Texas by redrawing its own congressional districts. Listen to
what the governor said.
Speaker 7 (19:45):
When Donald Trump calls in to the Texas legislature along
the lines of the phone calls he made saying find
me some votes in Georgia and says, find me five
more seats in Texas. They're playing by a different set
of rules. They can't win by the traditional game, so
they want to change the game. We can act taller
(20:08):
than now. We could sit on the sidelines talk about
the way the world should be, or we can recognize
the existential nature that is this moment.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Let's not talk about the way the world should be.
Let's talk about the way it is. In twenty ten,
voters in California approved a measure that put the job
to your point of drawing California's congressional map into the
hands of an independent commission. So what's Gavin news I'm
talking about.
Speaker 9 (20:38):
Well, look, I mean, it looks like California is thinking
about trying to maybe go go back to the voters
to ask them to grant an exception. You also could
maybe make a reading of California law and say that,
you know, at the start of the decade the maps
are drawn by commission, but doesn't necessarily say anything about
the middle of the decade. Again, all this stuff would
end up and would end up in court if attempted.
Republicans assert that even though Democrats you know that it's
(21:01):
an independent commission in California, that is still a Democratic
leaning map, And there may be some truth to that,
But I think it's also true that California could have
and even more lopside a delegation than it already is.
It's a forty three to nine democratic right now, but
you could you could potentially draw a map where the
Democrats could get an extra you know, several number of
(21:22):
seats out of California. But the thing is is there
are many more hoops to jump through for Gavin Newsom
and Democrats in California than there are for Governor Greg
Gabbott and Republicans in Texas.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
You just said something important, Kyle and that's court. That's
where all this is going, right.
Speaker 9 (21:38):
Oh yeah, I would assume any you know, there's I mean,
there's already an active lawsuit by Democrats and their allies
over the Texas map, and there surely will be again.
But you know, these cases take forever to get to
get sorted out. So even if there was some sort
of you know, legal, strong legal argument to be made
against the maps, maybe that isn't determined until twenty twenty eight.
And you know, the White House pretty clearly is looking
(22:00):
at this and saying, hey, how can we maximize as
Republicans our chance of keeping the House in twenty twenty six,
which is Trump's last midterm because he's constitutionally forbidden from
running for office again in twenty twenty eight, And all
these moves are designed toward that goal.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Remember that vote in California fifteen years ago, as Arnold
Schwarzenegger urged voters to terminate jerry mandering. The New York
Times reminds us of this in the story that they
wrote up on it. Jerry Mandering has been blamed for
the partisan political world that we now live in. Kyle.
(22:36):
Not to get too big picture, but this is the
root of our part is in evil, is it not.
Speaker 9 (22:42):
I don't know if I'd go that far. I mean
I do think that, I mean, you know, in an
ideal world, I think that, you know, Congress would create
rules for redistricting that was sort of fair between the states.
But the thing is is that what your definition of
fair might be and what my definition definition of fair
might be could potentially differ. I will say that that,
you know, you do have a situation where a lot
(23:03):
of members are in safe seats, even in you know,
one of the things in jerrymandering is you. And this
is what the current Texas map really is, is that
you have a bunch of safe Republican seats and then
you have a smaller number of safe Democratic seats to
the point where very few of the actual districts are
competitive in general elections. And that does maybe make members
a little bit more you know, relying on primary voters
(23:25):
and appealing to them as opposed to as opposed to
you know, general election swing voters. But even if you
had the you know, criteria for non parties in a
redistrict thing, you'd still have a bunch of safe seats. So,
you know, I think there's a lot of other things
at play behind beyond jerrymandering. Even though I think we
could sort of agree that, you know, drawing partisan lines
for your own parties benefit, you know that that's not
(23:46):
something that's particularly appealing.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Kyle Connick, we just spent better part of three months
talking about cuts to Medicaid, cuts to snap cuts to
food stamps, and we've seen some pretty chippy town halls.
Lead to the conventional wisdom that in an off year
it might be even more difficult for the party in
power to maintain control of Capitol Hill, the House, and
(24:09):
maybe even in this case, the Senate. What are you
seeing as the ground shifts beneath our feet here in
the impact that the President's big, beautiful bill will have
on the midterm elections.
Speaker 9 (24:20):
Look, it's an unpopular piece of legislation. I think at
the very best, Republicans you know, won't suffer because of it,
and I think it's possible they will suffer because of it.
It's hard to find examples from history of you know,
party passing a big, kind of one party piece of
legislation and then you know, benefiting from it in the
you know, in the next election, in the next midterm
(24:41):
you know, I think we we've seen throughout twenty twenty
five that there's been you know, a handful of special
elections here and there, and it kind of feels like
twenty seventeen did, and that you know, the Democrats are
sort of more engaged, that there was sort of the
usual forces kind of working against the White House Party.
I think what's what's interesting about this, this potential gerrymander
in Texas and so of the ripple effects of it
is that it would open the possibility that there could
(25:03):
in fact be a big wave against the Republicans next year,
and that you know, for the Democrats to win the
House popular vote by several points, but Republicans might still
be able to hold on the House because of because
of new Jerry managers. So that's that that throws the House,
I think in the House, I think into a little
bit more uncertainty.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
This is why this could be fun stuff to talk
about this far out. We've only got a minute left, Kyle,
But I'm curious if we should be reading into fundraising yet.
The NRCC out raising the d triple C in June
and for all of the second quarter. Does the money
matter in a world of politics like this.
Speaker 9 (25:40):
I do think it matters on the margins, although you know,
we've seen plenty of instances in recent years where you
know one side has a big money advantage and doesn't
necessarily you know that that doesn't necessarily produce a victory
for them. I think that, you know, one of the
things we've seen with Democrats, I think is that you know,
some of their fundraising may tick up, particularly as they
get nominees and some of these districts that they're trying
(26:02):
to challenge in. I think Republicans can be perfectly happy
with the start they're off to in terms of fundraising,
but again, honessarily know if it's predictive one way or
the other.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
It's great to have you back. Kyle. The book again
is Campaign of Chaos. He's managing editor Sabado's Crystal Ball
UVA Center for Politics and a great mind when it
comes to elections. We'll be talking to Kyle a lot
more as we work our way through the next year.
Kyle Condick on Bloomberg, I'm Joe, Matthew, and Washington will
assemble our political panel next. Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis
are on the way in Bloomberg Politics contributors with the
(26:32):
latest from Capitol Hill is straight ahead right here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Alma Coarckley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Things are about to get scarce around here in Washington.
This is the last week the how U, last scheduled
week before heading off on summer recess. The Senate is
only set to go through next week, although Donald Trump
would like them to work overtime. The President in a
series of truth social posts over the weekend, also calling
(27:18):
on Senators to work overtime, saying John Thune should quote
cancel August recess and long weekends in order to get
my incredible nominees confirmed unquote. That could happen. There might
be a little bit of overtime, But we're wondering what
kind of legislation could still come out of this Congress,
if anything, Now that the Recisions Bill has passed, the
(27:38):
Crypto legislation has been signed into law by the President,
and we turned to our panel for more on this.
Bloomberg Politics contributors Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis are with us.
Genie are Democratic analyst and senior Democracy fellow with the
Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Rick
Davis are Republican strategist and partner at Stone Court Capital. Genie,
maybe you have the end here, because the conventional wisdom
(28:02):
is the narrative is Democrats feel burned and they are
not willing to play ball that HAKM. Jeffries will sit
on his hands when it comes time to write a
budget for the next fiscal year. Can Congress crank out
anything else from this time moving forward, including a budget
for next year?
Speaker 6 (28:22):
I think it's looking increasingly less likely. And it is
Hakeem Jeffries, it's also Chuck Schumer. And you know, one
of the things of the many things that happen in
just the last few days was the OMB director Russ
Vote saying that the process should be less bipartisan. And
that is just another nail in the coffin, if you will.
(28:43):
And Democrats feel, and I think rightly so, that what
is the point of them negotiating these appropriations bills if
they don't have assurance that it's going to be a
bipartisan process, and if they don't have assurance that once
they get these bills through that they won't be clawed back.
They warned Republicans about this with the recision package passed
(29:05):
last week, and they are getting no assurances on that.
So I think that is going to make this process
something that I will be surprised if we see them
negotiate these bills. I think we are headed towards an
attempt at a cr and possibly, unfortunately, a shutdown unless
Republicans get together take back the power of Congress to
(29:27):
legislate the power of the purse that they own, and
to do it in a bipartisan manner and not hang
the threat of recisions over their heads once they pass
a bill.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Everybody's talking about a shutdown already. Rick, we were getting
into this last week ahead of the recisions package passing.
Is that the right conversation to be having right now?
What are your appropriations friends telling you when it's time
to get Democrats on the phone.
Speaker 8 (29:52):
Well, I mean there's been a number of successful appropriations
bills get through committee. I mean you would think right
now it seems business as usual, which usually means passage
of these bills, all twelve appropriations bills by wide margins
on the floor of the Senate sixty seven eighty four
votes in order to get those things done.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Typically they're not.
Speaker 8 (30:12):
Seen as partisan bills. That being said, we haven't had
a recisions package in a while, and it'll be interesting
to see the timing. I mean, when does the next
recision bill get submitted from the White House to Congress,
because that could be what pushes Democrats over the edge.
And if Democrats say, hey, we're done, we're not going
to participate in the appropriations process, and some of them
(30:36):
have walked out of committee meetings already, then Republicans cannot
legislate on their own. They can't pass a cr they
can't pass appropriations bills in advance of that, and so
by definition, you're into a government shutdown.
Speaker 4 (30:52):
And I really kind of wonder, like what is the
Democratic plan.
Speaker 8 (30:56):
I mean, Schumer's not indicating one way or another whether
he was going to.
Speaker 4 (31:00):
Participate in any of this.
Speaker 8 (31:02):
And I do think the earlier clip with the governor
of California saying, you know, we played by the wrong
set of rules or the different set of rules. Maybe
the Senate's going to start playing by their own set
of rules. So I think there's a lot up in
the air, and so I think your point, we're going
to see a lot of.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
Confirmations come the next two weeks.
Speaker 8 (31:22):
They're over one hundred and twenty yes that are waiting
for action.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
One.
Speaker 8 (31:26):
I feel sorry for Senator Tim Kine who's going to
have to come in because all the Democrats will leave
and he'll have to come.
Speaker 4 (31:31):
And just object.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
And that is actually going to happen. Do they work
over time until they're done.
Speaker 8 (31:35):
Yeah, they'll They will process a lot of those, if
not all of them, because they can, and so get
rid of the backlog because they really can't get anything
done on the appropriations process for a while.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Now understood, Genie Rick brings up a great point. Is
this in fact the plan that Hakeim Jeffreys and Chuck
Schumer have put together? Because russ Vote said if this
first Decisions package passes, there's going to be another one
and it's going to be bigger. That sounds to me
like we've stopped talking.
Speaker 6 (32:05):
Absolutely, they've stopped talking. The one thing I'll disagree with
is I don't think the ball is in the Democrats court.
I mean, the ball is really in the Republicans court.
If they want to do what russ Vote said, which
is not due appropriations in a bipartisan manner, then they
own this. And what we've heard from the appropriators, whether
it's Murphy, whether it's Van holland several others have said,
(32:29):
the reality is we need assurances that if we are
going to negotiate, you're not going to claw back. If
Republicans can't give those assurances, and who knows that those
would be enough, by the way, but if they can't
even give those assurances, what motive do Democrats have to
hand over what little power they have in this process
(32:50):
to Republicans at this point. Chuck Schumer, let's not forget,
did that in March and he was widely widely attacked
by his own base. And I think Democrats are waking
up a little slow, but waking up to the fact
that Congress and the Republicans and the President have stopped
playing by normal rules and procedures when it comes to Congress.
(33:13):
They have handed over their power to the president. And
why should Democrats, they feel, play a part in that.
So I do think we are likely headed for a shutdown,
and I do think the Democrats just have to keep
asking Republicans, do you want to play ball? Give us
some assurances, and let's see if Republicans can do that.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Well, this goes both ways, Rick, as you've made the
point you get aligned the equivalent of a line item
Vito for the President of the United States that could
be a Democrat at some point, and governing by reconciliation
would work for Democrats just as easily are we in
fact setting a new course here for Congress.
Speaker 8 (33:51):
Could be We've been passing reconciliation bills a lot, yeah,
and CIDs and crs, so a lot of this budgeting
process regular order, my favorite.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
Term, has kind of declined.
Speaker 8 (34:03):
But I would add, look, it's an optics thing, right,
who's actually shutting down government.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Republics are going to say, hey.
Speaker 8 (34:08):
Look, out of committee, we pass all twelve of these
right appropriations bills. We're ready to take this both to
the floor, but we can't get Democrats to join us
in passing them. Democrats will say, because you're not playing
by the same set of rules.
Speaker 4 (34:19):
What rules recision?
Speaker 2 (34:20):
Nobody understands what recision is.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
So let okay, let's do a cr We'll save the day.
With a CR.
Speaker 8 (34:26):
Democrats say, no, CR, what are you doing? It's recisions?
And people will say what's a recision? I mean, like
if I'm Johnson and Thune and I'm sitting there having
lunch trying to build legislative strategy, you know, after I'm
done laughing, I think they hold all the cards.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Wow, Genie, I don't know if Rick needs you for
this debate anymore. He just did that pretty well with
both sides for us here does he not have a point?
Speaker 6 (34:51):
He does, he has a point, but I don't think
it's an effective one. The reality is people know, and
particularly the Democratic base that's going to be voting in
twenty twenty six, that Republicans are in charge of the legislature,
they are in charge of the White House. They don't
have to think about these things like recisions. What they
(35:12):
have to know is that Republicans are not willing to
deal with Democrats. I mean, Democrats need to ask a
very simple question, can you give us assurances that if
we work with you, you will not cut our feet
off in the end? And if Republicans can't get that,
what incentive do Democrats have to work with them? So
(35:34):
I think it's actually the opposite of what Rick said.
If Democrats just went along because they're scared of explaining
what are recisions is, then they are going to lose.
They have got to stand their ground for what we
all know should be a regular process of appropriating that
starts in the first branch. And the president doesn't have
(35:54):
a line item veto, nor do these recisions work if
they negotiate and he's that should be the law. So
I think, actually it's quite the opposite. And I know
I won't have the conversation with myself like Rick did,
and I'm no comedian, but I don't think it's that
complicated to explain either.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Well, so you wonder if anything that's not budget related
could emerge in this Congress, Rick, is there any policy
in the form of legislation that could pass this body
between now and the midterms. You've got some stuff out there,
Steve Danes as a bill to rename the Washington football
team the President was talking about over the weekend. I mean,
could something exotic get through this body?
Speaker 4 (36:33):
Yeah? First of all, it's been.
Speaker 8 (36:34):
A pretty productive Congress in the first six months of
Donald Trump's presidency, so it's not like it's in a gridlock,
and there's no downside to just posting up another reconciliation
bill in the fall, which has been promised, which has
and has been done in the past. And I would
remind Genie, I mean Bill Clinton did recision packages and
the world didn't come to a stop then. Now, granted
(36:55):
we did have a government shut down, but that wasn't
because of recisions. And it is as a rule that
the president can actually have and if he's got a
Congress that'll go along with him, great. But at the
end of the day, right now, I think the Republicans,
to use a term that Donald Trump uses in.
Speaker 4 (37:12):
The Oval Office all the time, they've got the card.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
I got a little bit nervous there, Geni. You know,
you're talking about assurances from the other party. In your case,
the Republican party isn't passing a bill and signing it
into law. Kind of the definition of an assurance. How
do you get more than that?
Speaker 6 (37:34):
Well, that's a question for Republicans' answer, because that's what happened.
And they came back and they took back the nine billion.
And I very well remember the past recisions policies or
practices that came to the Congress but the difference there
was something that Susan Collins talked about last week, which
was that came with details about what was entailed and
(37:56):
why this money was being pulled back. There are certain
certainly reasons to engage in a recisions practice, but that
is not what occurred in this case. And you had
Republicans asking russ vote for details on what was happening,
why it was happening, why it was needed, none of
which was responded to. And so that is what is
(38:19):
needed is you need a policy and practice in place
where you can do these things in a way that
are meaningful. Yes, you can appropriate money and pull it back,
but you need to know why it's happening. It can't
just be Donald Trump's whim because he wants the money.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Well, you do wonder what happens to assurances on money
for those tribal stations. Mike Rounds asked for Jeanie Shanzino
and Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributors. You'll only hear right
here on Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Balance of
Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, Apple,
(38:56):
Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts, and 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 Coarclay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
It's great to be back here on the Monday edition
on the early side. Here a Balance of Power on
Bloomberg Radio Satellite radio Channel one twenty one. We're live
on Bloomberg Originals now, you know, as well as YouTube.
Of course, you can always find us by searching Bloomberg
Business News Live. That goes for all of our shows
from New York and Washington throughout the day. It is
one of the coolest things that we have going here
on YouTube. With Google earnings in mind later this week.
(00:47):
So here's the state of play on a cloudy Monday
in Washington. It's kind of quiet around here, to be honest,
even though lawmakers are still in town. This is it.
House and Senate are in session, and soon they'll all
be gone. This is it for the House this week.
The Senate's supposed to work through the end of the month.
Even though they're being threatened that they might stay here
in overtime to deal with some nominees, and the President
(01:09):
heads to Scotland on Friday. By the time that happens,
dog days a summer kick in here in Washington, right,
it's just us and the tourists, and I bet they'll
still be talking about Jeffrey Epstein. I haven't talked about
this at all on the air. I just didn't know
if it was really a Bloomberg story, and we were
kind of asking people should take this seriously, whether it
was tabloid. The president certainly has been taking it seriously,
(01:33):
and boy, what a situation over the weekend. Happy six months.
By the way, do you have a truth social account?
I just asked Nancy Cook this, or do you do
you look at the posts on the terminal because it
is one of many hundreds of inputs on the Bloomberg terminal,
and he was busy more than two dozen posts last night.
You go back earlier in the weekend. Wow, the president writes,
(01:57):
time flies Today is that six month anniversary of my
second term. Importantly, it's being held as one of the
most consequential periods of any president. In other words, he writes,
We got a lot of good and great things done,
including ending numerous wars of countries not related to US
other than through trade and or in certain cases friendship.
(02:18):
Six months, Donald Trump says, is not a long time
to have totally revived a major country. The posts veered
into some dark and odd places over the course of
the weekend, culminating with the two dozen that went up
on Sunday night, including a video of Barack Obama being
arrested in the Oval Office. The conventional wisdom here in
(02:38):
Washington today is that the president's trying to change the subject.
But of course we turned to Nancy Cook at times
like this Bloomberg Political correspondent, senior national political correspondent who
covered the first Trump term the campaign, and now here
in two point Oh, it's great to see you, Nancy,
welcome back. We're overdue. If I posted, if you posted
(02:59):
all of that stuff over the weekend, wouldn't people be saying,
is Nancy all right? And so is the president all right?
What is generating all of this if not an effort
to change the subject?
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Well, I think that right. It's just really an effort
to change the subject, And the White House has been
looking to change the subject on the Jeffrey Epstein story
really for the last week and a half. And you
have to remember that this is a sort of slate
of conspiracy theories that President Trump you know, used during
the campaign. Oh, you know, people are covering up things
with Jeffrey Epstein. So he is someone who perpetuated this.
(03:35):
So did his FBI director Cash Patel. So this is
like one of the many conspiracy theories that animates the
MAGA base that helped him rise to power. But now
he you know, now there's a question about his own
relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Is his name in the files?
Now he's really trying to redirect the attention, and there's
been a fracturing with the MAGA base on it. Who
(03:59):
wants to see you know, they want to see more.
But we've seen Trump really since Friday, go hard and
try to change the narrative. We saw the Office of
National Intelligence you know, release some documents related to Russia
Gate on Friday, which I was told, you know, by sources,
was an effort to change the narrative. We saw Trump,
you know, posting a bunch of things to truth social
(04:20):
He's really just doing what he usually does, which is
throwing a bunch of things at the wall and seeing
what will stick to actually change the subject.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Do you see the pictures that they're showing on YouTube
while we're talking of them together in the good old days,
the party picks and all that kind of stuff. It's
clearly not working. But it is a president and an
individual who has changed the subject just by way of
blunt force. If he continues this, do we find a
new shiny object. Maybe we get to August first, start
(04:47):
talking about trade deals again.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Well, I think that, you know, they're trying to talk
about the economy, or I think that another way he
tried to change the subject last week was by you know,
some of his aids floating. He was going to fire
Jerome Power when and then in the in the at
the White House he said, oh, of course not, I'm
not going to do that. I mean, really, they're looking
for any chance they get. I'll be curious to see
how long this particular storyline has legs. I mean, it
(05:12):
doesn't seem to be ending. There's just you know, there's
the Wall Street Journal story about that letter that Trump
sent Jeffrey Epstein. The New York Times has done a
series of stories like, I think that there's just going
to be a drumbeat of stories about what's actually in
the files and what that relationship looks like.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Now that we're seeing the big front pages. Like you said,
he's suing the Wall Street Journal, or at least said
he would. I don't know that that's been filed. He
was going to sue Rupert Murdoch News Corp. Owns the
Wall Street Journal. Then The New York Times shows up
with a big dive on their relationship, how friendly they
were and for how long you've been in this business.
For a minute, when you see a scandal, if I
can use that word, when you see a story like
(05:46):
this reaching these proportions, what does that tell you is
coming next? Does it just keep burning?
Speaker 3 (05:54):
I think it's just going to keep burning. And it's funny,
you know again, like it's just it's ironic because he
did use these conspiracy theories too rise to power. But
now it's funny that his White House is saying, Oh,
we just want to talk about our policy, when you know,
we just want to talk about immigration or the tax
built like they're trying to pivot back one of the
additional ways they're trying to pivot back is to talk
(06:15):
about the policy stuff.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
My poll numbers, he writes, within the Republican Party and
MAGA have gone up significantly since the Jeffrey Epstein hoax
was exposed by the radical left Democrats and just playing troublemakers.
He writes in a separate post, they have hit ninety
ninety two percent, ninety three percent, and ninety five percent
in various polls. Have you seen any poll showing an
approval rating in the nineties like that?
Speaker 3 (06:37):
No, I mean, I do think that he does have
a higher approval rating if you ask Republican voters than
just sort of general voters, it is higher. I think
it's more like in the seventies or eighties. But again
that depends on the issue. But you know, his approval
rating is more of what a typical president would be.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
At this point, he's threatening to block the stadium deal
for the Washington Command, which was known for some time
as Washington's football team. Remember when that's what we call
it in public? The Washington Whatever's, he writes, should immediately
change their name back to its original name. He says,
there's a big clamoring for this. He went on to
(07:18):
write further in a separate post. My statement on the
Washington football team has totally blown up, but only in
a very positive way. When you see posts like this,
does this bring us back to the old whoever spoke
to him? Last line? Was he on the phone with
a friend that got him going on the football team.
How did this become the.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Story it could be?
Speaker 3 (07:37):
You know, you have to one thing about covering Trump
for a long time, is he there's so much input
from him, and so he watches TV constantly, regardless of
what his aids will say, Oh he doesn't. You know,
he always has a TV on. You know, he is
always sort of on social media checking it out. He
also is an avid reader of newspapers. You know, he
really pays attention to what's in the New York Times,
(07:58):
what's in the New York Post, what's in the Wall
Street drone. So he just takes a lot of information.
And also he loves to get on the phone. You know,
he loves to hit up friends. You know, I think
this term he's talking to a lot more sort of
tech and Silicon Valley people than New York business people.
But he just you know, old friends. So you never
know exactly where this information is coming from But that
could have come He might have seen an article in
(08:18):
the Washington Post and had a reaction to it and.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Put it on.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
In fact, they have on land of this sure the stadium.
Yet well, you know he's talking to Howard Lutnik a lot.
Speaker 5 (08:26):
Ye.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
This story in the New Yorker is something from Money Talks,
a ten page profile. They're talking on the phone Nancy
every night. When after, by the way, Howard Lutnik gets
into bed, they get on the phone together. He said.
They talk about real stuff like tariffs. They talk about nothing,
which he described as quote sporting events. People you'd like
(08:48):
to have dinner with. What was this guy like? Can
you believe what this guy did? And to your point,
what's the TV?
Speaker 5 (08:54):
Like?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I saw this on TV? What did you think of
what that guy said on TV? It really kind of
brings you this down to the the same guy who
was meeting Elon Musk for ice cream in the White
House late at night. What is that side of Trump?
Speaker 5 (09:07):
Well?
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Trump has like never been a great sleeper and so
you know the answer.
Speaker 6 (09:12):
I know.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
And so for some reporting I did for a big
piece be did on his first one hundred days. You know,
I was told for instance, in the middle of the
night when he can't sleep, he started he has started
listening to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
How about that?
Speaker 7 (09:23):
I know?
Speaker 3 (09:24):
And so he's been listening to.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Podcast put the earbuds in I have.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I mean, I'm not there with him, but I was
just told, you know, he's become.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
An avid podcast that fantastic.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Has been listening to historical podcasts, okay, And so that's
like another thing that's added to a social media diet.
But he's always been someone who doesn't need a ton
of sleep, you know. He's always been someone you remember
from the first term who was like up tweeting at
six a m. Yeah, this is his vibe.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
But also someone who likes the cabits. Yes, he likes
to Hey are you in bed? I'm in bed. So
what you see on TV today, it's absolutely a great read.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live we days at noon and five pm Eastern
on Apple, Cockley and Android Auto with the blue Berg
Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa
from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa. Play
Bloomberg eleven thirty live.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
From Washington with our eyes on a couple of stories today,
including one that is now just developing, with Fox News
reporting that there is a criminal referral for the chair
of the Federal Reserve, Representative Anna Paulina Luna, the Republican
from Florida, putting forth this paperwork accusing J. Powell of
lying in two specific instances in congressional testimony, lying under oath,
(10:37):
of course, talking about the renovations at the Federal Reserve
building that are underway right now. That has become a
bit of a controversy as the White House looks for
ways to close in when it comes to J. Powell.
The President of course frequently mentioning his desire to fire J. Powell.
The grounds through which he may fire him on may
(10:58):
well include this, according to Anna Paulina Luna. But this
is also against the backdrop of a very chaotic time
at the White House. A week from Friday is the
deadline for tariffs. August first. We're still waiting for a
number of trade deals to be announced, as we've heard
from the Treasury Secretary, of the Commerce Secretary, and the
President himself, and much of it as well, against the
(11:20):
backdrop of a scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein with more than
two dozen social media posts last evening by President Trump alone,
in which he was not only celebrating the six month
anniversary of his new term, but also putting forth videos,
for instance, of former President Barack Obama an AI video
of him being arrested in the Oval Office. We want
(11:42):
to cut through the noise here for you and get
to the actual news beyond the distractions, with the help
of Tyler Kendall, Bloomberg's Washington correspondent is on the north
lawn of the White House right now, Tyler, what's happening
in that building behind you today?
Speaker 7 (11:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (11:57):
Hey, Joe, Well, it's hard to know where to start.
You did a really great outline there that there's a
lot vying for perhaps the attention economy, if we could
call it that. When it comes to where the White
House actually wants to focus. You mentioned the trade deals.
Of course, this Friday will mark that one week mark
until August first, and at this point the White House
hasn't given us any indication that they're going to let
(12:18):
up on that date. Our eyes are really focused when
it comes to the European Union, which has yet to
get this decisive breakthrough but it is our understanding that
EU officials are really trying to ramp up the pressure
and work towards a deal because they have prepared some
retaliation to go into effect if they are unable to
reach an end zone. When it comes to this negotiation,
(12:39):
they of course are facing a thirty percent tariff that
is higher than the fifty percent tariff, but still incredibly high,
and our reporting indicates that in these talks the US
is pushing for perhaps a baseline tariff higher than ten percent,
which our understanding had been the floor. Now we're seeing
reports that perhaps this could end up closer to that
fifteen percent range, and this would be in exchange. THEE
(13:00):
would accept perhaps this higher baseline tariff because they're trying
to get some sort of exemptions when it comes to
those sector specific terriffs as you well know, enacted under
Section two thirty two national security concerns on a totally
separate legal basis track, but that would be some sort
of quotas when it comes to steal an aluminum as
well as auto. So we really have seen this push
from the administration. They say they're still on track for
(13:22):
a deal. We heard Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik, for example,
Joe over the weekend saying that he's optimistic that they
could reach one. But then the Treasury Secretary Scott Besson
earlier this morning in an interview, did say that they
are on track, but he did allude to the fact
that this is a very difficult negotiation, but he added
that it doesn't have to get ugly.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Doe in his words, Yeah, interesting to see him out
on TV this morning. What do we make about this
referral from Representative Anna Paulina Luna? If anything, Tyler I
realized this isn't a White House story, but the president
has kind of oscillated between these threats to fire j
Powell and then recently saying he had no plans to
do that, remembering last summer he told bloomber Or he
(14:00):
wasn't going to fire the fed share. But when you
hear a story like this, it makes you.
Speaker 5 (14:04):
Wonder well, definitely, and one of my top questions to
the congresswoman would be whether or not she is working
in tangent with the administration, because we really have seen
this targeted pressure campaign. There's two important points of context
to this. One is that we actually were expecting this
the congresswoman had indicated last week that she likely was
going to do this. And second, what a criminal referral is.
Speaker 7 (14:24):
It is an.
Speaker 5 (14:24):
Official step here, she is asking the Department of Justice
to look into alleged misconduct. But that does not mean
that the dj is actually going to launch an investigation.
And that's going to be very important here whether or
not this is just messaging or if we're actually going
to see something tangible come out of it. Now, we
do know that administration officials, including the head of the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, have called for other sorts of investigation.
(14:46):
Bill Poulti, the head of the agency, told Kiley and
Me last week on Balance of Power that he is
confident that Congress will look into this. Of course, this
would this has raised scrutiny or potential that perhaps the
MIS is laying the legal groundwork here to remove j Powell,
because as you well know, Joe, that is a very
very high legal bar in order to remove a FED official,
(15:09):
they would have to launch an investigation based on cause.
But it really does seem to be adding to that
growing list of criticism that this White House has for
the fedch Here, lastly, importantly, we should say that the
FED has said that Jerome Powell's testimony to Congress has
only been truthful, and they have defended the renovation costs.
It's our understanding that there is an inspector General that
Powell has asked to look in to the renovations.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Really important, great reporting, Tyler, Thank you so much, Tyler Kendall,
cutting to the chase the real news here. That's what
we try to distill every day on balance of power.
We'll let you know what the noise is, but we'll
also let you know what the policy is and the
news that might in fact drive some decisions around here.
With Annapauline A. Luna adding to the noise. But again, yes,
a referral is not an official action against j. Powell.
(15:55):
We'll let you know if something more materializes in all
of this. There is some real action that's taking place
in Texas this week, and it's one of the most
important political stories that you might not have heard about.
A special legislative session in Texas with Republican lawmakers now
poised to redraw the state's congressional maps. It's taking place
(16:16):
over the course of the coming week with an effort
a goal here to create five new districts, five new
winnable seats, if you will, for Republican lawmakers. You might
have actually heard about this last week when President Trump
was asked about the effort in the White House driveway.
Let's listen.
Speaker 8 (16:36):
Five.
Speaker 9 (16:36):
I think we get five, and there could be some
other states. We're going to get another three or four
or five. In addition, Texas would be the biggest one,
and that'll be fine. It's a very simple redrawing. We
pick up five seats, but we have a couple of
other states where we'll pick up seats.
Speaker 7 (16:52):
Also.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Let's see how Kyle Condick feels about this as he
looks ahead to the midterms, across the and to the horizon.
He's the managing editor of Sabado's Crystal Ball at the
University of Virginia Center for Politics and author of Campaign
of Chaos. Kyle, it's great to have you back here
on Bloomberg TV and Radio, and congratulations on the book.
(17:16):
I wonder your thoughts on this move, specifically in Texas,
because there are some other states that we want to
talk about here. The idea of adding five new winnable seats,
Donald Trump said, could be enough for Republicans to maintain
control of the House. What do you say, Yeah, look.
Speaker 9 (17:33):
I mean this happened twenty years ago. In Texas, the
circumstances are a little bit different, but there's no prohibition
on mid decade redistricting in Texas. And so back in
two thousand and three, after Republicans to control a state government,
they redrew the previous map, which was sort of a
version of a there was a court drawn map, but
it was kind of really a democratic jerrymander. This time
Republicans in Texas would be modifying their own gerrymander from
(17:56):
earlier this decade that produced a twenty five to thirteen
Republican advantage in the congressional delegation. But following a twenty
twenty four election and with the White House leaning on them,
it seems possible that they can draw additional seats, and
I think there looks like they're going to try. And
then it's a question of what does the map look like,
and what's the environment next year, and do they actually
realize the gains that they'd be drawing for themselves on paper.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Well, Texas is our big example here, but when you
add a couple of other states, is this actually a
strategy to maintain control of the House.
Speaker 9 (18:28):
Yeah, looks like and I mean, Ohio, we already knew
was going to have to draw a new map. So
how is a very convoluted redistricting system. And the map
that's currently in place was only designed or was only
allowed to be in effect for two election cycles twenty
twenty two and twenty twenty four. Republicans are basically going
to have more power over the process than they did
back in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two. Ohio
(18:51):
has a ten to five Republican House delegation right now.
It's possible that maybe the Republicans could get that up
to twelve or or even thirteen to two, And so
that's another state to watch. You know, it's possible that
other states could try to reopen redistricting. Some Democrats are
thinking about trying to do that, although it's harder in
those states because a lot of the states where Democrats
(19:12):
have control of state government also has some sort of
restrictions on jerrymandering or an independent commission that draws the lines.
You know, Texas doesn't have that, and so it's just
easy for Republicans just reopen it in Texas it's a
lot harder in a state like California.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
For instance.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Let's talk about California, because Governor Gavin Newsom is always
waiting in the wings here, Kyle, at a moment like this,
he says California in fact, should try to counter states
like Texas by redrawing its own congressional districts. Listen to
what the governor said.
Speaker 7 (19:45):
When Donald Trump calls in to the Texas legislature along
the lines of the phone calls he made saying find
me some votes in Georgia and says, find me five
more seats in Texas. They're playing by a different set
of rules. They can't win by the traditional game, so
they want to change the game. We can act taller
(20:08):
than now. We could sit on the sidelines talk about
the way the world should be, or we can recognize
the existential nature that is this moment.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Let's not talk about the way the world should be.
Let's talk about the way it is. In twenty ten,
voters in California approved a measure that put the job
to your point of drawing California's congressional map into the
hands of an independent commission. So what's Gavin news I'm
talking about.
Speaker 9 (20:38):
Well, look, I mean, it looks like California is thinking
about trying to maybe go go back to the voters
to ask them to grant an exception. You also could
maybe make a reading of California law and say that,
you know, at the start of the decade the maps
are drawn by commission, but doesn't necessarily say anything about
the middle of the decade. Again, all this stuff would
end up and would end up in court if attempted.
Republicans assert that even though Democrats you know that it's
(21:01):
an independent commission in California, that is still a Democratic
leaning map, And there may be some truth to that,
But I think it's also true that California could have
and even more lopside a delegation than it already is.
It's a forty three to nine democratic right now, but
you could you could potentially draw a map where the
Democrats could get an extra you know, several number of
(21:22):
seats out of California. But the thing is is there
are many more hoops to jump through for Gavin Newsom
and Democrats in California than there are for Governor Greg
Gabbott and Republicans in Texas.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
You just said something important, Kyle and that's court. That's
where all this is going, right.
Speaker 9 (21:38):
Oh yeah, I would assume any you know, there's I mean,
there's already an active lawsuit by Democrats and their allies
over the Texas map, and there surely will be again.
But you know, these cases take forever to get to
get sorted out. So even if there was some sort
of you know, legal, strong legal argument to be made
against the maps, maybe that isn't determined until twenty twenty eight.
And you know, the White House pretty clearly is looking
(22:00):
at this and saying, hey, how can we maximize as
Republicans our chance of keeping the House in twenty twenty six,
which is Trump's last midterm because he's constitutionally forbidden from
running for office again in twenty twenty eight, And all
these moves are designed toward that goal.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Remember that vote in California fifteen years ago, as Arnold
Schwarzenegger urged voters to terminate jerry mandering. The New York
Times reminds us of this in the story that they
wrote up on it. Jerry Mandering has been blamed for
the partisan political world that we now live in. Kyle.
(22:36):
Not to get too big picture, but this is the
root of our part is in evil, is it not.
Speaker 9 (22:42):
I don't know if I'd go that far. I mean
I do think that, I mean, you know, in an
ideal world, I think that, you know, Congress would create
rules for redistricting that was sort of fair between the states.
But the thing is is that what your definition of
fair might be and what my definition definition of fair
might be could potentially differ. I will say that that,
you know, you do have a situation where a lot
(23:03):
of members are in safe seats, even in you know,
one of the things in jerrymandering is you. And this
is what the current Texas map really is, is that
you have a bunch of safe Republican seats and then
you have a smaller number of safe Democratic seats to
the point where very few of the actual districts are
competitive in general elections. And that does maybe make members
a little bit more you know, relying on primary voters
(23:25):
and appealing to them as opposed to as opposed to
you know, general election swing voters. But even if you
had the you know, criteria for non parties in a
redistrict thing, you'd still have a bunch of safe seats. So,
you know, I think there's a lot of other things
at play behind beyond jerrymandering. Even though I think we
could sort of agree that, you know, drawing partisan lines
for your own parties benefit, you know that that's not
(23:46):
something that's particularly appealing.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Kyle Connick, we just spent better part of three months
talking about cuts to Medicaid, cuts to snap cuts to
food stamps, and we've seen some pretty chippy town halls.
Lead to the conventional wisdom that in an off year
it might be even more difficult for the party in
power to maintain control of Capitol Hill, the House, and
(24:09):
maybe even in this case, the Senate. What are you
seeing as the ground shifts beneath our feet here in
the impact that the President's big, beautiful bill will have
on the midterm elections.
Speaker 9 (24:20):
Look, it's an unpopular piece of legislation. I think at
the very best, Republicans you know, won't suffer because of it,
and I think it's possible they will suffer because of it.
It's hard to find examples from history of you know,
party passing a big, kind of one party piece of
legislation and then you know, benefiting from it in the
you know, in the next election, in the next midterm
(24:41):
you know, I think we we've seen throughout twenty twenty
five that there's been you know, a handful of special
elections here and there, and it kind of feels like
twenty seventeen did, and that you know, the Democrats are
sort of more engaged, that there was sort of the
usual forces kind of working against the White House Party.
I think what's what's interesting about this, this potential gerrymander
in Texas and so of the ripple effects of it
is that it would open the possibility that there could
(25:03):
in fact be a big wave against the Republicans next year,
and that you know, for the Democrats to win the
House popular vote by several points, but Republicans might still
be able to hold on the House because of because
of new Jerry managers. So that's that that throws the House,
I think in the House, I think into a little
bit more uncertainty.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
This is why this could be fun stuff to talk
about this far out. We've only got a minute left, Kyle,
But I'm curious if we should be reading into fundraising yet.
The NRCC out raising the d triple C in June
and for all of the second quarter. Does the money
matter in a world of politics like this.
Speaker 9 (25:40):
I do think it matters on the margins, although you know,
we've seen plenty of instances in recent years where you
know one side has a big money advantage and doesn't
necessarily you know that that doesn't necessarily produce a victory
for them. I think that, you know, one of the
things we've seen with Democrats, I think is that you know,
some of their fundraising may tick up, particularly as they
get nominees and some of these districts that they're trying
(26:02):
to challenge in. I think Republicans can be perfectly happy
with the start they're off to in terms of fundraising,
but again, honessarily know if it's predictive one way or
the other.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
It's great to have you back. Kyle. The book again
is Campaign of Chaos. He's managing editor Sabado's Crystal Ball
UVA Center for Politics and a great mind when it
comes to elections. We'll be talking to Kyle a lot
more as we work our way through the next year.
Kyle Condick on Bloomberg, I'm Joe, Matthew, and Washington will
assemble our political panel next. Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis
are on the way in Bloomberg Politics contributors with the
(26:32):
latest from Capitol Hill is straight ahead right here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Alma Coarckley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Things are about to get scarce around here in Washington.
This is the last week the how U, last scheduled
week before heading off on summer recess. The Senate is
only set to go through next week, although Donald Trump
would like them to work overtime. The President in a
series of truth social posts over the weekend, also calling
(27:18):
on Senators to work overtime, saying John Thune should quote
cancel August recess and long weekends in order to get
my incredible nominees confirmed unquote. That could happen. There might
be a little bit of overtime, But we're wondering what
kind of legislation could still come out of this Congress,
if anything, Now that the Recisions Bill has passed, the
(27:38):
Crypto legislation has been signed into law by the President,
and we turned to our panel for more on this.
Bloomberg Politics contributors Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis are with us.
Genie are Democratic analyst and senior Democracy fellow with the
Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Rick
Davis are Republican strategist and partner at Stone Court Capital. Genie,
maybe you have the end here, because the conventional wisdom
(28:02):
is the narrative is Democrats feel burned and they are
not willing to play ball that HAKM. Jeffries will sit
on his hands when it comes time to write a
budget for the next fiscal year. Can Congress crank out
anything else from this time moving forward, including a budget
for next year?
Speaker 6 (28:22):
I think it's looking increasingly less likely. And it is
Hakeem Jeffries, it's also Chuck Schumer. And you know, one
of the things of the many things that happen in
just the last few days was the OMB director Russ
Vote saying that the process should be less bipartisan. And
that is just another nail in the coffin, if you will.
(28:43):
And Democrats feel, and I think rightly so, that what
is the point of them negotiating these appropriations bills if
they don't have assurance that it's going to be a
bipartisan process, and if they don't have assurance that once
they get these bills through that they won't be clawed back.
They warned Republicans about this with the recision package passed
(29:05):
last week, and they are getting no assurances on that.
So I think that is going to make this process
something that I will be surprised if we see them
negotiate these bills. I think we are headed towards an
attempt at a cr and possibly, unfortunately, a shutdown unless
Republicans get together take back the power of Congress to
(29:27):
legislate the power of the purse that they own, and
to do it in a bipartisan manner and not hang
the threat of recisions over their heads once they pass
a bill.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Everybody's talking about a shutdown already. Rick, we were getting
into this last week ahead of the recisions package passing.
Is that the right conversation to be having right now?
What are your appropriations friends telling you when it's time
to get Democrats on the phone.
Speaker 8 (29:52):
Well, I mean there's been a number of successful appropriations
bills get through committee. I mean you would think right
now it seems business as usual, which usually means passage
of these bills, all twelve appropriations bills by wide margins
on the floor of the Senate sixty seven eighty four
votes in order to get those things done.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Typically they're not.
Speaker 8 (30:12):
Seen as partisan bills. That being said, we haven't had
a recisions package in a while, and it'll be interesting
to see the timing. I mean, when does the next
recision bill get submitted from the White House to Congress,
because that could be what pushes Democrats over the edge.
And if Democrats say, hey, we're done, we're not going
to participate in the appropriations process, and some of them
(30:36):
have walked out of committee meetings already, then Republicans cannot
legislate on their own. They can't pass a cr they
can't pass appropriations bills in advance of that, and so
by definition, you're into a government shutdown.
Speaker 4 (30:52):
And I really kind of wonder, like what is the
Democratic plan.
Speaker 8 (30:56):
I mean, Schumer's not indicating one way or another whether
he was going to.
Speaker 4 (31:00):
Participate in any of this.
Speaker 8 (31:02):
And I do think the earlier clip with the governor
of California saying, you know, we played by the wrong
set of rules or the different set of rules. Maybe
the Senate's going to start playing by their own set
of rules. So I think there's a lot up in
the air, and so I think your point, we're going
to see a lot of.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
Confirmations come the next two weeks.
Speaker 8 (31:22):
They're over one hundred and twenty yes that are waiting
for action.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
One.
Speaker 8 (31:26):
I feel sorry for Senator Tim Kine who's going to
have to come in because all the Democrats will leave
and he'll have to come.
Speaker 4 (31:31):
And just object.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
And that is actually going to happen. Do they work
over time until they're done.
Speaker 8 (31:35):
Yeah, they'll They will process a lot of those, if
not all of them, because they can, and so get
rid of the backlog because they really can't get anything
done on the appropriations process for a while.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Now understood, Genie Rick brings up a great point. Is
this in fact the plan that Hakeim Jeffreys and Chuck
Schumer have put together? Because russ Vote said if this
first Decisions package passes, there's going to be another one
and it's going to be bigger. That sounds to me
like we've stopped talking.
Speaker 6 (32:05):
Absolutely, they've stopped talking. The one thing I'll disagree with
is I don't think the ball is in the Democrats court.
I mean, the ball is really in the Republicans court.
If they want to do what russ Vote said, which
is not due appropriations in a bipartisan manner, then they
own this. And what we've heard from the appropriators, whether
it's Murphy, whether it's Van holland several others have said,
(32:29):
the reality is we need assurances that if we are
going to negotiate, you're not going to claw back. If
Republicans can't give those assurances, and who knows that those
would be enough, by the way, but if they can't
even give those assurances, what motive do Democrats have to
hand over what little power they have in this process
(32:50):
to Republicans at this point. Chuck Schumer, let's not forget,
did that in March and he was widely widely attacked
by his own base. And I think Democrats are waking
up a little slow, but waking up to the fact
that Congress and the Republicans and the President have stopped
playing by normal rules and procedures when it comes to Congress.
(33:13):
They have handed over their power to the president. And
why should Democrats, they feel, play a part in that.
So I do think we are likely headed for a shutdown,
and I do think the Democrats just have to keep
asking Republicans, do you want to play ball? Give us
some assurances, and let's see if Republicans can do that.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Well, this goes both ways, Rick, as you've made the
point you get aligned the equivalent of a line item
Vito for the President of the United States that could
be a Democrat at some point, and governing by reconciliation
would work for Democrats just as easily are we in
fact setting a new course here for Congress.
Speaker 8 (33:51):
Could be We've been passing reconciliation bills a lot, yeah,
and CIDs and crs, so a lot of this budgeting
process regular order, my favorite.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
Term, has kind of declined.
Speaker 8 (34:03):
But I would add, look, it's an optics thing, right,
who's actually shutting down government.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Republics are going to say, hey.
Speaker 8 (34:08):
Look, out of committee, we pass all twelve of these
right appropriations bills. We're ready to take this both to
the floor, but we can't get Democrats to join us
in passing them. Democrats will say, because you're not playing
by the same set of rules.
Speaker 4 (34:19):
What rules recision?
Speaker 2 (34:20):
Nobody understands what recision is.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
So let okay, let's do a cr We'll save the day.
With a CR.
Speaker 8 (34:26):
Democrats say, no, CR, what are you doing? It's recisions?
And people will say what's a recision? I mean, like
if I'm Johnson and Thune and I'm sitting there having
lunch trying to build legislative strategy, you know, after I'm
done laughing, I think they hold all the cards.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Wow, Genie, I don't know if Rick needs you for
this debate anymore. He just did that pretty well with
both sides for us here does he not have a point?
Speaker 6 (34:51):
He does, he has a point, but I don't think
it's an effective one. The reality is people know, and
particularly the Democratic base that's going to be voting in
twenty twenty six, that Republicans are in charge of the legislature,
they are in charge of the White House. They don't
have to think about these things like recisions. What they
(35:12):
have to know is that Republicans are not willing to
deal with Democrats. I mean, Democrats need to ask a
very simple question, can you give us assurances that if
we work with you, you will not cut our feet
off in the end? And if Republicans can't get that,
what incentive do Democrats have to work with them? So
(35:34):
I think it's actually the opposite of what Rick said.
If Democrats just went along because they're scared of explaining
what are recisions is, then they are going to lose.
They have got to stand their ground for what we
all know should be a regular process of appropriating that
starts in the first branch. And the president doesn't have
(35:54):
a line item veto, nor do these recisions work if
they negotiate and he's that should be the law. So
I think, actually it's quite the opposite. And I know
I won't have the conversation with myself like Rick did,
and I'm no comedian, but I don't think it's that
complicated to explain either.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Well, so you wonder if anything that's not budget related
could emerge in this Congress, Rick, is there any policy
in the form of legislation that could pass this body
between now and the midterms. You've got some stuff out there,
Steve Danes as a bill to rename the Washington football
team the President was talking about over the weekend. I mean,
could something exotic get through this body?
Speaker 4 (36:33):
Yeah? First of all, it's been.
Speaker 8 (36:34):
A pretty productive Congress in the first six months of
Donald Trump's presidency, so it's not like it's in a gridlock,
and there's no downside to just posting up another reconciliation
bill in the fall, which has been promised, which has
and has been done in the past. And I would
remind Genie, I mean Bill Clinton did recision packages and
the world didn't come to a stop then. Now, granted
(36:55):
we did have a government shut down, but that wasn't
because of recisions. And it is as a rule that
the president can actually have and if he's got a
Congress that'll go along with him, great. But at the
end of the day, right now, I think the Republicans,
to use a term that Donald Trump uses in.
Speaker 4 (37:12):
The Oval Office all the time, they've got the card.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
I got a little bit nervous there, Geni. You know,
you're talking about assurances from the other party. In your case,
the Republican party isn't passing a bill and signing it
into law. Kind of the definition of an assurance. How
do you get more than that?
Speaker 6 (37:34):
Well, that's a question for Republicans' answer, because that's what happened.
And they came back and they took back the nine billion.
And I very well remember the past recisions policies or
practices that came to the Congress but the difference there
was something that Susan Collins talked about last week, which
was that came with details about what was entailed and
(37:56):
why this money was being pulled back. There are certain
certainly reasons to engage in a recisions practice, but that
is not what occurred in this case. And you had
Republicans asking russ vote for details on what was happening,
why it was happening, why it was needed, none of
which was responded to. And so that is what is
(38:19):
needed is you need a policy and practice in place
where you can do these things in a way that
are meaningful. Yes, you can appropriate money and pull it back,
but you need to know why it's happening. It can't
just be Donald Trump's whim because he wants the money.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Well, you do wonder what happens to assurances on money
for those tribal stations. Mike Rounds asked for Jeanie Shanzino
and Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributors. You'll only hear right
here on Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Balance of
Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, Apple,
(38:56):
Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can
find us live every weekday from Washington, DC, at noontime
Eastern 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!