June 9, 2025 • 45 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
Trade talks between the US and China will continue into a second day, according to a US official, as the two sides look to ease tensions over shipments of technology and rare earth elements.
Representatives for both nations ended their first day of negotiations in London after more than six hours of discussions at Lancaster House, a 19th century mansion near Buckingham Palace. The talks concluded around 8 p.m. London time. The advisers will meet again Tuesday at 10 a.m. in the British capital, the official said.
The US delegation was led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The presence of Lutnick, the former Cantor Fitzgerald CEO, underscored the importance that export controls are playing in these discussions.
Bloomberg Washington Correspondents Joe Mathieu and Kailey Leinz deliver insight and analysis on the latest headlines from the White House and Capitol Hill, including conversations with influential lawmakers and key figures in politics and policy. On this edition, Joe and Kailey speak with:
- Bloomberg Chief Political Correspondent Annmarie Hordern.
- Wiley Rein Partner Nazak Nikakhtar.
- Bloomberg's Tom Keene and Paul Sweeney interview former New York Governor and Candidate for Mayor of New York City Andrew Cuomo.
- S-3 Group Partner Ashley Davis.
- Bloomberg Politics Contributor Jeanne Sheehan Zaino and Former RNC Communications Director Lisa Camooso Miller.
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, Cocklay 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):
Happy Monday to you as we kick off this new
week in Washington with our eyes specifically on what's happening
in London another round of trade negotiations between the world's
two largest economies, the US and China. Remembering that an
agreement was struck in Geneva last month to lower tariffs
for ninety days, but it was a little bit fuzzy
as to what else was part of that agreement, specifically
(00:45):
what China was committing to in unrestricting exports of critical
minerals to the United States. President Trump got Shijin Ping
on the phone last week to try to clear that up,
and of course they're working on hammering out those fine
details as we speak, the principles right now now at
this hour, Joe still gathered in London.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
That was a perfect setup in Bloomberg's and Marie Hordern
is actually at the scene to carry the ball under
what happens next? Bloomberg's chief political correspondent outside that meeting
and Marie, how's it going inside?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Well, they just arrived five hours ago and they are
still at the negotiating table. About half hour ago we
actually saw food delivery being brought in, So they plan,
I think, on spending a few more hours here in London.
Just past six pm, so these talks are bleeding into
the evening and potentially even till into tomorrow. What we
do know from earlier the NEC director Kevin Hassett talking
(01:37):
about the fact the contours potentially of this deal easing
some export controls that the United States has in place
for semiconductors going to China, and then on the Chinese side,
the US wants to see more licenses when it comes
to rare earths and magnets. They want to see an
advanced pace that they thought they agreed upon in Geneva.
(01:58):
The issue, of course, is what are the red lines
for both of these economies. For China, it's clearly getting
their hands on these advanced semiconductors, but how far is
the United States willing to go? Say, are they willing
to use potentially the h twenty Nvidia chips as a
negotiating chip, and when it comes to China, how quickly
are they really going to ramp up those rare earths?
(02:21):
And I think what this shows you is that we
are just four weeks out for when these two delegations
met in Geneva. It just shows you how difficult trade
negotiations are and reminds us all of how difficult it
was for the purchasing agreement in Trump's first administration. That
trade war started in twenty eighteen and a deal wasn't
in place until twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Well, when we consider who was in the room today,
Anne Marie obviously, Holy Funk and Scott Best and Howard
Lutnik are all there. Very high level talks are taking place,
But it was President Trump communicating directly with Xijinping by
phone for the first time since assuming office for his
second term that got our attention and the idea as
to the extent to which this sets the stage for
(03:02):
a face to face meeting between the two upmost leaders, Well.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
That phone call definitely broke the ICE member Secretary Besson,
after the Geneva talks a few weeks after, said that
he felt like negotiations were stalling. There was a phone
call and that really led to the path to have
this discussion today in London. On that phone call, though,
the two leaders did discuss visiting each other. So President
Shishiping invited President Trump and the First Lady to China,
(03:32):
and then President Trump reciprocated as well. So potentially that
could be a deliverable or something that at minimum is
discussed at this meeting. Also, Kayleie, it's a great point
to mention that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik is here. He
was not there in Geneva. He's in addition to this meeting,
and I think that just basically tells everyone that maybe
(03:54):
we don't know how far the US is willing to go,
but easing of export controls is on the table.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
Fascinating stuff, Anne Marie. We have to be honest that
we're still biting around the edges of a much larger
potential deal here when it comes to tariffs, and I
know we're looking at a deadline in August on that
would it be a win for this to resolve to
another greater meeting on tariffs reciprocal tariffs against China.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
Yeah, definitely, potentially, I think they would love to wrap
this up before August, right, because they're also dealing with
a ton of other countries. The issue is, to your point, show,
is that these are just two issues at the heart
of a very bigger deal. When I spoke to the
Treasury Secretary weeks ago, he had talked about how they
(04:40):
don't want to decouple from China. There is a grand
deal to be had. Of course, the issue is each
country has red lines, and the other country is trying
to get past those red lines. And the problem is,
if you're in the United States and you care about
national security concerns, there's a potential limit that you're willing
to go and give to China, and then China is
(05:02):
going to use what their leverage is, say, in this instance,
rare Earth. So this goes beyond just trade. This has
to do with national security issues as well. And to
think that potentially they can get this done in August,
I think is very optimistic given the fact that what
we saw just from a purchasing agreement of agricultural products
(05:22):
by large, took over a year during Trump's first administration.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
All Right, Bloomberg's and Marie Hordorner, chief political correspondent, live
in London on the scene for these talks. Thank you
so much, and we want to get more context and
analysis now as we turn to Nazac Nacochtyar here on
Bloomberg TV and Radio. She's National Security Practice Group lead
at Wiley Ryan, also former Assistant Secretary for Industry and
Analysis at the International Trade Administration. Nazak, welcome back to
(05:49):
balance of power as we consider what the US may
be willing to give here in these talks with China
taking place today, a rolling back of export controls that
have been concertedly part of an effort for the US
to restrain China's technological development. Where do you expect the
line to be drawn? Are we really about to give
them access to things that can help them develop the
(06:11):
advanced semiconductors that we have been purposefully trying to make
sure they cannot do successfully.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
Yeah, Klian, Joe, great to be with you. Look, this
is an incredibly complex issue, and it underscores a really
important point, the fact that we have become so dependent
on elements like critical minerals and the permanent magnets we
need for our commercial sector, our defense sector, so much
so that we actually have to give up a really
(06:41):
important national security concerns, including dual use items. And I
really want to stress the definition of dual use. Dual
use items that China is seeking us to relax our
expert controls on are various types of AI chips, various
types of chips in general aerospace engine technology, and these
are dual use because of course they have commercial applications,
(07:03):
but they have enormous military applications, so much so that
the government has decided to restrict them in the first place.
So can you imagine this scenario where because of our
import vulnerabilities due to China supply chains, we actually have
to give up some of our critical national security concerns.
The Trump administration is going to try to keep the
(07:25):
wallop as much as they can and not give in
to some of these China's demands. But the Chinese are
going to double down. It's going to be terraff production,
export control relaxation, and then potentially something about Taiwan, as
China has signaled in the past.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
This is where I start to get a bit confused. Zaka,
It's great to have you back. If this is in
fact a national security concern, why is it on the
bargaining table?
Speaker 6 (07:49):
You know.
Speaker 5 (07:49):
That's really because we are dependent on some critical supply
chains from China that are also impacting our national security concerns.
Rarers that you all were just talking about, permanent magnets. Again,
these are things that China controls exclusively, the supply chain,
and in order, I think some folks in the administration believe,
in order to get our defund sector up and running,
(08:12):
the commercial sector up and running with these magnets that
we need, we're going to have to give some things up.
The other interesting aspect of this that makes it extraordinarily
complicated is our import dependence is just goods from China,
which China seeking from us is actually the know how
in technology. That know how in technology that I hope
(08:32):
we don't give up to China and we maintain our
export controls that's long lasting. Once you transfer technology to China,
it's gone, you know. But China can always turn around
and stop the exports of the things that we need,
the magnets, the pharmaceuticals to us at any time. And
that's what I'm concerned about. Even if there's a handshake deal,
even despite China's history of not adhering to deals, even
(08:54):
if we get something they can turn around tomorrow and
block our access when versus having given up technology that
now China can keep forever.
Speaker 6 (09:05):
China.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Well, nawzak one could listen to you and think that
China is actually the one with all the leverage here.
If they have a choke hold on this market that
we need for our national security, if it's them that
have the ability to just turn it on and off
like a light switch, what hand does the US really have?
Speaker 6 (09:20):
You know?
Speaker 5 (09:20):
I think the US, if they really want to play
it strongly, they can and not give up too much.
And the pharmaceutical sector one of the secrets we have
to know how to make the drugs. I don't think
we're as vulnerable as you know some may think we are.
And in terms of magnets, I mean, let's remember we
are having we have a huge magnet supply chain that's growing.
(09:41):
We have light rare earthen in California, heavy wearers in Canada,
a number of magnet producers who invested in the United
States are growing. But let's also remember we can reuse magnets.
We can take magnets out of phones, out of autos,
out of defense equipment, and barely just basically remagnetize them
and reuse them. And the reason I say all that
is because sure it takes time to scale what we're
(10:03):
building our own domestic supply chain, but we're not at
a loss. We can reuse what we currently have, and
that gives us so much leverage to stay strong, to
not give into China's demands because we're not as dependent
as a Chinese like to think that we are.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Sounds like a good time to short magnets, Zach, I
wonder to what extent Jensen Wang will help to influence
the outcome of this question, specifically over export controls and
semic conductors. He's got the President's here. We know they
have a relationship. He's been to the White House and
he talked a lot just a couple of weeks ago
about how these building blocks for AI should in fact
(10:39):
be based on American systems, even if it's AI companies
in China that are doing the work, that the American
building block should be in place. If that's the case,
we're about to see a loosening of export controls for
the better. Correct.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Well, we're in a situation where are so many of
our companies are now just developing and have been for
a number of years, so much revenue from China that
cutting off access to that market could be pretty much
short term, in their view, catastrophic for them. At the
same time, again, they're asking the US government to continue
the exports of dual use items that are aiding and
(11:19):
abtting Chinese military. Even if we the United States have
built massive data centers in China, the Chinese are using
those data centers for AI capabilities that augment their military.
And the way China plays is if you build it
in China, you have to transfer technology to China. To me,
it's a high risk proposition that we'll continuing to transfer
(11:41):
all of our technology to China when China just doubles down,
pours more money into it to indigenize it and more
people and resources. We saw what happened with deep Sea.
We've saw what's happened over the last fifteen years. China
has accelerated its growth in technology from virtually being a
really sort of developed country, not technologically advanced at all,
(12:02):
to the technological powerhouse that it is today. And that
is because we've been transferring our technology. And I think
it's really time for the Trump administration to one take
a second look as whether we want to give up
more and to remember that we're not as dependent as
some think we are.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Well so, Nazuch when we consider the time here for
these very complex issues to be fully worked out. I
don't know the extent to which you expect there to
be firm, tangible outcomes of this meeting in Geneva, but
knowing we are up against a deadline in August here
of this ninety day window in which tariff levels have
been brought down from the astronomical highs with which they were,
(12:41):
is that enough time for the US and China to
really get into the nuances of all of this different
policy or we're just going to have to keep buying
ourselves more and more extensions.
Speaker 5 (12:51):
You know, I think the likelihood that they're going to
get out with you know, they're going to leave with
a handshake deal is very likely. I think we're going
to end up reducing some of our controls, maybe on chips,
chip technology, AI chip technology, the commercial aircraft engines that
we've recently prohibited the exports to China, and you know what,
China is basically going to say, fine, you can have
(13:12):
more magnets, but China is probably not going to allow
our military sector to have magnets for our defense and
weapons systems. And you know, what good is a handshake
deal when we have a country like China that's systematically
broken deals wto commitments. It's bilateral you know, cybersecurity deal
in twenty fifteen, Phase one deal, the Geneva deal. So yes,
(13:36):
I think from China's perspective, it's going to give in.
You know, after a little bit of acting tough, it'll
give in a little bit. It'll say, fine, I'm going
to license these things to you. We're going to reduce
our expert controls. And I am confident that within a
month we're going to find ourselves in a very similar
situation not getting the things that we need from China.
And then it's going to be a really tough call
(13:57):
for what the administration is going to do next.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Sounds like reciprocal tariffs are not going away anytime soon.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
I think that they're going to stay. And look, they
were having a real dire impact on the Chinese economy
when they're in the high double digits and triple digits.
And I think that if the Trunk administration really wanted
to bring China to its knees. I could have kept
the tariffs on for slightly longer. Of course, that also
(14:26):
adversely impacted American industries. I think we're going to be
doing the song and dance for many, many months ahead
until one of the countries canpeculates.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Zok. Great to have you back to Zokacock to our
National Security Practice Group leader Wiley rain LLP, former Assistant
Secretary for Industry and Analysis at the International Trade Administration.
That was a great conversation. Kaylee will find out maybe
by the end of the day if we get a
readout from either of these teams on what happened. But
Anne Marie says they're bringing in takeout. This may not
end anytime soon.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Yeah, that's never a good sign if you're looking for
something to wrap up quickly when they bring the extra
nourishment in. But we'll continue to keep you updated on
what's happening in London and what's happening in Los Angeles.
That's where we turn to next, is we consider President
Trump deploying the National Guard without the say so of
California's Governor Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
You're listening to the Bloomberg balance of power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn
on Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
We all started our day listening to the same conversation.
When I heard Tom Keene was going to be interviewing
Andrew Cuomo, I canceled my plans at nine o'clock on
a Monday morning, fascinating back and forth here in a
conversation you would only hear on Bloomberg, and of course
took on a very different direction. Following the protests that
(15:54):
we saw in LA not just the protests over the weekend,
but the clashes with police. President Trump's decision to send
in the National Guard, the Secretary of Defense's threat to
mobilize Marines from Camp Pendleton. Donald Trump just on truth
Socialist short time ago. It was a great decision, he says,
to send the National Guard to California. If we had
(16:16):
not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.
Now knowing that Andrew Cuomo is running for mayor, He's
of course got his own ideas about a Republican president
sending National Guard troops the streets of a major American city.
Listen to Andrew Cuomo earlier on Bloomberg.
Speaker 7 (16:32):
This gets into President Trump's strategy, I believe and look,
first of all, on the immigration issue, he's very clear
in his campaign he believes it's an issue that works
for him. During the campaign, he said he was going
to deport criminals, dangerous criminals, dangerous criminals, and everybody said, yes,
(16:55):
support dangerous criminals. Of course, now we're deporting seven year
olds and with this disrupting families, and by the way,
we're deporting people who shouldn't be deported. So that's a change.
But this issue works for the president politically. The president
is also very good and I worked with the president
(17:15):
in the first Trump administration, worked with euphemism. We had
a lot of controversy, but this is a different tempo
for him. Wayne Gretzky skate to where the puck is
going to be, not where it was. The Democrats have
to adjust. They are skating to where the puck was.
(17:40):
This immigration issue, in some ways is a distraction from
what Trump is really doing with cities, which is cutting
the budget in a way that is so dramatic that
you can really cause major difficulties for urban areas.
Speaker 8 (18:00):
Governor Cromo pro tip when you're going to talk a
hockey you're in a mayoral race, you pick.
Speaker 9 (18:04):
Genre Tell or someone like that with the New York Rangers.
Speaker 10 (18:08):
You don't go with Gretzky Andrew Cromo with us here
as we look at this mayor race, Okay, Robert Kuttner,
no friend of yours, writing an American Prospect, he says,
did Cuomo peak too soon?
Speaker 8 (18:19):
You've got the tensions of the primary, if you take
the primary, the tensions of a general election with different
independent candidates, and that is the present mayor in the
back pocket of the President of the United States. And
if we get LA, as Paul mentions, here, can you
imagine this? I mean, I'll let you pick the geography,
Governor Cuomo, But.
Speaker 9 (18:41):
The present mayor of New York, can he protect the
citizens of this city given the relationship with the president
after what we've seen in LA.
Speaker 7 (18:54):
Short answer, no, And let's remember how extraordinary these issues.
What's happening in LA. This is the exact reverse of
what normally happens. Normally, it's the local government that makes
the decision on how to handle an emergency and calls
on the federal government. So a mayor, a governor would
(19:16):
call on the federal government say I need help. Please
send a national guard or please send an additional federal help.
I don't believe there's been a time where the president
has sent in federal troops. You'd have to go back
to like the sixties and President Johnson and Wallace, Right,
(19:39):
that's how far you have to go back. So this
is Trump being Trump. This is Trump on this issue
of immigration. I'm muscled. It's law and order. These cities,
these democrats, they're filled with illegals, and I'm going to
come in and I'm going to come in hot and heavy.
(20:00):
He started in la It will happen in New York.
It will happen. He knows the formula, right, it happened
in New Jersey.
Speaker 11 (20:09):
Is this formula to go after you?
Speaker 7 (20:11):
I mean, this is his formula, is to create chaos
in the cities. And he is the voice of law
and order. And you know cities, all those democrats, that's
where all those illegal immigrants are. And He's going to
come in and he's going to clean up the flip
(20:32):
side is okay. Create chaos in LA, create chaos in
New York, create chaos in Chicago. Pretty soon you create
chaos in the nation, and that's bad for the economy.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
Andrew Cuomo in a fascinating back and forth with Tom
Keene here on Balance of Power. I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington,
adding the voice of Ashley Davis, Republican Strategists, partner at
S three Group, former Special assistant to the Director of
Homeland Security. Actually, it's great to see you. We just
heard this whole conversation with Andrew Cuomo. You saw the
back and forth, you heard me read President Trump's tweet
(21:06):
earlier today. He says, if we had not done so
calling up the National Guard, Los Angeles would have been
completely obliterated. We can talk about the directive and what
law this falls under, and how we're defining insurrection politically speaking.
Good move.
Speaker 9 (21:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (21:24):
I actually am not sure that interview that Cuomo did
this morning is going to be helpful for him.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
I just want to take us down back.
Speaker 12 (21:30):
For Cuomo, no, because I mean he listen a lot
of people, whether you live in New York or not,
are very unhappy with how New York has been as
a city, especially as post COVID in regards to some
of the crime, and he's running on a law and
order platform, so you would think that this is something
maybe from a stats' rights perspective he can't before, but
(21:50):
I've been assuming he would want to make sure that
New York does not turn into what's happening in LA.
But Yeah, to answer your question, absolutely, this is a
good political issue for the president. I don't think he
cares one bit that if you see destruction happening in
LA and the mayor, Mayor Bass and the governor are
(22:11):
not doing enough to stop the destruction, especially when they're
burning buildings, they're burning cars, they're they're His biggest issue
is the fact that they're covering their faces and not
having any ability to see who they are. Again, are
these really protests from LA? Are they brought in like
they have been in other places? But this is a
(22:31):
winning issue for him. I would love to see pulling
on this in a week because I would think most
of the country would say, why the forty people? And
it's this very important fact, the forty people that were
arrested that sparked these protests this weekend there was a
layout this morning of the crimes that each one did.
I mean they're bad crimes or either murder, rape, significant burglary.
(22:55):
I mean, it's not like that the people are protesting for,
as Quemo said, children and people that are on their
way to citizenship. So this is something that's going to
be very tough for Democrats to come over, and in
my opinion, they're taking the bait over and over and
over again. I mean, this is something that we've been
talking about Ze it's like an eighty percent issue that
(23:17):
people support us cracking down on stuff like this.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
Yeah, Newsom was telling people not that this was performative.
Don't play into the hands of the administration. I'm wondering
what you thought of Newsome pushing back on this. This
played out on television in a pretty remarkable way, with
Tom Holman threatening to arrest the governor and the mayor
of la Let's hear the response from Gavin Newsom on MSNBC.
(23:41):
He's a tough guy.
Speaker 6 (23:42):
Why wasn't he do that?
Speaker 3 (23:42):
And he knows where to find me.
Speaker 10 (23:44):
But you know what, Now, your hands off four year
old girls that are trying to get educated.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Put your hands off these poor people. Are just trying
to get live their lives. Man trying to live their
lives paying their tax has been here ten years. The fear,
the horror, the hell is this guy come after me?
Arrest me? Let's just get it over with.
Speaker 12 (24:06):
This is wild stuff, good politics for good as I
was just going to say, it's actually making new some
relevant again, I mean that was kind of you know,
if he truly does want to run for president, but
again I don't. I mean, maybe times will change in
three and a half years when we have another president,
but I mean, like this does not show tough on crime,
which was such a big issue this time around. Okay,
(24:27):
I mean again, we know the president mago, President Trump
mago too far and the pundulum swing, so who knows, right.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Was arresting the governor's going too far? I don't think
it's going to happen, but that would maybe qualify having.
Speaker 12 (24:40):
This fighting on TV. Stuff like whether or over yeah,
or over social media is just a new norse.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
Quite a moment or society is in here, isn't it. Well,
So let's talk about the actual fine print, because you
used to do this for a living. The directives signed
by the President cites ten USC. Twelve four h six,
referring to a provision and Title ten of the US
Coat on Armed Services. If there's a rebellion or danger
of a rebellion against the authority of the government of
the United States, it allows the federal deployment of National
(25:09):
Guard forces.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (25:10):
I don't think this is.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Are we call them as a rebellion?
Speaker 12 (25:13):
What else would you call it?
Speaker 3 (25:14):
A protest?
Speaker 12 (25:15):
But the protest isn't just it's not a peaceful protest. No,
it's a destructive protest. I mean, you saw this stuff.
I'm you see what was happening. I don't think it's
like people holding signs.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
Well, it kind of started that way in some cases.
And I'm not here to weigh in on that one
way or the other. But when you start thinking about
an insurrection, we don't want to call January sixth that.
But we're calling this an insurrection to qualify for the
deployment of troops.
Speaker 12 (25:39):
I well, we may agree to disagree on because No,
I just think that there was enough destruction going on.
I mean, listen, everything else is in the courts. Does
the obviously the governor did sue the president for doing this? Yes,
you know, I just have one thing to say, Katrina
wouldn't have been as bad as Katrina was if the
local government then would have allowed the President Bush to
(26:02):
call in the National Guard. And he did not overturn
the mayor at the time of New Orleans, and that
was when the right after the lovees broken whatever, and
that was one of the biggest destructions in our country.
I mean, I think that this is a very fine line.
But again, legally we'll see. I'm sure we'll be in
the courts, but politically, like presence, like bringing on, he's
(26:23):
going to be in the court for the next ten
years to.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Well, I guess that's for sure. As a homeland security specialist,
do you worry about the idea of Marines being deployed
and I realized that that's likely just a threat from
Pete Hegseth. But would that be a line Tocross.
Speaker 12 (26:37):
I think that's a tougher line, for sure. I mean,
the Marines and you have guns, and you'll have obviously troops,
and it's a whole different scene. I think, unless people
are getting killed, if you see major destruction in regards
to buildings burning, I mean more than it's already happening.
I just can't imagine that happens. But we'll see One
thing that we were talking about before the YAR is
(26:59):
like does this spread from city to city to city
like some of the things that happened during COVID you
know obviously, George Floyd. I mean, we can go down
some of the issues, but that's what you don't want
to see happen. Is this a call to will this be?
Is this going to be a Democrats call to action?
Are they going to fall in the hell in this
issue and call for protest? I'm not sure if you
(27:22):
don't have kind of what's been happening with a lot
of these protests, not necessary immigration, but a lot of
these professional protests that have been happening with destruction over
the last five to so years, is you have people
that are hired to come destroy things just to make
chaos in the country, whether you believe it's Russia or
China or whatever. So that's but I would think anyone
(27:45):
running for president is not going to want this. They're
not going to fall in their swords on this.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Well, this is what I wanted to get to you
with as as someone who's actually been in the building,
you're looking at the great unknown of this summer. Inside,
we'll say, the Department of Homeland Security, how do you
start model for the possibilities because this could in fact
go into other cities. What if this did go into
New York as Tom Keane was discussing with Andrew Cuomo,
what if there's another occupy movement? Is that what Homeland
(28:11):
is working on now?
Speaker 12 (28:12):
I'm sure they are. I'm definitely I think you have.
And also you have a lot of events coming up.
Whether it's well a year from now is America to fifty,
but we have the parade this weekend. You have a
lot of different opportunities for chaos. But also what the
department is doing right now, along with the DOJ, is
really concentrating on some of the destruction regards to anti Semitism.
(28:35):
So you have the anti Semitism, you have the anti
immigrant movement, and then you have the flames being flared
that if you're in the coordinating of state and local
law enforcement right now within the Homeland Security Department, you
are making sure that everyone's prepared for something to happen,
(28:56):
to something to happen, especially in the major cities.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Did you see the foot to this Australian reporter who
was on the streets in Los Angeles and she's talking
about the response from the police was right around the
time they started shooting rubber pellets or the bean bags
and so forth and deploying the tear gas. I don't
know if we have this for our audience on YouTube,
but she's actually live in Australia. This is the video
(29:21):
from this situation, and she's shot in the leg while
she's out there. This is the type of thing that
can really change the way a story plays in the media.
You see her being shot and we don't hear her
screams right now if you're with us on the radio,
but it was a bit of a scary moment for her.
These things can turn pretty quickly in public opinion the
(29:42):
way this is handled by authorities on the ground.
Speaker 12 (29:45):
If you see people, if you see peaceful protesters being
strong armed by the military, whether it's especially like the
National Guard, guest, this can definitely change the conversation quickly. Obviously,
that's super unfortunately seen that. Yeah, But by the way,
there's going to be propaganda on both sides. You're going
to see the same video of the guy with the
(30:08):
Mexican flag and the you know, burning. Well, no, I'm
burning the Yeah, I'm burning the car and the mask.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Particularly dystopian by the way, about protesters burning robotic vehicles,
I think we have truly reached a science fiction phase
when we see stuff like that. But the aftermath here
could be interesting. What happens in the next couple of
days in Los Angeles? How do you cool the temperature?
Speaker 12 (30:31):
Well, hopefully, I mean, I'm from what we're seeing today,
there's not as many protests, there's less and less. I mean,
it would be great if they stop and I mean
this and then everyone kind of backs off. It's just
what's scary and what's making me a little nervous, and
going back to your Department of Homeland Security making them
a little nervous, and local law enforcement is if this
does escalate.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
Yeah, could Washington? Could New York handle the situation like
that better than LA?
Speaker 12 (30:59):
Well, I think I think the current mayor of New
York would handle it pretty well. I mean, that's just
not a political statement one way or the other. But
I think he saw I mean, it's an electioneer obviously
there's one, yes, but I think that he would probably
call in the help. I mean, you saw that city
was destroyed. It's starting to make its way back. Same
with LA. I mean there has to be a grasp
(31:20):
on some of this, not because of the protests. I'm
just saying in general, Sure, what's happened.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Well, I appreciate your point of view. We went into
overtime because I really wanted to hear what you had
to say about this. This is a very delicate moment
and we're lucky to have Ashley Davis bring out one
side of this argument for us from S three group.
Great to have you and thank you, Thanks Ashley.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
As always, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E'stern
on Apple, Cockley and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
We reach for the next answer when it comes to reconciliation.
The questions have not changed in a while. We're waiting
for the Senate to show up with its version of
President Trump's Big Tax and Spend Bill? Are we done
calling it a big, beautiful bill? Like the Big Tax
and Spend Bill? The question about tax breaks, will they
(32:19):
be permanent? Business tax breaks? Not just individual Trump tax cuts,
but also of course Medicaid. I'll say changes for the
benefit of this conversation. And then, well, if you're watching
or listening to Bloomberg, the granddaddy of them all being Salt.
I mentioned this because the Senate Finance Committee is going
to put forth it's part of the bill, the big
(32:42):
beautiful bill this week. Mike Crapo, Republican, Wyoming, the chair,
is behind the drive to make these tax breaks permanent.
That's going to change the whole dynamic now because we're
hearing that Salt is going to come down. We're hearing
that Medicaid changes could happen, maybe the provider tax, with
worries about the impact on rural communities, and that could
(33:06):
be enough to sink this bill when it goes back
to the House. It's about to happen. Senator Crapo is
going to put forth his bill this week, and you
better believe that the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson,
is holding his breath right now. Let's assemble our panel
for their take on this and a lot more. Jinny
Schanzano is with us, our Bloomberg Politics contributor in Democratic
(33:29):
Analysts with the Center for the Study of the Presidency
in Congress and Lisa Camuso Miller, Republican strategist former RNC
Comms director, spend time working for a former Republican speaker.
And Lisa, I'll start with you. Here are the shields
up in the Speaker's office right now. They know something's
going to come back. They don't want.
Speaker 11 (33:49):
I think it would have to be right.
Speaker 13 (33:51):
I mean, Joe, I think more than anything, they have expectations.
They've had a little bit of time to think about
how they're going to respond to this.
Speaker 11 (33:58):
I think that they've known where the fault lines are.
Speaker 13 (34:00):
So the Speaker's office is already working behind the scenes
to figure out what kinds of expectations they might have,
what kinds of adjustments they could make to get themselves
to a place where they could all get it done.
Speaker 11 (34:10):
It's going to be a challenge, there's no doubt about it.
Speaker 13 (34:12):
But I think Speaker Johnson knew that going in, and
he's got the people around him that are going to
help him get a compromise bill that's going to be
able to get done and get signed because they are
really motivated to get this, to get this right.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
We heard from Mike Lawler over the weekend, Genie, the
Republican from your state of New York says, you hack
up that salt deal. I'm a hard no. And that
goes for others in the New York delegation. That alone
would sink the bill. Right, we can only lose three,
I believe, is where we're at. What happens when the
bill comes back to the House, then.
Speaker 6 (34:46):
Yeah, hands off salt. It's becomes sort of a mantra
around these parts and in other high tax places. And
you know, Mike Lawler is speaking for enough Republicans in
the House from these high tax that it's going to
be very hard to get their vote if they reduce
the cap from what they agreed to in the House.
(35:07):
The problem, of course for the Senate is is that
they don't have people in the Senate GOP who are
really focused on salt or care that much about it.
Number one and number two, they are really intent on
doing some damage to salt, and the White House, by
the way, has said the President is okay with that.
(35:28):
I mean President Trump has been all over the place
on salt. And so if they do touch salt, which
I think they will, they're going to have to be
very cautious because they will lose the support in the
Senate that and in the House. Rather that said, I
think we're hearing that Mike Lawler is going to talk
to Thune. He's going to talk to other Senators and
tell him how damaging this would be, and they will
(35:49):
come to some kind of compromise. I think on the
issue of salt.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
How much communication Lisa is going on behind the scenes
right now between Mike Johnson and John Thune, maybe among
their teams knowing if we know about this, they sure
do to try to try to limit the number of
changes to ask for some grace when it comes to
the bill coming back. Or am I crazy? The Senate
always jams the House.
Speaker 11 (36:15):
No, I don't think you're crazy at all, Joe. I think,
if anything, you're absolutely right. I mean, I don't think
the principals are meeting.
Speaker 13 (36:20):
I don't think that the two you know, the lead
two leaders, will be meeting until we're getting closer to the.
Speaker 11 (36:25):
End on this negotiation.
Speaker 13 (36:27):
But if you mean, staff all day long are working together,
not only at the highest highest levels, but all the
way down into the committees to make sure that they're
trying to find a way to get this right. And look,
this is the way the House and the Senate do
their business together. Do we knock on one another and
say that they do work differently than we do.
Speaker 11 (36:45):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 13 (36:46):
But the truth of it is is that policy books
are working together to try to find common ground in
order to get something that can get done and can
get to the President's desk. And I do think that
they're still really working towards a July fourth completion price.
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Boy, that would be something Chuck Schumer doesn't necessarily see
it that way. And before we get to that, we're
going to have to deal with recisions. Genie. This is
something that Democrats were at one time worried about, and
I'm wondering if you are at this point, because there's
not a lot there and we've got nine billion dollars
nine point four billion dollars in the recisions package. Remember
this is public broadcasting, USAID, a couple of other things
(37:24):
including PEPFAR and now this is something that brings us
back to the George W. Bush administration funding to help
fight AIDS and HIV on a global level. There are
a number of Republicans who are uncomfortable with cuts to
pep Far and now at least ten moderate R's genie
are privately saying in the House of Representatives that they're
a no. Is it possible that this thing goes down
(37:48):
and not a dollar is rescinded.
Speaker 6 (37:52):
I think it is possible, at least the pep far
perch portion will go down, and rightly it should. The
damn image done to people around the world from the
perspective of their health, if indeed they do, they do
move forward on that is so astonishing. It's hard to
wrap your head around that being the thing that they
(38:13):
cut or try to pull back. So I do think
that goes down. I don't think they will fail to
get even a dollar, but I think it's going to
be much much smaller because the reality of this entire, big,
beautiful bill and the recision of package itself is it
is damaging to the people who need the support most,
(38:35):
and that is what makes it, for so many of us,
such a deplorable bill. It is hurting the people who
need health care. It is hurting the people who need
medical care. It is hurting the environment which we all
depend on. I mean, you can go down the litany
all in the interest of giving tax breaks to big
business and people who make a lot of money. So
(38:58):
this is where they are and it is devastating from
so many perspectives. And that is just one example from
the recision portion. And I would just say that that
is why Donald Trump is so intent on pushing out
pictures of what's going down in LA because he very
much doesn't want to talk about that, but he wants
to talk about the fact this invests money in the
(39:18):
border where he wants to make the case it is needed.
Speaker 3 (39:22):
Remember when Mitt Romney was going to cut big birds
funding Lisa turned out to be not the best time
spent considering the return you get on the dollar. To
make that argument, are we really doing this? We're going
to defund PBS once and for earlier.
Speaker 13 (39:39):
I mean, it feels like that's where we're headed for sure,
and I think Genie's point is one to take. I
also think that we need to consider that when you
are asking so many vulnerable members of Congress on the
right and the left for that matter, to make these
hard decisions in the reconciliation legislation. When they comes to recisions,
(40:01):
I think a lot of political capital has been expended already,
and that's the other difficulty here is that had we
had this bill go through with pieces of good policy,
I think that a lot of other folks would feel
better about taking a sharper pencil to the budget and
these opportunities that are coming through in the recisions package.
Speaker 11 (40:23):
The problem is, I think people are going to be.
Speaker 13 (40:25):
Just downright tired and unhappy with the way these processes
are moving, and so that alone makes it that much
more difficult for them to get to a place where
they can agree upon whether or not PBS should be
part of the chopping block, a pep far should be
part of the child. All of these things are just
one blow after another that they know they're going to
have to answer for when they go home in August
(40:46):
and when they have to compete for their seats up
again in the midterms, which are just around the corner.
Speaker 3 (40:54):
It is really interesting when lawmakers rediscover certain constituencies depending
on the debate here, Genie, you back off and look
at what happened with the DOGE or I guess is happening.
They continue their work in the wake of Elon Musk.
But that's what brought us here. This was supposed to
be codifying the work of the Doge, not two trillion dollars,
(41:15):
but nine point four billion. You look at the big
beautiful bill which was supposed to lower debt and deficits.
And there are still a number of folks in Washington
who will say in the administration, Republicans on Capitol Hill
will say that it does when you factor in certain
levels of growth and returns from terrace. But the Congressional
Budget Office, every major economist, all of the thing tanks
(41:37):
here in Washington say that it allowed trillions to the
debt and deficit. This cost cutting thing, Genie, turns out
to be kind of difficult. Huh.
Speaker 6 (41:46):
Yeah, it certainly does. And you can take any one
of those areas you just mentioned, and we can talk
about the impact on particular constituencies of these representatives and senators,
but let's also look at them of the most vulnerable
in our communities. As it pertains to public health. This
(42:06):
intent to cut and gut Medicaid and Medicare will be
devastating in rural hospitals. It'll be devastating for large populations
of elderly young people. And then let's jump over to
look at something we all should have an interest in,
and that is something involving our environment clean energy. We're
(42:26):
looking at COP thirty in November in Brazil and we
are gonna apparently send a contingent to that maybe go
down there. If they pass this bill, they will have
destroyed things that were intent on giving green energy tax
credits and other avenues by which we could move to clean,
(42:47):
green energy and allow all of us to live longer
and in a better and healthier state around the world.
So the impacts of this thing are devastating from many perspectives.
And yet you see even Tom Massey says it's likely
going to get through in some shape or another. And
so it is something that you just watch it go
(43:09):
on and you realize the devastation that is embedded in
a bill this big in the interest of saving money
for wealthy and big business, and that is a I
think a tremendous disservice to the entire community.
Speaker 3 (43:24):
Well, I know you've been through a few of these rounds, Lisa,
when it comes to big promises in cutting spending. But
it is likely that this bill is going to pass,
at least in its current form when it comes to
tax and spend levels, minus some adjustments around the edges.
The missing component is revenue from tariffs. According to a
lot of Republican lawmakers who we talk to, and right
(43:48):
now the Trump team is in talks with China to
try to craft a trade deal. How do these all
reconcile and well tariffs actually help to make the difference?
Speaker 13 (43:59):
Oh, I mean, I think that that's the hope out
of the White House. I think their expectation is that
it will definitely make the difference. The other thing too,
is that you know, when Genie talks about the fact
that we have all these other things that are in
the bill that are going to cause concern. If you
walk outside of this beltway and you ask people out
out in the districts what they care about. They want change,
(44:20):
and they don't they're not really sure what it takes
to make change, but they're willing to take a chance
that these new, unconventional ways are the ways to make change.
And so they're not willing to take opportunities as it
relates to climate change and other risky kinds of ideas
that they think about until in fact their basic needs
(44:41):
are met. And so if costs can come down, if
tariffs are going to make that difference, I'm not really
sure they care about how the sausage is made gel
provided that the change happens and happens in a way
that helps them and helps their bottom line. So, while
we all existentially know that all of these other things
that Genie mentioned are part of the bill and are problematic,
people want basic needs met.
Speaker 3 (45:06):
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at
Bloomberg dot com.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at
noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Happy Monday to you as we kick off this new
week in Washington with our eyes specifically on what's happening
in London another round of trade negotiations between the world's
two largest economies, the US and China. Remembering that an
agreement was struck in Geneva last month to lower tariffs
for ninety days, but it was a little bit fuzzy
as to what else was part of that agreement, specifically
(00:45):
what China was committing to in unrestricting exports of critical
minerals to the United States. President Trump got Shijin Ping
on the phone last week to try to clear that up,
and of course they're working on hammering out those fine
details as we speak, the principles right now now at
this hour, Joe still gathered in London.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
That was a perfect setup in Bloomberg's and Marie Hordern
is actually at the scene to carry the ball under
what happens next? Bloomberg's chief political correspondent outside that meeting
and Marie, how's it going inside?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Well, they just arrived five hours ago and they are
still at the negotiating table. About half hour ago we
actually saw food delivery being brought in, So they plan,
I think, on spending a few more hours here in London.
Just past six pm, so these talks are bleeding into
the evening and potentially even till into tomorrow. What we
do know from earlier the NEC director Kevin Hassett talking
(01:37):
about the fact the contours potentially of this deal easing
some export controls that the United States has in place
for semiconductors going to China, and then on the Chinese side,
the US wants to see more licenses when it comes
to rare earths and magnets. They want to see an
advanced pace that they thought they agreed upon in Geneva.
(01:58):
The issue, of course, is what are the red lines
for both of these economies. For China, it's clearly getting
their hands on these advanced semiconductors, but how far is
the United States willing to go? Say, are they willing
to use potentially the h twenty Nvidia chips as a
negotiating chip, and when it comes to China, how quickly
are they really going to ramp up those rare earths?
(02:21):
And I think what this shows you is that we
are just four weeks out for when these two delegations
met in Geneva. It just shows you how difficult trade
negotiations are and reminds us all of how difficult it
was for the purchasing agreement in Trump's first administration. That
trade war started in twenty eighteen and a deal wasn't
in place until twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Well, when we consider who was in the room today,
Anne Marie obviously, Holy Funk and Scott Best and Howard
Lutnik are all there. Very high level talks are taking place,
But it was President Trump communicating directly with Xijinping by
phone for the first time since assuming office for his
second term that got our attention and the idea as
to the extent to which this sets the stage for
(03:02):
a face to face meeting between the two upmost leaders, Well.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
That phone call definitely broke the ICE member Secretary Besson,
after the Geneva talks a few weeks after, said that
he felt like negotiations were stalling. There was a phone
call and that really led to the path to have
this discussion today in London. On that phone call, though,
the two leaders did discuss visiting each other. So President
Shishiping invited President Trump and the First Lady to China,
(03:32):
and then President Trump reciprocated as well. So potentially that
could be a deliverable or something that at minimum is
discussed at this meeting. Also, Kayleie, it's a great point
to mention that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik is here. He
was not there in Geneva. He's in addition to this meeting,
and I think that just basically tells everyone that maybe
(03:54):
we don't know how far the US is willing to go,
but easing of export controls is on the table.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
Fascinating stuff, Anne Marie. We have to be honest that
we're still biting around the edges of a much larger
potential deal here when it comes to tariffs, and I
know we're looking at a deadline in August on that
would it be a win for this to resolve to
another greater meeting on tariffs reciprocal tariffs against China.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
Yeah, definitely, potentially, I think they would love to wrap
this up before August, right, because they're also dealing with
a ton of other countries. The issue is, to your point, show,
is that these are just two issues at the heart
of a very bigger deal. When I spoke to the
Treasury Secretary weeks ago, he had talked about how they
(04:40):
don't want to decouple from China. There is a grand
deal to be had. Of course, the issue is each
country has red lines, and the other country is trying
to get past those red lines. And the problem is,
if you're in the United States and you care about
national security concerns, there's a potential limit that you're willing
to go and give to China, and then China is
(05:02):
going to use what their leverage is, say, in this instance,
rare Earth. So this goes beyond just trade. This has
to do with national security issues as well. And to
think that potentially they can get this done in August,
I think is very optimistic given the fact that what
we saw just from a purchasing agreement of agricultural products
(05:22):
by large, took over a year during Trump's first administration.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
All Right, Bloomberg's and Marie Hordorner, chief political correspondent, live
in London on the scene for these talks. Thank you
so much, and we want to get more context and
analysis now as we turn to Nazac Nacochtyar here on
Bloomberg TV and Radio. She's National Security Practice Group lead
at Wiley Ryan, also former Assistant Secretary for Industry and
Analysis at the International Trade Administration. Nazak, welcome back to
(05:49):
balance of power as we consider what the US may
be willing to give here in these talks with China
taking place today, a rolling back of export controls that
have been concertedly part of an effort for the US
to restrain China's technological development. Where do you expect the
line to be drawn? Are we really about to give
them access to things that can help them develop the
(06:11):
advanced semiconductors that we have been purposefully trying to make
sure they cannot do successfully.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
Yeah, Klian, Joe, great to be with you. Look, this
is an incredibly complex issue, and it underscores a really
important point, the fact that we have become so dependent
on elements like critical minerals and the permanent magnets we
need for our commercial sector, our defense sector, so much
so that we actually have to give up a really
(06:41):
important national security concerns, including dual use items. And I
really want to stress the definition of dual use. Dual
use items that China is seeking us to relax our
expert controls on are various types of AI chips, various
types of chips in general aerospace engine technology, and these
are dual use because of course they have commercial applications,
(07:03):
but they have enormous military applications, so much so that
the government has decided to restrict them in the first place.
So can you imagine this scenario where because of our
import vulnerabilities due to China supply chains, we actually have
to give up some of our critical national security concerns.
The Trump administration is going to try to keep the
(07:25):
wallop as much as they can and not give in
to some of these China's demands. But the Chinese are
going to double down. It's going to be terraff production,
export control relaxation, and then potentially something about Taiwan, as
China has signaled in the past.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
This is where I start to get a bit confused. Zaka,
It's great to have you back. If this is in
fact a national security concern, why is it on the
bargaining table?
Speaker 6 (07:49):
You know.
Speaker 5 (07:49):
That's really because we are dependent on some critical supply
chains from China that are also impacting our national security concerns.
Rarers that you all were just talking about, permanent magnets. Again,
these are things that China controls exclusively, the supply chain,
and in order, I think some folks in the administration believe,
in order to get our defund sector up and running,
(08:12):
the commercial sector up and running with these magnets that
we need, we're going to have to give some things up.
The other interesting aspect of this that makes it extraordinarily
complicated is our import dependence is just goods from China,
which China seeking from us is actually the know how
in technology. That know how in technology that I hope
(08:32):
we don't give up to China and we maintain our
export controls that's long lasting. Once you transfer technology to China,
it's gone, you know. But China can always turn around
and stop the exports of the things that we need,
the magnets, the pharmaceuticals to us at any time. And
that's what I'm concerned about. Even if there's a handshake deal,
even despite China's history of not adhering to deals, even
(08:54):
if we get something they can turn around tomorrow and
block our access when versus having given up technology that
now China can keep forever.
Speaker 6 (09:05):
China.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Well, nawzak one could listen to you and think that
China is actually the one with all the leverage here.
If they have a choke hold on this market that
we need for our national security, if it's them that
have the ability to just turn it on and off
like a light switch, what hand does the US really have?
Speaker 6 (09:20):
You know?
Speaker 5 (09:20):
I think the US, if they really want to play
it strongly, they can and not give up too much.
And the pharmaceutical sector one of the secrets we have
to know how to make the drugs. I don't think
we're as vulnerable as you know some may think we are.
And in terms of magnets, I mean, let's remember we
are having we have a huge magnet supply chain that's growing.
(09:41):
We have light rare earthen in California, heavy wearers in Canada,
a number of magnet producers who invested in the United
States are growing. But let's also remember we can reuse magnets.
We can take magnets out of phones, out of autos,
out of defense equipment, and barely just basically remagnetize them
and reuse them. And the reason I say all that
is because sure it takes time to scale what we're
(10:03):
building our own domestic supply chain, but we're not at
a loss. We can reuse what we currently have, and
that gives us so much leverage to stay strong, to
not give into China's demands because we're not as dependent
as a Chinese like to think that we are.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Sounds like a good time to short magnets, Zach, I
wonder to what extent Jensen Wang will help to influence
the outcome of this question, specifically over export controls and
semic conductors. He's got the President's here. We know they
have a relationship. He's been to the White House and
he talked a lot just a couple of weeks ago
about how these building blocks for AI should in fact
(10:39):
be based on American systems, even if it's AI companies
in China that are doing the work, that the American
building block should be in place. If that's the case,
we're about to see a loosening of export controls for
the better. Correct.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Well, we're in a situation where are so many of
our companies are now just developing and have been for
a number of years, so much revenue from China that
cutting off access to that market could be pretty much
short term, in their view, catastrophic for them. At the
same time, again, they're asking the US government to continue
the exports of dual use items that are aiding and
(11:19):
abtting Chinese military. Even if we the United States have
built massive data centers in China, the Chinese are using
those data centers for AI capabilities that augment their military.
And the way China plays is if you build it
in China, you have to transfer technology to China. To me,
it's a high risk proposition that we'll continuing to transfer
(11:41):
all of our technology to China when China just doubles down,
pours more money into it to indigenize it and more
people and resources. We saw what happened with deep Sea.
We've saw what's happened over the last fifteen years. China
has accelerated its growth in technology from virtually being a
really sort of developed country, not technologically advanced at all,
(12:02):
to the technological powerhouse that it is today. And that
is because we've been transferring our technology. And I think
it's really time for the Trump administration to one take
a second look as whether we want to give up
more and to remember that we're not as dependent as
some think we are.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Well so, Nazuch when we consider the time here for
these very complex issues to be fully worked out. I
don't know the extent to which you expect there to
be firm, tangible outcomes of this meeting in Geneva, but
knowing we are up against a deadline in August here
of this ninety day window in which tariff levels have
been brought down from the astronomical highs with which they were,
(12:41):
is that enough time for the US and China to
really get into the nuances of all of this different
policy or we're just going to have to keep buying
ourselves more and more extensions.
Speaker 5 (12:51):
You know, I think the likelihood that they're going to
get out with you know, they're going to leave with
a handshake deal is very likely. I think we're going
to end up reducing some of our controls, maybe on chips,
chip technology, AI chip technology, the commercial aircraft engines that
we've recently prohibited the exports to China, and you know what,
China is basically going to say, fine, you can have
(13:12):
more magnets, but China is probably not going to allow
our military sector to have magnets for our defense and
weapons systems. And you know, what good is a handshake
deal when we have a country like China that's systematically
broken deals wto commitments. It's bilateral you know, cybersecurity deal
in twenty fifteen, Phase one deal, the Geneva deal. So yes,
(13:36):
I think from China's perspective, it's going to give in.
You know, after a little bit of acting tough, it'll
give in a little bit. It'll say, fine, I'm going
to license these things to you. We're going to reduce
our expert controls. And I am confident that within a
month we're going to find ourselves in a very similar
situation not getting the things that we need from China.
And then it's going to be a really tough call
(13:57):
for what the administration is going to do next.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Sounds like reciprocal tariffs are not going away anytime soon.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
I think that they're going to stay. And look, they
were having a real dire impact on the Chinese economy
when they're in the high double digits and triple digits.
And I think that if the Trunk administration really wanted
to bring China to its knees. I could have kept
the tariffs on for slightly longer. Of course, that also
(14:26):
adversely impacted American industries. I think we're going to be
doing the song and dance for many, many months ahead
until one of the countries canpeculates.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Zok. Great to have you back to Zokacock to our
National Security Practice Group leader Wiley rain LLP, former Assistant
Secretary for Industry and Analysis at the International Trade Administration.
That was a great conversation. Kaylee will find out maybe
by the end of the day if we get a
readout from either of these teams on what happened. But
Anne Marie says they're bringing in takeout. This may not
end anytime soon.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Yeah, that's never a good sign if you're looking for
something to wrap up quickly when they bring the extra
nourishment in. But we'll continue to keep you updated on
what's happening in London and what's happening in Los Angeles.
That's where we turn to next, is we consider President
Trump deploying the National Guard without the say so of
California's Governor Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
You're listening to the Bloomberg balance of power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn
on Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
We all started our day listening to the same conversation.
When I heard Tom Keene was going to be interviewing
Andrew Cuomo, I canceled my plans at nine o'clock on
a Monday morning, fascinating back and forth here in a
conversation you would only hear on Bloomberg, and of course
took on a very different direction. Following the protests that
(15:54):
we saw in LA not just the protests over the weekend,
but the clashes with police. President Trump's decision to send
in the National Guard, the Secretary of Defense's threat to
mobilize Marines from Camp Pendleton. Donald Trump just on truth
Socialist short time ago. It was a great decision, he says,
to send the National Guard to California. If we had
(16:16):
not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.
Now knowing that Andrew Cuomo is running for mayor, He's
of course got his own ideas about a Republican president
sending National Guard troops the streets of a major American city.
Listen to Andrew Cuomo earlier on Bloomberg.
Speaker 7 (16:32):
This gets into President Trump's strategy, I believe and look,
first of all, on the immigration issue, he's very clear
in his campaign he believes it's an issue that works
for him. During the campaign, he said he was going
to deport criminals, dangerous criminals, dangerous criminals, and everybody said, yes,
(16:55):
support dangerous criminals. Of course, now we're deporting seven year
olds and with this disrupting families, and by the way,
we're deporting people who shouldn't be deported. So that's a change.
But this issue works for the president politically. The president
is also very good and I worked with the president
(17:15):
in the first Trump administration, worked with euphemism. We had
a lot of controversy, but this is a different tempo
for him. Wayne Gretzky skate to where the puck is
going to be, not where it was. The Democrats have
to adjust. They are skating to where the puck was.
(17:40):
This immigration issue, in some ways is a distraction from
what Trump is really doing with cities, which is cutting
the budget in a way that is so dramatic that
you can really cause major difficulties for urban areas.
Speaker 8 (18:00):
Governor Cromo pro tip when you're going to talk a
hockey you're in a mayoral race, you pick.
Speaker 9 (18:04):
Genre Tell or someone like that with the New York Rangers.
Speaker 10 (18:08):
You don't go with Gretzky Andrew Cromo with us here
as we look at this mayor race, Okay, Robert Kuttner,
no friend of yours, writing an American Prospect, he says,
did Cuomo peak too soon?
Speaker 8 (18:19):
You've got the tensions of the primary, if you take
the primary, the tensions of a general election with different
independent candidates, and that is the present mayor in the
back pocket of the President of the United States. And
if we get LA, as Paul mentions, here, can you
imagine this? I mean, I'll let you pick the geography,
Governor Cuomo, But.
Speaker 9 (18:41):
The present mayor of New York, can he protect the
citizens of this city given the relationship with the president
after what we've seen in LA.
Speaker 7 (18:54):
Short answer, no, And let's remember how extraordinary these issues.
What's happening in LA. This is the exact reverse of
what normally happens. Normally, it's the local government that makes
the decision on how to handle an emergency and calls
on the federal government. So a mayor, a governor would
(19:16):
call on the federal government say I need help. Please
send a national guard or please send an additional federal help.
I don't believe there's been a time where the president
has sent in federal troops. You'd have to go back
to like the sixties and President Johnson and Wallace, Right,
(19:39):
that's how far you have to go back. So this
is Trump being Trump. This is Trump on this issue
of immigration. I'm muscled. It's law and order. These cities,
these democrats, they're filled with illegals, and I'm going to
come in and I'm going to come in hot and heavy.
(20:00):
He started in la It will happen in New York.
It will happen. He knows the formula, right, it happened
in New Jersey.
Speaker 11 (20:09):
Is this formula to go after you?
Speaker 7 (20:11):
I mean, this is his formula, is to create chaos
in the cities. And he is the voice of law
and order. And you know cities, all those democrats, that's
where all those illegal immigrants are. And He's going to
come in and he's going to clean up the flip
(20:32):
side is okay. Create chaos in LA, create chaos in
New York, create chaos in Chicago. Pretty soon you create
chaos in the nation, and that's bad for the economy.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
Andrew Cuomo in a fascinating back and forth with Tom
Keene here on Balance of Power. I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington,
adding the voice of Ashley Davis, Republican Strategists, partner at
S three Group, former Special assistant to the Director of
Homeland Security. Actually, it's great to see you. We just
heard this whole conversation with Andrew Cuomo. You saw the
back and forth, you heard me read President Trump's tweet
(21:06):
earlier today. He says, if we had not done so
calling up the National Guard, Los Angeles would have been
completely obliterated. We can talk about the directive and what
law this falls under, and how we're defining insurrection politically speaking.
Good move.
Speaker 9 (21:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (21:24):
I actually am not sure that interview that Cuomo did
this morning is going to be helpful for him.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
I just want to take us down back.
Speaker 12 (21:30):
For Cuomo, no, because I mean he listen a lot
of people, whether you live in New York or not,
are very unhappy with how New York has been as
a city, especially as post COVID in regards to some
of the crime, and he's running on a law and
order platform, so you would think that this is something
maybe from a stats' rights perspective he can't before, but
(21:50):
I've been assuming he would want to make sure that
New York does not turn into what's happening in LA.
But Yeah, to answer your question, absolutely, this is a
good political issue for the president. I don't think he
cares one bit that if you see destruction happening in
LA and the mayor, Mayor Bass and the governor are
(22:11):
not doing enough to stop the destruction, especially when they're
burning buildings, they're burning cars, they're they're His biggest issue
is the fact that they're covering their faces and not
having any ability to see who they are. Again, are
these really protests from LA? Are they brought in like
they have been in other places? But this is a
(22:31):
winning issue for him. I would love to see pulling
on this in a week because I would think most
of the country would say, why the forty people? And
it's this very important fact, the forty people that were
arrested that sparked these protests this weekend there was a
layout this morning of the crimes that each one did.
I mean they're bad crimes or either murder, rape, significant burglary.
(22:55):
I mean, it's not like that the people are protesting for,
as Quemo said, children and people that are on their
way to citizenship. So this is something that's going to
be very tough for Democrats to come over, and in
my opinion, they're taking the bait over and over and
over again. I mean, this is something that we've been
talking about Ze it's like an eighty percent issue that
(23:17):
people support us cracking down on stuff like this.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
Yeah, Newsom was telling people not that this was performative.
Don't play into the hands of the administration. I'm wondering
what you thought of Newsome pushing back on this. This
played out on television in a pretty remarkable way, with
Tom Holman threatening to arrest the governor and the mayor
of la Let's hear the response from Gavin Newsom on MSNBC.
(23:41):
He's a tough guy.
Speaker 6 (23:42):
Why wasn't he do that?
Speaker 3 (23:42):
And he knows where to find me.
Speaker 10 (23:44):
But you know what, Now, your hands off four year
old girls that are trying to get educated.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Put your hands off these poor people. Are just trying
to get live their lives. Man trying to live their
lives paying their tax has been here ten years. The fear,
the horror, the hell is this guy come after me?
Arrest me? Let's just get it over with.
Speaker 12 (24:06):
This is wild stuff, good politics for good as I
was just going to say, it's actually making new some
relevant again, I mean that was kind of you know,
if he truly does want to run for president, but
again I don't. I mean, maybe times will change in
three and a half years when we have another president,
but I mean, like this does not show tough on crime,
which was such a big issue this time around. Okay,
(24:27):
I mean again, we know the president mago, President Trump
mago too far and the pundulum swing, so who knows, right.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Was arresting the governor's going too far? I don't think
it's going to happen, but that would maybe qualify having.
Speaker 12 (24:40):
This fighting on TV. Stuff like whether or over yeah,
or over social media is just a new norse.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
Quite a moment or society is in here, isn't it. Well,
So let's talk about the actual fine print, because you
used to do this for a living. The directives signed
by the President cites ten USC. Twelve four h six,
referring to a provision and Title ten of the US
Coat on Armed Services. If there's a rebellion or danger
of a rebellion against the authority of the government of
the United States, it allows the federal deployment of National
(25:09):
Guard forces.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (25:10):
I don't think this is.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Are we call them as a rebellion?
Speaker 12 (25:13):
What else would you call it?
Speaker 3 (25:14):
A protest?
Speaker 12 (25:15):
But the protest isn't just it's not a peaceful protest. No,
it's a destructive protest. I mean, you saw this stuff.
I'm you see what was happening. I don't think it's
like people holding signs.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
Well, it kind of started that way in some cases.
And I'm not here to weigh in on that one
way or the other. But when you start thinking about
an insurrection, we don't want to call January sixth that.
But we're calling this an insurrection to qualify for the
deployment of troops.
Speaker 12 (25:39):
I well, we may agree to disagree on because No,
I just think that there was enough destruction going on.
I mean, listen, everything else is in the courts. Does
the obviously the governor did sue the president for doing this? Yes,
you know, I just have one thing to say, Katrina
wouldn't have been as bad as Katrina was if the
local government then would have allowed the President Bush to
(26:02):
call in the National Guard. And he did not overturn
the mayor at the time of New Orleans, and that
was when the right after the lovees broken whatever, and
that was one of the biggest destructions in our country.
I mean, I think that this is a very fine line.
But again, legally we'll see. I'm sure we'll be in
the courts, but politically, like presence, like bringing on, he's
(26:23):
going to be in the court for the next ten
years to.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Well, I guess that's for sure. As a homeland security specialist,
do you worry about the idea of Marines being deployed
and I realized that that's likely just a threat from
Pete Hegseth. But would that be a line Tocross.
Speaker 12 (26:37):
I think that's a tougher line, for sure. I mean,
the Marines and you have guns, and you'll have obviously troops,
and it's a whole different scene. I think, unless people
are getting killed, if you see major destruction in regards
to buildings burning, I mean more than it's already happening.
I just can't imagine that happens. But we'll see One
thing that we were talking about before the YAR is
(26:59):
like does this spread from city to city to city
like some of the things that happened during COVID you
know obviously, George Floyd. I mean, we can go down
some of the issues, but that's what you don't want
to see happen. Is this a call to will this be?
Is this going to be a Democrats call to action?
Are they going to fall in the hell in this
issue and call for protest? I'm not sure if you
(27:22):
don't have kind of what's been happening with a lot
of these protests, not necessary immigration, but a lot of
these professional protests that have been happening with destruction over
the last five to so years, is you have people
that are hired to come destroy things just to make
chaos in the country, whether you believe it's Russia or
China or whatever. So that's but I would think anyone
(27:45):
running for president is not going to want this. They're
not going to fall in their swords on this.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Well, this is what I wanted to get to you
with as as someone who's actually been in the building,
you're looking at the great unknown of this summer. Inside,
we'll say, the Department of Homeland Security, how do you
start model for the possibilities because this could in fact
go into other cities. What if this did go into
New York as Tom Keane was discussing with Andrew Cuomo,
what if there's another occupy movement? Is that what Homeland
(28:11):
is working on now?
Speaker 12 (28:12):
I'm sure they are. I'm definitely I think you have.
And also you have a lot of events coming up.
Whether it's well a year from now is America to fifty,
but we have the parade this weekend. You have a
lot of different opportunities for chaos. But also what the
department is doing right now, along with the DOJ, is
really concentrating on some of the destruction regards to anti Semitism.
(28:35):
So you have the anti Semitism, you have the anti
immigrant movement, and then you have the flames being flared
that if you're in the coordinating of state and local
law enforcement right now within the Homeland Security Department, you
are making sure that everyone's prepared for something to happen,
(28:56):
to something to happen, especially in the major cities.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Did you see the foot to this Australian reporter who
was on the streets in Los Angeles and she's talking
about the response from the police was right around the
time they started shooting rubber pellets or the bean bags
and so forth and deploying the tear gas. I don't
know if we have this for our audience on YouTube,
but she's actually live in Australia. This is the video
(29:21):
from this situation, and she's shot in the leg while
she's out there. This is the type of thing that
can really change the way a story plays in the media.
You see her being shot and we don't hear her
screams right now if you're with us on the radio,
but it was a bit of a scary moment for her.
These things can turn pretty quickly in public opinion the
(29:42):
way this is handled by authorities on the ground.
Speaker 12 (29:45):
If you see people, if you see peaceful protesters being
strong armed by the military, whether it's especially like the
National Guard, guest, this can definitely change the conversation quickly. Obviously,
that's super unfortunately seen that. Yeah, But by the way,
there's going to be propaganda on both sides. You're going
to see the same video of the guy with the
(30:08):
Mexican flag and the you know, burning. Well, no, I'm
burning the Yeah, I'm burning the car and the mask.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Particularly dystopian by the way, about protesters burning robotic vehicles,
I think we have truly reached a science fiction phase
when we see stuff like that. But the aftermath here
could be interesting. What happens in the next couple of
days in Los Angeles? How do you cool the temperature?
Speaker 12 (30:31):
Well, hopefully, I mean, I'm from what we're seeing today,
there's not as many protests, there's less and less. I mean,
it would be great if they stop and I mean
this and then everyone kind of backs off. It's just
what's scary and what's making me a little nervous, and
going back to your Department of Homeland Security making them
a little nervous, and local law enforcement is if this
does escalate.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
Yeah, could Washington? Could New York handle the situation like
that better than LA?
Speaker 12 (30:59):
Well, I think I think the current mayor of New
York would handle it pretty well. I mean, that's just
not a political statement one way or the other. But
I think he saw I mean, it's an electioneer obviously
there's one, yes, but I think that he would probably
call in the help. I mean, you saw that city
was destroyed. It's starting to make its way back. Same
with LA. I mean there has to be a grasp
(31:20):
on some of this, not because of the protests. I'm
just saying in general, Sure, what's happened.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Well, I appreciate your point of view. We went into
overtime because I really wanted to hear what you had
to say about this. This is a very delicate moment
and we're lucky to have Ashley Davis bring out one
side of this argument for us from S three group.
Great to have you and thank you, Thanks Ashley.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
As always, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E'stern
on Apple, Cockley and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
We reach for the next answer when it comes to reconciliation.
The questions have not changed in a while. We're waiting
for the Senate to show up with its version of
President Trump's Big Tax and Spend Bill? Are we done
calling it a big, beautiful bill? Like the Big Tax
and Spend Bill? The question about tax breaks, will they
(32:19):
be permanent? Business tax breaks? Not just individual Trump tax cuts,
but also of course Medicaid. I'll say changes for the
benefit of this conversation. And then, well, if you're watching
or listening to Bloomberg, the granddaddy of them all being Salt.
I mentioned this because the Senate Finance Committee is going
to put forth it's part of the bill, the big
(32:42):
beautiful bill this week. Mike Crapo, Republican, Wyoming, the chair,
is behind the drive to make these tax breaks permanent.
That's going to change the whole dynamic now because we're
hearing that Salt is going to come down. We're hearing
that Medicaid changes could happen, maybe the provider tax, with
worries about the impact on rural communities, and that could
(33:06):
be enough to sink this bill when it goes back
to the House. It's about to happen. Senator Crapo is
going to put forth his bill this week, and you
better believe that the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson,
is holding his breath right now. Let's assemble our panel
for their take on this and a lot more. Jinny
Schanzano is with us, our Bloomberg Politics contributor in Democratic
(33:29):
Analysts with the Center for the Study of the Presidency
in Congress and Lisa Camuso Miller, Republican strategist former RNC
Comms director, spend time working for a former Republican speaker.
And Lisa, I'll start with you. Here are the shields
up in the Speaker's office right now. They know something's
going to come back. They don't want.
Speaker 11 (33:49):
I think it would have to be right.
Speaker 13 (33:51):
I mean, Joe, I think more than anything, they have expectations.
They've had a little bit of time to think about
how they're going to respond to this.
Speaker 11 (33:58):
I think that they've known where the fault lines are.
Speaker 13 (34:00):
So the Speaker's office is already working behind the scenes
to figure out what kinds of expectations they might have,
what kinds of adjustments they could make to get themselves
to a place where they could all get it done.
Speaker 11 (34:10):
It's going to be a challenge, there's no doubt about it.
Speaker 13 (34:12):
But I think Speaker Johnson knew that going in, and
he's got the people around him that are going to
help him get a compromise bill that's going to be
able to get done and get signed because they are
really motivated to get this, to get this right.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
We heard from Mike Lawler over the weekend, Genie, the
Republican from your state of New York says, you hack
up that salt deal. I'm a hard no. And that
goes for others in the New York delegation. That alone
would sink the bill. Right, we can only lose three,
I believe, is where we're at. What happens when the
bill comes back to the House, then.
Speaker 6 (34:46):
Yeah, hands off salt. It's becomes sort of a mantra
around these parts and in other high tax places. And
you know, Mike Lawler is speaking for enough Republicans in
the House from these high tax that it's going to
be very hard to get their vote if they reduce
the cap from what they agreed to in the House.
(35:07):
The problem, of course for the Senate is is that
they don't have people in the Senate GOP who are
really focused on salt or care that much about it.
Number one and number two, they are really intent on
doing some damage to salt, and the White House, by
the way, has said the President is okay with that.
(35:28):
I mean President Trump has been all over the place
on salt. And so if they do touch salt, which
I think they will, they're going to have to be
very cautious because they will lose the support in the
Senate that and in the House. Rather that said, I
think we're hearing that Mike Lawler is going to talk
to Thune. He's going to talk to other Senators and
tell him how damaging this would be, and they will
(35:49):
come to some kind of compromise. I think on the
issue of salt.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
How much communication Lisa is going on behind the scenes
right now between Mike Johnson and John Thune, maybe among
their teams knowing if we know about this, they sure
do to try to try to limit the number of
changes to ask for some grace when it comes to
the bill coming back. Or am I crazy? The Senate
always jams the House.
Speaker 11 (36:15):
No, I don't think you're crazy at all, Joe. I think,
if anything, you're absolutely right. I mean, I don't think
the principals are meeting.
Speaker 13 (36:20):
I don't think that the two you know, the lead
two leaders, will be meeting until we're getting closer to the.
Speaker 11 (36:25):
End on this negotiation.
Speaker 13 (36:27):
But if you mean, staff all day long are working together,
not only at the highest highest levels, but all the
way down into the committees to make sure that they're
trying to find a way to get this right. And look,
this is the way the House and the Senate do
their business together. Do we knock on one another and
say that they do work differently than we do.
Speaker 11 (36:45):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 13 (36:46):
But the truth of it is is that policy books
are working together to try to find common ground in
order to get something that can get done and can
get to the President's desk. And I do think that
they're still really working towards a July fourth completion price.
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Boy, that would be something Chuck Schumer doesn't necessarily see
it that way. And before we get to that, we're
going to have to deal with recisions. Genie. This is
something that Democrats were at one time worried about, and
I'm wondering if you are at this point, because there's
not a lot there and we've got nine billion dollars
nine point four billion dollars in the recisions package. Remember
this is public broadcasting, USAID, a couple of other things
(37:24):
including PEPFAR and now this is something that brings us
back to the George W. Bush administration funding to help
fight AIDS and HIV on a global level. There are
a number of Republicans who are uncomfortable with cuts to
pep Far and now at least ten moderate R's genie
are privately saying in the House of Representatives that they're
a no. Is it possible that this thing goes down
(37:48):
and not a dollar is rescinded.
Speaker 6 (37:52):
I think it is possible, at least the pep far
perch portion will go down, and rightly it should. The
damn image done to people around the world from the
perspective of their health, if indeed they do, they do
move forward on that is so astonishing. It's hard to
wrap your head around that being the thing that they
(38:13):
cut or try to pull back. So I do think
that goes down. I don't think they will fail to
get even a dollar, but I think it's going to
be much much smaller because the reality of this entire, big,
beautiful bill and the recision of package itself is it
is damaging to the people who need the support most,
(38:35):
and that is what makes it, for so many of us,
such a deplorable bill. It is hurting the people who
need health care. It is hurting the people who need
medical care. It is hurting the environment which we all
depend on. I mean, you can go down the litany
all in the interest of giving tax breaks to big
business and people who make a lot of money. So
(38:58):
this is where they are and it is devastating from
so many perspectives. And that is just one example from
the recision portion. And I would just say that that
is why Donald Trump is so intent on pushing out
pictures of what's going down in LA because he very
much doesn't want to talk about that, but he wants
to talk about the fact this invests money in the
(39:18):
border where he wants to make the case it is needed.
Speaker 3 (39:22):
Remember when Mitt Romney was going to cut big birds
funding Lisa turned out to be not the best time
spent considering the return you get on the dollar. To
make that argument, are we really doing this? We're going
to defund PBS once and for earlier.
Speaker 13 (39:39):
I mean, it feels like that's where we're headed for sure,
and I think Genie's point is one to take. I
also think that we need to consider that when you
are asking so many vulnerable members of Congress on the
right and the left for that matter, to make these
hard decisions in the reconciliation legislation. When they comes to recisions,
(40:01):
I think a lot of political capital has been expended already,
and that's the other difficulty here is that had we
had this bill go through with pieces of good policy,
I think that a lot of other folks would feel
better about taking a sharper pencil to the budget and
these opportunities that are coming through in the recisions package.
Speaker 11 (40:23):
The problem is, I think people are going to be.
Speaker 13 (40:25):
Just downright tired and unhappy with the way these processes
are moving, and so that alone makes it that much
more difficult for them to get to a place where
they can agree upon whether or not PBS should be
part of the chopping block, a pep far should be
part of the child. All of these things are just
one blow after another that they know they're going to
have to answer for when they go home in August
(40:46):
and when they have to compete for their seats up
again in the midterms, which are just around the corner.
Speaker 3 (40:54):
It is really interesting when lawmakers rediscover certain constituencies depending
on the debate here, Genie, you back off and look
at what happened with the DOGE or I guess is happening.
They continue their work in the wake of Elon Musk.
But that's what brought us here. This was supposed to
be codifying the work of the Doge, not two trillion dollars,
(41:15):
but nine point four billion. You look at the big
beautiful bill which was supposed to lower debt and deficits.
And there are still a number of folks in Washington
who will say in the administration, Republicans on Capitol Hill
will say that it does when you factor in certain
levels of growth and returns from terrace. But the Congressional
Budget Office, every major economist, all of the thing tanks
(41:37):
here in Washington say that it allowed trillions to the
debt and deficit. This cost cutting thing, Genie, turns out
to be kind of difficult. Huh.
Speaker 6 (41:46):
Yeah, it certainly does. And you can take any one
of those areas you just mentioned, and we can talk
about the impact on particular constituencies of these representatives and senators,
but let's also look at them of the most vulnerable
in our communities. As it pertains to public health. This
(42:06):
intent to cut and gut Medicaid and Medicare will be
devastating in rural hospitals. It'll be devastating for large populations
of elderly young people. And then let's jump over to
look at something we all should have an interest in,
and that is something involving our environment clean energy. We're
(42:26):
looking at COP thirty in November in Brazil and we
are gonna apparently send a contingent to that maybe go
down there. If they pass this bill, they will have
destroyed things that were intent on giving green energy tax
credits and other avenues by which we could move to clean,
(42:47):
green energy and allow all of us to live longer
and in a better and healthier state around the world.
So the impacts of this thing are devastating from many perspectives.
And yet you see even Tom Massey says it's likely
going to get through in some shape or another. And
so it is something that you just watch it go
(43:09):
on and you realize the devastation that is embedded in
a bill this big in the interest of saving money
for wealthy and big business, and that is a I
think a tremendous disservice to the entire community.
Speaker 3 (43:24):
Well, I know you've been through a few of these rounds, Lisa,
when it comes to big promises in cutting spending. But
it is likely that this bill is going to pass,
at least in its current form when it comes to
tax and spend levels, minus some adjustments around the edges.
The missing component is revenue from tariffs. According to a
lot of Republican lawmakers who we talk to, and right
(43:48):
now the Trump team is in talks with China to
try to craft a trade deal. How do these all
reconcile and well tariffs actually help to make the difference?
Speaker 13 (43:59):
Oh, I mean, I think that that's the hope out
of the White House. I think their expectation is that
it will definitely make the difference. The other thing too,
is that you know, when Genie talks about the fact
that we have all these other things that are in
the bill that are going to cause concern. If you
walk outside of this beltway and you ask people out
out in the districts what they care about. They want change,
(44:20):
and they don't they're not really sure what it takes
to make change, but they're willing to take a chance
that these new, unconventional ways are the ways to make change.
And so they're not willing to take opportunities as it
relates to climate change and other risky kinds of ideas
that they think about until in fact their basic needs
(44:41):
are met. And so if costs can come down, if
tariffs are going to make that difference, I'm not really
sure they care about how the sausage is made gel
provided that the change happens and happens in a way
that helps them and helps their bottom line. So, while
we all existentially know that all of these other things
that Genie mentioned are part of the bill and are problematic,
people want basic needs met.
Speaker 3 (45:06):
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at
Bloomberg dot com.
Popular Podcasts
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.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.