June 18, 2025 • 37 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
President Donald Trump said he would hold another meeting Wednesday to discuss the conflict in the Middle East but remained coy about whether the US plans to join Israel’s offensive aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.
Trump told reporters he would meet his advisers in the White House Situation Room and again chastised Tehran for being “late” to negotiate with him, but said he had not made a final decision on whether to launch strikes.
“I have ideas as to what to do,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office. “I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due because things change, especially with war.”
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 White House Correspondent Kate Sullivan.
- Lexington Institute Vice President Rebecca Grant.
- Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York.
- 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):
Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I'm Joe Matthew in the Nation's capital here on Bloomberg
Radio Satellite radio Channel one twenty one, on YouTube, where
you can see US now, search Bloomberg Business News Live,
and on Bloomberg Originals. As we bring it all together
on what is day six now, if you can imagine
how much our world has changed since last Thursday, Day
six of fighting between Israel and Iran. No unconditional surrender
(00:50):
by Tehran as demanded by the President yesterday, and so
we're still in this state of limbo here floating a
couple of feet above the ground, waiting for news from
the White House, and the President was certainly asked about it.
He found him on the South Long a little while
ago with a group of workers who were there to
install a flagpole.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
They actually held an event around the flagpole.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
The President was asked about whether the US will join
Israel offensively in its war against Iran.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
I mean, you don't know that I'm going to even
do it.
Speaker 5 (01:20):
You don't know.
Speaker 6 (01:21):
I may do it, I may not do it.
Speaker 5 (01:22):
I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.
Speaker 7 (01:24):
I can tell you this that.
Speaker 8 (01:27):
Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate.
Speaker 6 (01:31):
And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before
all the death and destruction?
Speaker 9 (01:35):
Why intian Nego?
Speaker 10 (01:36):
I said the people, why didn't you negotiate with me
two weeks ago?
Speaker 5 (01:41):
You could have done fine.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
You could have done fine, he says. Now, Iran's got
a lot of trouble.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Trying to not show his cards on this, having spent
a good deal of time in the situation room yesterday
with his national security team, and as I mentioned, the
world waiting for a decision here. Whether we or see
from him again today, of course, has yet to be seen,
and whether we get news on truth social all the same.
This is big stuff, and Kate Sullivan is covering it
(02:10):
for us here from her perch at Bloomberg White House. Correspondent, Kate,
it's great to have you back the President's demeanor today
was interesting. He seemed kind of tired. He had the
hat on sometimes. I don't know if it's a bad
hair day or whatever, but he looked.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Like always got the hat on. Yeah, white maga hat today.
Speaker 7 (02:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Group of workers behind him, and he spent as much
time turning to talk to them, kind of riffing with
them as he was with the press.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Is this a moment of indecision for this president?
Speaker 10 (02:38):
It could be? You know, I think what you heard there,
I mean the I may do it, I may not
do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
How about that?
Speaker 3 (02:46):
How about that?
Speaker 10 (02:47):
I mean, clearly no clarity there. One thing that I
took away from that exchange too, was the door is
still cracked open for negotiations. And he said, you know,
we may meet, and said that their onians wanted to
or suggested that they come to the White House. Now
that is news, and and you know, very unclear whether
that's actually going to happen. I think, you know, Whitcough
(03:09):
has been leading these discussions with their onions. I think
that could be a more likely scenario that Whitcoff meets
with them. But you know, at this point, there are
reports that Trump is leaning towards a military strike. It's
also possible that, you know, once again we're seeing Trump
deploy the same kind of tactic here and making these
(03:32):
very public aggressive threats, but that it's really you know,
what he wants, is it to pressure Rudians to come
to the table to negotiate. Now, so we don't actually
know what which one of those it is, or if
it's a combination, or if there you know, our intentions
to strike. I think we're still going to have to
stay tuned and see what he says.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
By design, which I understand he is kind of laughing
at reporters and I kind of tell you here what.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
I'm going to do.
Speaker 10 (03:57):
Yeah, I'll give you the coordination.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Yeah, But how is he actually spending his time?
Speaker 3 (04:03):
We know he was in the situation room yesterday. Is
he's surrounding himself with advisors right now? Is he making
calls to other world leaders? He is a combination, he is, Yes.
Speaker 10 (04:13):
He said that he's in constant touch with Israel's prime minister.
He also said that he spoke to Putin yesterday. So
he's definitely surrounded by, you know, top national security officials,
and he's making calls to world leaders. You know, he
has also One thing that I think is really interesting
is seeing, you know, some of these people he's calling,
(04:36):
not all of his allies and supporters are really on
board with what he's talking about doing here. I think
we're seeing a really big clash and tension within the
Republican Party on this. I mean, I'm sure you saw this,
this clip that's going viral of Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz,
and you know, I think that really shows where people
are right now on this. You know, the Senator Ted
(04:59):
Cruz is for military intervention and Tucker Carlson was saying,
you know, it was sort of grilling him, and Tucker
Carlson is not for it and saying, you know, you
can't answer these basic questions about Iran's population, the ethnic makeup,
and yet you're talking about, you know, military intervention.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Actually, oh sure, yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
I guess this whole podcast hasn't dropped yet or whatever
we call this show, right, this is a really important moment,
which is why we isolated this as well to watch
the unraveling here. The argument withinside Maga crystallized in this
conversation between Tucker Carlson and Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Let's watch and listen. How many people living around? By
the way, I don't know the population at all. No,
I don't know the population. You don't know the population
of the country. You seek to topple. How many people
living around?
Speaker 5 (05:46):
Ninety two million? Okay?
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Yeah, how could you not know that? I don't sit
around memorizing population tables.
Speaker 10 (05:54):
Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the
overthrow of the government.
Speaker 6 (05:58):
Why is it relevant whether it will because ninety million
or eighty million or a hundred million.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Why because if you don't know anything about the country.
I didn't say I don't know anything about Okay, what's
the ethnic mixer for? Wrong? They are Persians and well
predominantly Shia. This just got worse as it went.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
I mean that is that is a moment, as somebody
who's had a chance to interview Senator Ted Cruz a
couple of times, I've never imagined a conversation like that.
Is he finding himself on the outs with maggot? Where
where does the line fall between Steve Bannon and Ted Cruz?
Speaker 10 (06:29):
Right? I think we're we're figuring that out right now.
It's really interesting how this is playing out, and you know,
I heard I covered every single Trump rally. I went
to every single Trump rally, and so I heard all
of his campaign promises over and over again. And you know,
no new wars, and you know, Trump has been very
(06:49):
consistent in saying, you know, Iran should not have a
nuclear weapon, and he said that over and over again.
I heard him say it a million times. But what
I also heard him say a million times was the
US should not start new wars, should not get involved
in other wars, we should pull troops back, we should
you know, peace through strength was something that he talked
about a lot, and this he really outlined. And he's
(07:11):
been very you know also in his first term just this,
he's talked about this isolationist worldview and this kind of
America first, you know policy. And so I think there
are people who support the president, are big fans of
the president, and they're they're watching this play out and thinking,
this is not what I voted for, This is not
what I thought he was going to do, and this
(07:32):
this isn't really in line with what he said he
was going to do. And so I think it's it's
we're we're testing. I think Trump is testing the waters
here and there are definitely conflicting Republican and you know,
MAGA points of view here kind of bubbling up.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Well, he seems to be thinking, or the analysis around
the White House here, whomever's leaking at the moment, seems
to think that there might be maybe a delineation between
an isolated couple of strikes right against some underground bunk
and then we're done. Does does MAGA see it that way?
Or we don't have an answer on that yet.
Speaker 10 (08:05):
It's a great question. I guess we don't know. I
think there are some people who the Steve Bannons and
Tucker Carlson's who say, let's just not get involved at all,
because you know, it can be a slippery slope. You know,
it starts out as one strike or two strikes, and
then all of a sudden you're kind of really entangled in,
(08:26):
you know, a war that is, you know, in MAGA
point of view, you know, a million miles away and
has nothing to do with the United States. That's what
you know. They would say, exactly, walk into a much
wider conflict, right and then things escalate.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
So he says the Iranians are too late, or it's
very late. He said, maybe not too late, but they're
very late. Then he says Jay Powell's too that's his nickname,
is too late. He called the FED share stupid today
and he, by the way, came back around that he
said he hates him, thinks Jay Powell hates the president.
We're a couple of hours away here from a FED decision.
(09:01):
This is just going to get worse when he doesn't
get a rate cut.
Speaker 10 (09:03):
I guess right, that's right. And I think you're hearing
Trump sort of brace for that and already saying, you know,
I don't think I'm going to get what I want,
and the typical he's been attacking Powe, you know for
months and months, and I think we're just hearing more
of the same of kind of you know, he should
be Trump views it as he should be working with
me here. He should be helping me, and Europe is
(09:25):
doing these cuts and so why can't the United States do.
I think he's very visibly frustrated with Powell, like personally,
and you know that's where all the personal attacks come in.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
I'm sure there might be more UNDREU socialist coming our way. Kate,
great to see you, Thank you so much. Kate Sullivan,
Bloomberg White House correspondent with us here on the Wednesday
edition of Balance of Power.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
He thinks J. Powell hates him. Jay Powell's a deadhead.
I didn't think that was possible.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
We have an important conversation coming up next from the
Lexington Institute, doctor Rebecca Grant on the options facing the
president today on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
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 3 (10:20):
Michael McKee, I talked to him a little while ago
in the newsroom. Is on his way over as we speak,
and will be at the FED to ask the tough
questions of J.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Powell.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
He must be sitting around trying to figure out how
do I how do we do this again?
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Right?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
It's the same conversation at every meeting. Just ask Donald Trump,
and surely he'll be asked about Donald Trump's insults this morning.
He called the FED chair stupid multiple times and suggested
that J. Powell hates him, said he was political, as
we remind everyone that J. Powell is a Republican who
(10:55):
was appointed by Donald Trump. Zachary Cohen at CNN is
reporting that there's another carrier strike group that's being deployed.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Jerry Ford is on its way.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
The USS Ford expected to be deployed to Europe next week,
near the Middle East, putting a third aircraft carrier in
close proximity, as he writes, to the conflict between Israel
and Iran. Sources talking to CNN about this, we are
throwing a lot of equipment at this region.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Pretty remarkable, more than two dozen.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
As we told you, air to air tankers already in
the theater. We've got the USS nimits, the second carrier
strike group already steaming its way. Massive numbers of fighter
aircraft are on the ground. Beats who bombers are at
least positioned. They can fly all the way around the
world with air to air refuelers, do a thirty hour mission,
(11:43):
come back home, sleep in their own beds in the Midwest.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
It's pretty remarkable stuff.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
And all of this, of course, is based around the
big question of what Donald Trump is going to do.
What are we really preparing for here? Are we going
to join Israel's effort against Iran offensively militarily b Two's
with American pilots dropping American bombs as we continue to
hear those would be required to break through the likes
(12:09):
of four Doh and the other underground installations.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
We've spent a lot of time talking.
Speaker 9 (12:14):
About this this week.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
And I'd like to just move the conversation a little
bit away from this toward the other options. The President
is not only looking at this one option when he's
in the situation room with his national security team, they
are unloading a buffet, a menu of options that the
president can use here. That's what we wanted to talk
(12:37):
to Rebecca Grant about. She understands the nuances of this
better than anybody from her perch at the Lexington Institute,
where she is Vice president. Doctor Rebecca Grant, Welcome back
to Bloomberg. It's great to have you here at this
sensitive moment. We've talked a lot about the potential for
this happening, and here we are now, and I wonder
your thoughts on some of the alternate plans that the
(13:00):
president is hearing about. For instance, knocking out power to
for doll letting the center fugues spin out of control.
What else is he hearing from his team today?
Speaker 8 (13:14):
I think President Trump is evaluating a big range of options.
But make no mistake, the main thing on the menu
here is US airpower, probably in the form of very
precise B two bomber strike. So this is not a
ground operation, This is not a major war with Iran.
(13:36):
This is very precise, detailed impacts perhaps on Iran's nuclear
weapons capability, and as you suggest, always have to add
into that cyber activity, maybe a possibility of Israeli special
forces action on the ground. Who knows, but they have
(13:57):
air superiority there. Really, Joe, we're down, I think at
this point to the weaponeering. So people are coming into
brief Donald Trump saying, if we put this bomb on
this aim point this many times, here is the expected damage.
Their goal to make sure that Iran can never have
a nuclear bomb and can never reconstitute that capability.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Interesting, are there other half measures?
Speaker 3 (14:21):
And if that sort of saboteur's approach to knocking out power,
for instance, or a cyber attack would would that also
be part of an air campaign. I don't know where
this power is coming from, at a site like for
Dough or at Natan's how would that be accomplished?
Speaker 8 (14:36):
Well, it could be, And what the whole thing tells
us is, you know, again, this is not a big
regime change air campaign. This is very specifically focused on
ruining high level complicated machinery that Iran uses. That can
be done by having that machinery break that was done
with the computer virus several years ago in one of
(14:56):
Iran's facilities. It can be done by denying power or
the sort of get a bomb through those levels of
dirt and concrete and make enough rubble and disruption of
the whole thing. So I think there will be a
cyber component to this, unquestionably. I think the question now
for President Trump is would putting a few bunker busters
(15:18):
or heavy bombs from the US into that target set?
What are the weaponeering effects? Is it going to accomplish
what he wants? And is this the right moment to
make that strike. There's probably never been a better moment
with Iran's air defenses peeled back the way they are.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Well, this is what we keep hearing from those who
support the idea. Doctor We heard from the director of
the IAEA, Raphael Grossi, was talking to Bloomberg earlier today
about some of the potential changes that could happen on
the ground while we're in the midst of what is
this now, day six, and whether in fact Iran is
capable of moving some of this material that we would
(15:56):
be attacking.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Let's listen to what he said.
Speaker 11 (15:58):
In principle, it is there. It is there, as you
can imagine at a time of war. At a time
of war, all nuclear sites are closed. So our inspectors
who are still i must say still in Iran, although
they are in a protected place as you can imagine,
(16:19):
but they are not inspecting no inspection, normal activity can
take place. We assume we have not seen anything that
would suggest that the stockpile has been moved.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Okay, if you had any trouble hearing him his telling
us that the inspectors are still in the country, but
of course they're not at the nuclear sites. They are
closed right now, doctor, Do we have eyes via satellites
on any potential movement of stockpiles inside ir On?
Speaker 8 (16:48):
Oh, yes, we have. We have so many eyes. You know,
this is satellites, aircraft, you know, the air Force has
a particular aircraft that can sniff nuclear radiation in the atmosphere.
I have to say, I think Raphael Grossi has really
worked hard on not only in Iran but in Ukraine
as well, and at some point it does come down
to inspectors from the IAEA the UN saying yep, you
(17:12):
know the stuff's been moved, or there is no nuclear
program left, or here's the damage that's been caused. No.
I think he's talking specifically about if you Ran agreed
to move out the highly enriched uranium and maybe some machinery.
You know, the Russians have offered to take it. Who
knows how would that take place at this point, but
(17:33):
you know, we'd have to see some sincerity from Iran
to me that would perhaps start with no more Iranian
missile attacks on Israel. But this is all something that
President Trump has the intelligence assets to be able to
evaluate if it Ran is serious or if they're still
running around trying to launch missiles.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Well, just as you say that, Rebecca, like clockwork, headline
crosses the terminal the IDF telling us that it is
identified the launch of another round of missiles toward Israel.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
So this can continues at this moment.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
I spoke with Ron Dermer a couple of days ago here,
Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs, and he pointed to American
pilots flying aircraft as part of this operation defensively, as
we saw last year firing interceptor missiles at ballistic missiles
shot by Iran.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
What would happen if one of them was shot down.
Speaker 8 (18:25):
They have a search and rescue plan in place. It's
not easy to execute, but we have extracted people. Believe me,
these pilots don't fly without at least a plan for
combat search and rescue. Remember a lot of this is
taking place over Iraqi airspace, Jordanian airspace, and yes, we
are very involved defensively from space force watching the Iranian
(18:48):
missile flares and passing that warning along to our carrier
and land based pilots, who are I believe, looking for
drones to shoot down. And then of course our navy
that has already done some exo atmospheric ballistic missile intercepts
against Iranian missiles, so we are in there defensively. It's
a hugely important part of containing Iran second aircraft carrier
(19:10):
getting close to nearly fifty thousand American forces deployed there
as we try to contain anti nuclearized Iran and another.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Boat with five thousand sailors on the way. You know,
it's remarkable to see the way Israel used drones. You
mentioned drone technology in the initial attack, not unlike the
way Ukraine planted them behind enemy lines in Russia. We
saw that take place with Masad agents planting drones inside
Iran and they were launched remotely. This is something that
(19:41):
we've talked about a lot, the changing sort of dynamic
when it comes to the most effective weapons platforms, what
we should be buying, procurement reform, and there's a there's
an argument here about whether we should be buying a
lot of cheap drones to do this or putting very
expensive modern fighter planes in the air with actual live
people inside them.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Rebecca Grant, you've made the.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Case that you need to have actual manned aircraft to
get this job done.
Speaker 8 (20:10):
Hey, drones are great, we need a lot of them,
and the US has used them since the Gulf War
to attack and in the air defense systems. But the
Operation Rising Line proves again that you need manned fighters
carrying heavy ordinance with really smart aircrews responding to orders.
That's what Israel has used over and over. We've seen
manned fighters deployed on the carriers, a new wave of fighters,
(20:34):
aircrews and the tankers doing that. So hey, manned aircraft
are very important. They will be in any scenario, including
facing China in the Pacific. So hey, A big lesson
here is we have got to restock our manned air power.
Air Force F forty seven, get the navy ats secret
carrier plane that they're about to decide on. We need
(20:54):
all of that to team with those drones.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Is this the end of the Tomcat? Did we blow
up all the F fourteens left? This is what all
the top gun kids want to know. What happened to
the Tomcats?
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Rebecca? Are they gone?
Speaker 8 (21:07):
We've seen at least a few. They weren't in very
good condition. That dates back to when we were friends
with their ran and they flew the F fourteens. We
saw at least one blown up. Yeah, yeah, I think
are not in frible status.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
No sign of tom cruise behind enemy lines, Doctor Rebecca Grant,
it's great to see you. Thank you for the briefing.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
As always from the Lexington Institute I'm Joe, Matthew and
Washington am glad you were along here on the Wednesday edition.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
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. Listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us
live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
The President has already been talking about today, referring to j.
Powell as stupid on a couple of occasions, using the
nickname too late, suggesting that he should start cutting rates
yesterday and that's not expected to happen today. We'll have
more on that a little bit later this hour as
we walk up to our special coverage with Kitty Richard,
senior fellow at the Groundwork Collaborative. Will be changing our
(22:12):
view on things as we get closer to the decision.
We want to stick with the bead on what's happening here.
Meantime on Capitol Hill, it is not only a conversation
today about whether we're going to see US military involvement
in a more offensive way in Iran or we're going
to talk to Congressman Lawler about that as well, but
it's of course, Mike Lawler, who has drawn a line
on the sand on salt, this being essentially the salt network.
(22:35):
I know how important this is to our listeners and viewers,
and Mike Lawler does as well. Because the Senate version
from the Senate Finance Committee of the Big Beautiful Bill
just came back to the House and it's not what
a lot of certainly members from New York and New
Jersey wanted to see. Spokes about this yesterday with Senator
(22:56):
Ron Johnson. He's a no vote on this. He wants
to see deeper spending cuts. And when you start talking
about deeper spending cuts or permanence with regard to business
tax breaks or the Trump tax cuts, you got to
find the money from somewhere, and the Senate seems to
think that pulling that out of the salt deal is
(23:18):
part of the way to get there. Ron Johnson still
no vote though, as he told us yesterday here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 4 (23:23):
Listen, Well, I'm currently in nope. I think the House
bill is something I basically support, but my problems it
just doesn't go far enough. At most, we'll be reducing
spending by about two trillion dollars over ten years we
increase spending by more than two trillion dollars in one
year from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty. And you know
it's a budget reconciliation process. We ought to be talking
(23:45):
about numbers.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Well, let's talk about numbers with the aforementioned Congressman Mike Lawler,
Republican from New York seventeenth. It's good to see you, Congressman.
Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. It's almost like
we're sitting in the same room. If you're with us
here on TV or on YouTube, I feel like I
can turn and talk to you.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Where are you on this right now?
Speaker 3 (24:06):
It was forty thousand dollars the salt cap established in
the House, so went next door and they chopped it
right back down to ten. But I'm told that this
is simply a placeholder and that there's yet another debate.
Are you ready to go through this whole fight again?
Speaker 6 (24:20):
Look, the bill, as the Senate has written, it is
dead on arrival. And I made that very clear the
other day when the language came out. But here's the
reality of this situation that I think many of my
Senate colleagues failed to recognize.
Speaker 5 (24:36):
At the end of the day.
Speaker 6 (24:37):
The cap on salt was nothing more than a pay
for back in twenty seventeen, and it paid for most
of the provisions of the tax cuts and jobs ACKed.
It here again is being used as a pay for
by not going back to unlimited. It's paying for the
doubling of the standard deduction, It's paying for no tax
(24:58):
on tips, no tax on over time, the expanded child
tax credit, among other key provisions, including business tax credits.
And we understand that that is all part of a negotiation.
It's all part of having a tax bill that actually
provides real tax relief to the middle class, to the
working class. This is not about the billionaires or the millionaires.
(25:20):
That's why we agreed to a forty thousand dollars salt
cap with a five hundred thousand dollars income cap. That
was a hard fought, good faith negotiation that we entered
into despite efforts to roll us, and we came to
an agreement with the White House and with House leadership.
We are not going back on that agreement. And I
(25:43):
think what the Senate needs to recognize they can make changes,
they can enter into negotiations, but the fact is you
need two hundred and eighteen votes to pass.
Speaker 5 (25:52):
This in the House.
Speaker 6 (25:53):
And there is not a chance in hell that this
bill will pass at ten thousand dollars, let alone less
than forty thousand.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
So it's anything under forty is you.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
I know, you've got to talk tough on this because
you hear it off the air from Republican members that ah,
the Salt guys in New York, they knew they were negotiating.
They went for forty oh, and it was going to
come in at thirty as the House Ways and Means
Committee said, you're a no on thirty thousand, right.
Speaker 6 (26:20):
No, if we were going to accept thirty, we were
just accept thirty that that is a no. And I
guess people, you know, want to try and call our bluff.
They tried that in the House. They tried to jam us,
and we didn't fold. And we're not going to fold here.
We're not trying to stop the bill. We are making
(26:42):
the point that this was a good faith negotiation. This
is the agreement, and this is what the final number
is going to be. And I would just remind everybody,
you know, you look at ten thousand, this isn't just
about Blue states. First of all, Salt applies to everybody.
It's not just particular to New York or California and
New Jersey. But second of all, twenty nine states blew
(27:05):
past the ten thousand dollars cap with the average salt
tax burden over the past seven years. So you know,
leaving it at ten thousand will be a crushing blow
to middle class and working class families all throughout this country.
And if the objective is to provide real tax relief
(27:25):
and grow the economy and allow for people to invest
in jobs and businesses and in the stock market, then
having a real salt cap that we can provide tax
relief with is vital. And we're not going to cave
on this.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
We're not well. So this is obviously your things taken.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
I just wonder how do you fix it? How do
you fix it? Congressman is does this go to a
conference committee? Does Mike Johnson have to carry this water
for you? How do you get it back to forty?
Speaker 5 (27:55):
Well, look, we're still talking to senators.
Speaker 6 (27:58):
We're going to have a conversation today, and you know,
I'm speaking with the speaker, and the speaker certainly understands
our position. He agrees with us, even if he doesn't
fully support you know, Salt, He understands how important this
is to passage of the bill, and this is just
(28:18):
the reality of government.
Speaker 5 (28:20):
You're not going to get everything you want, and you
have to negotiate. We negotiated.
Speaker 6 (28:25):
This was the agreement, and whether the Senate likes it
or not, this is going to be the number.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
I want to stick through a couple of other important
items with you while we have you, Congressman, because you
serve as well on the Committee on Foreign Affairs in
the House, where's your gut? As in many cases, Republicans
argue with Republicans about what President Trump should do right
now in Iran? I know you support Israel's right to
defend itself, but do we need to put American B
(28:51):
two bombers in the air to help finish the job?
Speaker 5 (28:55):
I don't think there's any question about that.
Speaker 6 (28:56):
I think Israel obviously has made tremendous strides over the
last few days and really speaks volumes to their military
prowess and intelligence. But ultimately, you know, to get the
job done, I don't think there's any question. You know,
(29:17):
the US is going to have to be engaged. I'm
not advocating for troops on the ground. I'm not advocating
for regime change. The bottom line is Iran cannot have
a nuclear weapon. President Trump has made that clear for years.
Republicans and Democrats both prior presidents and in Congress have
made that clear for years. The time has come, and
(29:41):
ultimately we need to finish the job. They cannot have
a nuclear program. They have shown a willingness to use
ballistic missiles target at civilian populations with the express intent
of killing Jews and eradicating the state of Israel. Folks
have to remember there are seven hundred Thousandmurricans that are
(30:01):
dual citizens and live in Israel at least part time,
if not full time. These are Americans on the ground
in Israel being attacked. We have forty thousand troops in
the region under threat of attack. We have to make
sure that this threat is eliminated. Ultimately, a weakened Iran,
(30:22):
a denuclearized Iran is the best hope for the Iranian
people to rise up and reclaim their government.
Speaker 5 (30:32):
That will be their choice.
Speaker 6 (30:33):
That is not a choice for the United States or
Israel or anyone else, but it will give the best
opportunity for that to happen, and in doing so, will
give the best opportunity for peace and prosperity in the
Middle East for years to come.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Wow, the time has come, says Congressman Mike Lawler. If
our involvement offensively was limited to a series of strikes
as we've heard referred to it against these nuclear enrichment
sites and no more, would you be comfortable with President
Trump conducting this on his own or does Congress need
to have a say?
Speaker 6 (31:09):
Yes, I would be comfortable with the President making that determination. Obviously,
in years past, presidents from both parties have made these
determinations in limited strikes without getting Congressional approval to do
so in that moment, and certainly, if that is the
(31:30):
decision that is made for the express purpose of eliminating
Iran's nuclear capabilities, I fully support it.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Lastly, Congressman, from your perch on financial services, you're wishing
there was a rate cut coming today, I'm guessing there's
not going to be one. How concerned are you that
J Powell, as Donald Trump says, it's too late?
Speaker 6 (31:52):
Look, despite j Pal's many predictions over the years, which
many of which have turned out to be wrong or
late to the ballgame. The fact is the economy is
in a very strong position. Inflation has come down, the
economy is growing, and ultimately, I think when we pass
(32:15):
the tax bill, you get deregulation into effect, you increase
domestic production of energy, you bring these conflicts to an
end and normalize relations and expand trade. The economy is
going to take off dramatically, and I think this is
something where the FED should be looking to ease tensions,
(32:37):
to start to bring down interest rates, which is.
Speaker 5 (32:42):
Vital to economic growth.
Speaker 6 (32:45):
And I certainly believe that it's time to bring the
rates down. I think the predictions over the last two
months tied to the tariffs have not borne out the
way many in the media and Democrats have speculated, and
so I do think it is time for these rates
to come down.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
It's great to have you with us, a Congressman, appreciate that,
Congressman Mike laula Republican from New York, from Salt to
Iran to the Fed. We're going to be turning things
over to our special FED coverage coming up in a little
more than fifteen minutes, with of course, an announcement on
rates coming at two PM. Want to assemble our panel
with more on what we just heard from the congressman
with regard to Iran. That was an important moment. You're
(33:25):
going to hear that played back. The time has come,
said Mike Lawler. Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican
strategist partner at Stone Court Capital is with us now
alongside Geenie Shanzano, Senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for
the Study of the Presidency and Congress.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Rick.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
How many Republicans does Mike Lawla represent in Washington today?
Speaker 9 (33:46):
You know, I think the vast majority. I mean, you know,
the Republican Party is still pretty hawkish. You know, in
the last year, even before the elections, we had a
majority in the House of Representative supporting aid for Ukraine
against Russia. I think Ran is the unifying force. It
is the greatest evil empire left in the world compared
(34:07):
them to Russia and China. We can have a dialogue
with Russia in China, but we cannot have a dialogue
with Iran. And Iran has been a basis for mischief
in the world for a long time. They sponsor terrorism
around the world, and so I really don't think there's
a lot of daylight between the Republican Party and the
(34:31):
and the need to do something about making sure Iran
never has the capability of crafting a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
Then there's Tim Kaine and the likes of Democrats who
want to limit the president's war powers in this case, Genie,
where are Democrats going to stand if there is an
announcement from the White House that American bombers are in
the air?
Speaker 7 (34:52):
Well? We have heard from many Democrats who support the
president in if he does decide to assist openly, either
offensively or certainly continue defensively. You know, We've heard Adam Schiff,
We've heard others, So there is a split in the
Democratic Party. We've also heard Democrats on the other side,
joining people like Tom Massey, that would be Alexandrio Casio Coortes,
(35:16):
il haan Omar. So very much like the Republican Party,
there is a split on the best path forward for this.
And I thought another really fascinating thing that the representative
said was the fact that he would not support boots
on the ground. I think there are a lot of
people who agree with Mike Lawler on that they would
(35:38):
allow for support whether it is aid, whether it is
offensive or defensive support, but not support for boots on
the ground. And that is a question that has been
raised by military experts. Can Israel Can the US really
destroy Iran's ability to get nuclear weapons not just in
the short term, but in the long term without boots
(35:59):
on the ground, And that is a big question. And
to hear him say no, I wouldn't support that, I
think is also very telling.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Rick.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
How if the White House decides to act, should this
be rolled out? Does the President needs to address the
American people in prime time? Is that old fashioned? To
what extent of the American people need to be prepared
for this?
Speaker 9 (36:21):
Well, we do know Donald Trump likes these big moments
in a presidency. The symbolism of the Oval Office, the
Resolute desk is not lost on this president. That being said,
I would I would think it would be always after
the fact. I mean, these are operations that are best
left in the secret. You know, no sense in telegraphing
(36:44):
our punch to Iran, And so I wouldn't anticipate the
President forecasting his intent to strike Iran to you know,
degrade his ability to to manufacture a bomb, and until
after the fact. And then I do think you know,
(37:06):
there is an opening at that point to say, Okay,
now let's figure out what happens next, because it may
not need much more attention militarily in Iran if we
do indeed use some of our unique capability to destroy
these facilities.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Rick Davis and Genie Shanzeno with analysis as we wait
for a decision from President Trump, Bloomberg Politics contributors. Many
thanks to both of you for your insights. 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
(37:48):
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):
Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I'm Joe Matthew in the Nation's capital here on Bloomberg
Radio Satellite radio Channel one twenty one, on YouTube, where
you can see US now, search Bloomberg Business News Live,
and on Bloomberg Originals. As we bring it all together
on what is day six now, if you can imagine
how much our world has changed since last Thursday, Day
six of fighting between Israel and Iran. No unconditional surrender
(00:50):
by Tehran as demanded by the President yesterday, and so
we're still in this state of limbo here floating a
couple of feet above the ground, waiting for news from
the White House, and the President was certainly asked about it.
He found him on the South Long a little while
ago with a group of workers who were there to
install a flagpole.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
They actually held an event around the flagpole.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
The President was asked about whether the US will join
Israel offensively in its war against Iran.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
I mean, you don't know that I'm going to even
do it.
Speaker 5 (01:20):
You don't know.
Speaker 6 (01:21):
I may do it, I may not do it.
Speaker 5 (01:22):
I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.
Speaker 7 (01:24):
I can tell you this that.
Speaker 8 (01:27):
Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate.
Speaker 6 (01:31):
And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before
all the death and destruction?
Speaker 9 (01:35):
Why intian Nego?
Speaker 10 (01:36):
I said the people, why didn't you negotiate with me
two weeks ago?
Speaker 5 (01:41):
You could have done fine.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
You could have done fine, he says. Now, Iran's got
a lot of trouble.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Trying to not show his cards on this, having spent
a good deal of time in the situation room yesterday
with his national security team, and as I mentioned, the
world waiting for a decision here. Whether we or see
from him again today, of course, has yet to be seen,
and whether we get news on truth social all the same.
This is big stuff, and Kate Sullivan is covering it
(02:10):
for us here from her perch at Bloomberg White House. Correspondent, Kate,
it's great to have you back the President's demeanor today
was interesting. He seemed kind of tired. He had the
hat on sometimes. I don't know if it's a bad
hair day or whatever, but he looked.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Like always got the hat on. Yeah, white maga hat today.
Speaker 7 (02:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Group of workers behind him, and he spent as much
time turning to talk to them, kind of riffing with
them as he was with the press.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Is this a moment of indecision for this president?
Speaker 10 (02:38):
It could be? You know, I think what you heard there,
I mean the I may do it, I may not
do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
How about that?
Speaker 3 (02:46):
How about that?
Speaker 10 (02:47):
I mean, clearly no clarity there. One thing that I
took away from that exchange too, was the door is
still cracked open for negotiations. And he said, you know,
we may meet, and said that their onians wanted to
or suggested that they come to the White House. Now
that is news, and and you know, very unclear whether
that's actually going to happen. I think, you know, Whitcough
(03:09):
has been leading these discussions with their onions. I think
that could be a more likely scenario that Whitcoff meets
with them. But you know, at this point, there are
reports that Trump is leaning towards a military strike. It's
also possible that, you know, once again we're seeing Trump
deploy the same kind of tactic here and making these
(03:32):
very public aggressive threats, but that it's really you know,
what he wants, is it to pressure Rudians to come
to the table to negotiate. Now, so we don't actually
know what which one of those it is, or if
it's a combination, or if there you know, our intentions
to strike. I think we're still going to have to
stay tuned and see what he says.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
By design, which I understand he is kind of laughing
at reporters and I kind of tell you here what.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
I'm going to do.
Speaker 10 (03:57):
Yeah, I'll give you the coordination.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Yeah, But how is he actually spending his time?
Speaker 3 (04:03):
We know he was in the situation room yesterday. Is
he's surrounding himself with advisors right now? Is he making
calls to other world leaders? He is a combination, he is, Yes.
Speaker 10 (04:13):
He said that he's in constant touch with Israel's prime minister.
He also said that he spoke to Putin yesterday. So
he's definitely surrounded by, you know, top national security officials,
and he's making calls to world leaders. You know, he
has also One thing that I think is really interesting
is seeing, you know, some of these people he's calling,
(04:36):
not all of his allies and supporters are really on
board with what he's talking about doing here. I think
we're seeing a really big clash and tension within the
Republican Party on this. I mean, I'm sure you saw this,
this clip that's going viral of Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz,
and you know, I think that really shows where people
are right now on this. You know, the Senator Ted
(04:59):
Cruz is for military intervention and Tucker Carlson was saying,
you know, it was sort of grilling him, and Tucker
Carlson is not for it and saying, you know, you
can't answer these basic questions about Iran's population, the ethnic makeup,
and yet you're talking about, you know, military intervention.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Actually, oh sure, yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
I guess this whole podcast hasn't dropped yet or whatever
we call this show, right, this is a really important moment,
which is why we isolated this as well to watch
the unraveling here. The argument withinside Maga crystallized in this
conversation between Tucker Carlson and Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Let's watch and listen. How many people living around? By
the way, I don't know the population at all. No,
I don't know the population. You don't know the population
of the country. You seek to topple. How many people
living around?
Speaker 5 (05:46):
Ninety two million? Okay?
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Yeah, how could you not know that? I don't sit
around memorizing population tables.
Speaker 10 (05:54):
Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the
overthrow of the government.
Speaker 6 (05:58):
Why is it relevant whether it will because ninety million
or eighty million or a hundred million.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Why because if you don't know anything about the country.
I didn't say I don't know anything about Okay, what's
the ethnic mixer for? Wrong? They are Persians and well
predominantly Shia. This just got worse as it went.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
I mean that is that is a moment, as somebody
who's had a chance to interview Senator Ted Cruz a
couple of times, I've never imagined a conversation like that.
Is he finding himself on the outs with maggot? Where
where does the line fall between Steve Bannon and Ted Cruz?
Speaker 10 (06:29):
Right? I think we're we're figuring that out right now.
It's really interesting how this is playing out, and you know,
I heard I covered every single Trump rally. I went
to every single Trump rally, and so I heard all
of his campaign promises over and over again. And you know,
no new wars, and you know, Trump has been very
(06:49):
consistent in saying, you know, Iran should not have a
nuclear weapon, and he said that over and over again.
I heard him say it a million times. But what
I also heard him say a million times was the
US should not start new wars, should not get involved
in other wars, we should pull troops back, we should
you know, peace through strength was something that he talked
about a lot, and this he really outlined. And he's
(07:11):
been very you know also in his first term just this,
he's talked about this isolationist worldview and this kind of
America first, you know policy. And so I think there
are people who support the president, are big fans of
the president, and they're they're watching this play out and thinking,
this is not what I voted for, This is not
what I thought he was going to do, and this
(07:32):
this isn't really in line with what he said he
was going to do. And so I think it's it's
we're we're testing. I think Trump is testing the waters
here and there are definitely conflicting Republican and you know,
MAGA points of view here kind of bubbling up.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Well, he seems to be thinking, or the analysis around
the White House here, whomever's leaking at the moment, seems
to think that there might be maybe a delineation between
an isolated couple of strikes right against some underground bunk
and then we're done. Does does MAGA see it that way?
Or we don't have an answer on that yet.
Speaker 10 (08:05):
It's a great question. I guess we don't know. I
think there are some people who the Steve Bannons and
Tucker Carlson's who say, let's just not get involved at all,
because you know, it can be a slippery slope. You know,
it starts out as one strike or two strikes, and
then all of a sudden you're kind of really entangled in,
(08:26):
you know, a war that is, you know, in MAGA
point of view, you know, a million miles away and
has nothing to do with the United States. That's what
you know. They would say, exactly, walk into a much
wider conflict, right and then things escalate.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
So he says the Iranians are too late, or it's
very late. He said, maybe not too late, but they're
very late. Then he says Jay Powell's too that's his nickname,
is too late. He called the FED share stupid today
and he, by the way, came back around that he
said he hates him, thinks Jay Powell hates the president.
We're a couple of hours away here from a FED decision.
(09:01):
This is just going to get worse when he doesn't
get a rate cut.
Speaker 10 (09:03):
I guess right, that's right. And I think you're hearing
Trump sort of brace for that and already saying, you know,
I don't think I'm going to get what I want,
and the typical he's been attacking Powe, you know for
months and months, and I think we're just hearing more
of the same of kind of you know, he should
be Trump views it as he should be working with
me here. He should be helping me, and Europe is
(09:25):
doing these cuts and so why can't the United States do.
I think he's very visibly frustrated with Powell, like personally,
and you know that's where all the personal attacks come in.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
I'm sure there might be more UNDREU socialist coming our way. Kate,
great to see you, Thank you so much. Kate Sullivan,
Bloomberg White House correspondent with us here on the Wednesday
edition of Balance of Power.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
He thinks J. Powell hates him. Jay Powell's a deadhead.
I didn't think that was possible.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
We have an important conversation coming up next from the
Lexington Institute, doctor Rebecca Grant on the options facing the
president today on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
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 3 (10:20):
Michael McKee, I talked to him a little while ago
in the newsroom. Is on his way over as we speak,
and will be at the FED to ask the tough
questions of J.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Powell.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
He must be sitting around trying to figure out how
do I how do we do this again?
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Right?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
It's the same conversation at every meeting. Just ask Donald Trump,
and surely he'll be asked about Donald Trump's insults this morning.
He called the FED chair stupid multiple times and suggested
that J. Powell hates him, said he was political, as
we remind everyone that J. Powell is a Republican who
(10:55):
was appointed by Donald Trump. Zachary Cohen at CNN is
reporting that there's another carrier strike group that's being deployed.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Jerry Ford is on its way.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
The USS Ford expected to be deployed to Europe next week,
near the Middle East, putting a third aircraft carrier in
close proximity, as he writes, to the conflict between Israel
and Iran. Sources talking to CNN about this, we are
throwing a lot of equipment at this region.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Pretty remarkable, more than two dozen.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
As we told you, air to air tankers already in
the theater. We've got the USS nimits, the second carrier
strike group already steaming its way. Massive numbers of fighter
aircraft are on the ground. Beats who bombers are at
least positioned. They can fly all the way around the
world with air to air refuelers, do a thirty hour mission,
(11:43):
come back home, sleep in their own beds in the Midwest.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
It's pretty remarkable stuff.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
And all of this, of course, is based around the
big question of what Donald Trump is going to do.
What are we really preparing for here? Are we going
to join Israel's effort against Iran offensively militarily b Two's
with American pilots dropping American bombs as we continue to
hear those would be required to break through the likes
(12:09):
of four Doh and the other underground installations.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
We've spent a lot of time talking.
Speaker 9 (12:14):
About this this week.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
And I'd like to just move the conversation a little
bit away from this toward the other options. The President
is not only looking at this one option when he's
in the situation room with his national security team, they
are unloading a buffet, a menu of options that the
president can use here. That's what we wanted to talk
(12:37):
to Rebecca Grant about. She understands the nuances of this
better than anybody from her perch at the Lexington Institute,
where she is Vice president. Doctor Rebecca Grant, Welcome back
to Bloomberg. It's great to have you here at this
sensitive moment. We've talked a lot about the potential for
this happening, and here we are now, and I wonder
your thoughts on some of the alternate plans that the
(13:00):
president is hearing about. For instance, knocking out power to
for doll letting the center fugues spin out of control.
What else is he hearing from his team today?
Speaker 8 (13:14):
I think President Trump is evaluating a big range of options.
But make no mistake, the main thing on the menu
here is US airpower, probably in the form of very
precise B two bomber strike. So this is not a
ground operation, This is not a major war with Iran.
(13:36):
This is very precise, detailed impacts perhaps on Iran's nuclear
weapons capability, and as you suggest, always have to add
into that cyber activity, maybe a possibility of Israeli special
forces action on the ground. Who knows, but they have
(13:57):
air superiority there. Really, Joe, we're down, I think at
this point to the weaponeering. So people are coming into
brief Donald Trump saying, if we put this bomb on
this aim point this many times, here is the expected damage.
Their goal to make sure that Iran can never have
a nuclear bomb and can never reconstitute that capability.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Interesting, are there other half measures?
Speaker 3 (14:21):
And if that sort of saboteur's approach to knocking out power,
for instance, or a cyber attack would would that also
be part of an air campaign. I don't know where
this power is coming from, at a site like for
Dough or at Natan's how would that be accomplished?
Speaker 8 (14:36):
Well, it could be, And what the whole thing tells
us is, you know, again, this is not a big
regime change air campaign. This is very specifically focused on
ruining high level complicated machinery that Iran uses. That can
be done by having that machinery break that was done
with the computer virus several years ago in one of
(14:56):
Iran's facilities. It can be done by denying power or
the sort of get a bomb through those levels of
dirt and concrete and make enough rubble and disruption of
the whole thing. So I think there will be a
cyber component to this, unquestionably. I think the question now
for President Trump is would putting a few bunker busters
(15:18):
or heavy bombs from the US into that target set?
What are the weaponeering effects? Is it going to accomplish
what he wants? And is this the right moment to
make that strike. There's probably never been a better moment
with Iran's air defenses peeled back the way they are.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Well, this is what we keep hearing from those who
support the idea. Doctor We heard from the director of
the IAEA, Raphael Grossi, was talking to Bloomberg earlier today
about some of the potential changes that could happen on
the ground while we're in the midst of what is
this now, day six, and whether in fact Iran is
capable of moving some of this material that we would
(15:56):
be attacking.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Let's listen to what he said.
Speaker 11 (15:58):
In principle, it is there. It is there, as you
can imagine at a time of war. At a time
of war, all nuclear sites are closed. So our inspectors
who are still i must say still in Iran, although
they are in a protected place as you can imagine,
(16:19):
but they are not inspecting no inspection, normal activity can
take place. We assume we have not seen anything that
would suggest that the stockpile has been moved.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Okay, if you had any trouble hearing him his telling
us that the inspectors are still in the country, but
of course they're not at the nuclear sites. They are
closed right now, doctor, Do we have eyes via satellites
on any potential movement of stockpiles inside ir On?
Speaker 8 (16:48):
Oh, yes, we have. We have so many eyes. You know,
this is satellites, aircraft, you know, the air Force has
a particular aircraft that can sniff nuclear radiation in the atmosphere.
I have to say, I think Raphael Grossi has really
worked hard on not only in Iran but in Ukraine
as well, and at some point it does come down
to inspectors from the IAEA the UN saying yep, you
(17:12):
know the stuff's been moved, or there is no nuclear
program left, or here's the damage that's been caused. No.
I think he's talking specifically about if you Ran agreed
to move out the highly enriched uranium and maybe some machinery.
You know, the Russians have offered to take it. Who
knows how would that take place at this point, but
(17:33):
you know, we'd have to see some sincerity from Iran
to me that would perhaps start with no more Iranian
missile attacks on Israel. But this is all something that
President Trump has the intelligence assets to be able to
evaluate if it Ran is serious or if they're still
running around trying to launch missiles.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Well, just as you say that, Rebecca, like clockwork, headline
crosses the terminal the IDF telling us that it is
identified the launch of another round of missiles toward Israel.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
So this can continues at this moment.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
I spoke with Ron Dermer a couple of days ago here,
Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs, and he pointed to American
pilots flying aircraft as part of this operation defensively, as
we saw last year firing interceptor missiles at ballistic missiles
shot by Iran.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
What would happen if one of them was shot down.
Speaker 8 (18:25):
They have a search and rescue plan in place. It's
not easy to execute, but we have extracted people. Believe me,
these pilots don't fly without at least a plan for
combat search and rescue. Remember a lot of this is
taking place over Iraqi airspace, Jordanian airspace, and yes, we
are very involved defensively from space force watching the Iranian
(18:48):
missile flares and passing that warning along to our carrier
and land based pilots, who are I believe, looking for
drones to shoot down. And then of course our navy
that has already done some exo atmospheric ballistic missile intercepts
against Iranian missiles, so we are in there defensively. It's
a hugely important part of containing Iran second aircraft carrier
(19:10):
getting close to nearly fifty thousand American forces deployed there
as we try to contain anti nuclearized Iran and another.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Boat with five thousand sailors on the way. You know,
it's remarkable to see the way Israel used drones. You
mentioned drone technology in the initial attack, not unlike the
way Ukraine planted them behind enemy lines in Russia. We
saw that take place with Masad agents planting drones inside
Iran and they were launched remotely. This is something that
(19:41):
we've talked about a lot, the changing sort of dynamic
when it comes to the most effective weapons platforms, what
we should be buying, procurement reform, and there's a there's
an argument here about whether we should be buying a
lot of cheap drones to do this or putting very
expensive modern fighter planes in the air with actual live
people inside them.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Rebecca Grant, you've made the.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Case that you need to have actual manned aircraft to
get this job done.
Speaker 8 (20:10):
Hey, drones are great, we need a lot of them,
and the US has used them since the Gulf War
to attack and in the air defense systems. But the
Operation Rising Line proves again that you need manned fighters
carrying heavy ordinance with really smart aircrews responding to orders.
That's what Israel has used over and over. We've seen
manned fighters deployed on the carriers, a new wave of fighters,
(20:34):
aircrews and the tankers doing that. So hey, manned aircraft
are very important. They will be in any scenario, including
facing China in the Pacific. So hey, A big lesson
here is we have got to restock our manned air power.
Air Force F forty seven, get the navy ats secret
carrier plane that they're about to decide on. We need
(20:54):
all of that to team with those drones.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Is this the end of the Tomcat? Did we blow
up all the F fourteens left? This is what all
the top gun kids want to know. What happened to
the Tomcats?
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Rebecca? Are they gone?
Speaker 8 (21:07):
We've seen at least a few. They weren't in very
good condition. That dates back to when we were friends
with their ran and they flew the F fourteens. We
saw at least one blown up. Yeah, yeah, I think
are not in frible status.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
No sign of tom cruise behind enemy lines, Doctor Rebecca Grant,
it's great to see you. Thank you for the briefing.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
As always from the Lexington Institute I'm Joe, Matthew and
Washington am glad you were along here on the Wednesday edition.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
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. Listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us
live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
The President has already been talking about today, referring to j.
Powell as stupid on a couple of occasions, using the
nickname too late, suggesting that he should start cutting rates
yesterday and that's not expected to happen today. We'll have
more on that a little bit later this hour as
we walk up to our special coverage with Kitty Richard,
senior fellow at the Groundwork Collaborative. Will be changing our
(22:12):
view on things as we get closer to the decision.
We want to stick with the bead on what's happening here.
Meantime on Capitol Hill, it is not only a conversation
today about whether we're going to see US military involvement
in a more offensive way in Iran or we're going
to talk to Congressman Lawler about that as well, but
it's of course, Mike Lawler, who has drawn a line
on the sand on salt, this being essentially the salt network.
(22:35):
I know how important this is to our listeners and viewers,
and Mike Lawler does as well. Because the Senate version
from the Senate Finance Committee of the Big Beautiful Bill
just came back to the House and it's not what
a lot of certainly members from New York and New
Jersey wanted to see. Spokes about this yesterday with Senator
(22:56):
Ron Johnson. He's a no vote on this. He wants
to see deeper spending cuts. And when you start talking
about deeper spending cuts or permanence with regard to business
tax breaks or the Trump tax cuts, you got to
find the money from somewhere, and the Senate seems to
think that pulling that out of the salt deal is
(23:18):
part of the way to get there. Ron Johnson still
no vote though, as he told us yesterday here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 4 (23:23):
Listen, Well, I'm currently in nope. I think the House
bill is something I basically support, but my problems it
just doesn't go far enough. At most, we'll be reducing
spending by about two trillion dollars over ten years we
increase spending by more than two trillion dollars in one
year from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty. And you know
it's a budget reconciliation process. We ought to be talking
(23:45):
about numbers.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Well, let's talk about numbers with the aforementioned Congressman Mike Lawler,
Republican from New York seventeenth. It's good to see you, Congressman.
Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. It's almost like
we're sitting in the same room. If you're with us
here on TV or on YouTube, I feel like I
can turn and talk to you.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Where are you on this right now?
Speaker 3 (24:06):
It was forty thousand dollars the salt cap established in
the House, so went next door and they chopped it
right back down to ten. But I'm told that this
is simply a placeholder and that there's yet another debate.
Are you ready to go through this whole fight again?
Speaker 6 (24:20):
Look, the bill, as the Senate has written, it is
dead on arrival. And I made that very clear the
other day when the language came out. But here's the
reality of this situation that I think many of my
Senate colleagues failed to recognize.
Speaker 5 (24:36):
At the end of the day.
Speaker 6 (24:37):
The cap on salt was nothing more than a pay
for back in twenty seventeen, and it paid for most
of the provisions of the tax cuts and jobs ACKed.
It here again is being used as a pay for
by not going back to unlimited. It's paying for the
doubling of the standard deduction, It's paying for no tax
(24:58):
on tips, no tax on over time, the expanded child
tax credit, among other key provisions, including business tax credits.
And we understand that that is all part of a negotiation.
It's all part of having a tax bill that actually
provides real tax relief to the middle class, to the
working class. This is not about the billionaires or the millionaires.
(25:20):
That's why we agreed to a forty thousand dollars salt
cap with a five hundred thousand dollars income cap. That
was a hard fought, good faith negotiation that we entered
into despite efforts to roll us, and we came to
an agreement with the White House and with House leadership.
We are not going back on that agreement. And I
(25:43):
think what the Senate needs to recognize they can make changes,
they can enter into negotiations, but the fact is you
need two hundred and eighteen votes to pass.
Speaker 5 (25:52):
This in the House.
Speaker 6 (25:53):
And there is not a chance in hell that this
bill will pass at ten thousand dollars, let alone less
than forty thousand.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
So it's anything under forty is you.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
I know, you've got to talk tough on this because
you hear it off the air from Republican members that ah,
the Salt guys in New York, they knew they were negotiating.
They went for forty oh, and it was going to
come in at thirty as the House Ways and Means
Committee said, you're a no on thirty thousand, right.
Speaker 6 (26:20):
No, if we were going to accept thirty, we were
just accept thirty that that is a no. And I
guess people, you know, want to try and call our bluff.
They tried that in the House. They tried to jam us,
and we didn't fold. And we're not going to fold here.
We're not trying to stop the bill. We are making
(26:42):
the point that this was a good faith negotiation. This
is the agreement, and this is what the final number
is going to be. And I would just remind everybody,
you know, you look at ten thousand, this isn't just
about Blue states. First of all, Salt applies to everybody.
It's not just particular to New York or California and
New Jersey. But second of all, twenty nine states blew
(27:05):
past the ten thousand dollars cap with the average salt
tax burden over the past seven years. So you know,
leaving it at ten thousand will be a crushing blow
to middle class and working class families all throughout this country.
And if the objective is to provide real tax relief
(27:25):
and grow the economy and allow for people to invest
in jobs and businesses and in the stock market, then
having a real salt cap that we can provide tax
relief with is vital. And we're not going to cave
on this.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
We're not well. So this is obviously your things taken.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
I just wonder how do you fix it? How do
you fix it? Congressman is does this go to a
conference committee? Does Mike Johnson have to carry this water
for you? How do you get it back to forty?
Speaker 5 (27:55):
Well, look, we're still talking to senators.
Speaker 6 (27:58):
We're going to have a conversation today, and you know,
I'm speaking with the speaker, and the speaker certainly understands
our position. He agrees with us, even if he doesn't
fully support you know, Salt, He understands how important this
is to passage of the bill, and this is just
(28:18):
the reality of government.
Speaker 5 (28:20):
You're not going to get everything you want, and you
have to negotiate. We negotiated.
Speaker 6 (28:25):
This was the agreement, and whether the Senate likes it
or not, this is going to be the number.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
I want to stick through a couple of other important
items with you while we have you, Congressman, because you
serve as well on the Committee on Foreign Affairs in
the House, where's your gut? As in many cases, Republicans
argue with Republicans about what President Trump should do right
now in Iran? I know you support Israel's right to
defend itself, but do we need to put American B
(28:51):
two bombers in the air to help finish the job?
Speaker 5 (28:55):
I don't think there's any question about that.
Speaker 6 (28:56):
I think Israel obviously has made tremendous strides over the
last few days and really speaks volumes to their military
prowess and intelligence. But ultimately, you know, to get the
job done, I don't think there's any question. You know,
(29:17):
the US is going to have to be engaged. I'm
not advocating for troops on the ground. I'm not advocating
for regime change. The bottom line is Iran cannot have
a nuclear weapon. President Trump has made that clear for years.
Republicans and Democrats both prior presidents and in Congress have
made that clear for years. The time has come, and
(29:41):
ultimately we need to finish the job. They cannot have
a nuclear program. They have shown a willingness to use
ballistic missiles target at civilian populations with the express intent
of killing Jews and eradicating the state of Israel. Folks
have to remember there are seven hundred Thousandmurricans that are
(30:01):
dual citizens and live in Israel at least part time,
if not full time. These are Americans on the ground
in Israel being attacked. We have forty thousand troops in
the region under threat of attack. We have to make
sure that this threat is eliminated. Ultimately, a weakened Iran,
(30:22):
a denuclearized Iran is the best hope for the Iranian
people to rise up and reclaim their government.
Speaker 5 (30:32):
That will be their choice.
Speaker 6 (30:33):
That is not a choice for the United States or
Israel or anyone else, but it will give the best
opportunity for that to happen, and in doing so, will
give the best opportunity for peace and prosperity in the
Middle East for years to come.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Wow, the time has come, says Congressman Mike Lawler. If
our involvement offensively was limited to a series of strikes
as we've heard referred to it against these nuclear enrichment
sites and no more, would you be comfortable with President
Trump conducting this on his own or does Congress need
to have a say?
Speaker 6 (31:09):
Yes, I would be comfortable with the President making that determination. Obviously,
in years past, presidents from both parties have made these
determinations in limited strikes without getting Congressional approval to do
so in that moment, and certainly, if that is the
(31:30):
decision that is made for the express purpose of eliminating
Iran's nuclear capabilities, I fully support it.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Lastly, Congressman, from your perch on financial services, you're wishing
there was a rate cut coming today, I'm guessing there's
not going to be one. How concerned are you that
J Powell, as Donald Trump says, it's too late?
Speaker 6 (31:52):
Look, despite j Pal's many predictions over the years, which
many of which have turned out to be wrong or
late to the ballgame. The fact is the economy is
in a very strong position. Inflation has come down, the
economy is growing, and ultimately, I think when we pass
(32:15):
the tax bill, you get deregulation into effect, you increase
domestic production of energy, you bring these conflicts to an
end and normalize relations and expand trade. The economy is
going to take off dramatically, and I think this is
something where the FED should be looking to ease tensions,
(32:37):
to start to bring down interest rates, which is.
Speaker 5 (32:42):
Vital to economic growth.
Speaker 6 (32:45):
And I certainly believe that it's time to bring the
rates down. I think the predictions over the last two
months tied to the tariffs have not borne out the
way many in the media and Democrats have speculated, and
so I do think it is time for these rates
to come down.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
It's great to have you with us, a Congressman, appreciate that,
Congressman Mike laula Republican from New York, from Salt to
Iran to the Fed. We're going to be turning things
over to our special FED coverage coming up in a little
more than fifteen minutes, with of course, an announcement on
rates coming at two PM. Want to assemble our panel
with more on what we just heard from the congressman
with regard to Iran. That was an important moment. You're
(33:25):
going to hear that played back. The time has come,
said Mike Lawler. Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican
strategist partner at Stone Court Capital is with us now
alongside Geenie Shanzano, Senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for
the Study of the Presidency and Congress.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Rick.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
How many Republicans does Mike Lawla represent in Washington today?
Speaker 9 (33:46):
You know, I think the vast majority. I mean, you know,
the Republican Party is still pretty hawkish. You know, in
the last year, even before the elections, we had a
majority in the House of Representative supporting aid for Ukraine
against Russia. I think Ran is the unifying force. It
is the greatest evil empire left in the world compared
(34:07):
them to Russia and China. We can have a dialogue
with Russia in China, but we cannot have a dialogue
with Iran. And Iran has been a basis for mischief
in the world for a long time. They sponsor terrorism
around the world, and so I really don't think there's
a lot of daylight between the Republican Party and the
(34:31):
and the need to do something about making sure Iran
never has the capability of crafting a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
Then there's Tim Kaine and the likes of Democrats who
want to limit the president's war powers in this case, Genie,
where are Democrats going to stand if there is an
announcement from the White House that American bombers are in
the air?
Speaker 7 (34:52):
Well? We have heard from many Democrats who support the
president in if he does decide to assist openly, either
offensively or certainly continue defensively. You know, We've heard Adam Schiff,
We've heard others, So there is a split in the
Democratic Party. We've also heard Democrats on the other side,
joining people like Tom Massey, that would be Alexandrio Casio Coortes,
(35:16):
il haan Omar. So very much like the Republican Party,
there is a split on the best path forward for this.
And I thought another really fascinating thing that the representative
said was the fact that he would not support boots
on the ground. I think there are a lot of
people who agree with Mike Lawler on that they would
(35:38):
allow for support whether it is aid, whether it is
offensive or defensive support, but not support for boots on
the ground. And that is a question that has been
raised by military experts. Can Israel Can the US really
destroy Iran's ability to get nuclear weapons not just in
the short term, but in the long term without boots
(35:59):
on the ground, And that is a big question. And
to hear him say no, I wouldn't support that, I
think is also very telling.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Rick.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
How if the White House decides to act, should this
be rolled out? Does the President needs to address the
American people in prime time? Is that old fashioned? To
what extent of the American people need to be prepared
for this?
Speaker 9 (36:21):
Well, we do know Donald Trump likes these big moments
in a presidency. The symbolism of the Oval Office, the
Resolute desk is not lost on this president. That being said,
I would I would think it would be always after
the fact. I mean, these are operations that are best
left in the secret. You know, no sense in telegraphing
(36:44):
our punch to Iran, And so I wouldn't anticipate the
President forecasting his intent to strike Iran to you know,
degrade his ability to to manufacture a bomb, and until
after the fact. And then I do think you know,
(37:06):
there is an opening at that point to say, Okay,
now let's figure out what happens next, because it may
not need much more attention militarily in Iran if we
do indeed use some of our unique capability to destroy
these facilities.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Rick Davis and Genie Shanzeno with analysis as we wait
for a decision from President Trump, Bloomberg Politics contributors. Many
thanks to both of you for your insights. 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
(37:48):
every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg
dot com.
Popular Podcasts
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!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.