June 18, 2025 • 24 mins
Watch Alix and Paul LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
Bloomberg Intelligence hosted by Paul Sweeney and Alix Steel
Bloomberg Law Host June Grasso discusses the recent Supreme Court decision to curb care for transgender minors. A divided US Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that outlaws certain medical treatments for transgender children, preserving similar measures in two dozen states.
Daniel Byman, Director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a Professor at Georgetown University, joins to discuss the latest on the middle east conflict. The US is considering joining Israel in the war, which could improve the chances of permanently ending Iran's path to a nuclear weapon but risks throwing the oil-rich region into widespread conflict.
Joe Deaux, Bloomberg Economic Statecraft Reporter, on the deal between Nippon Steel and US Steel. Nippon Steel Corp. has closed its $14.1 billion takeover of United States Steel Corp., creating the world's second-largest steelmaker and giving Nippon Steel a foothold in the US.
Kevin Teasley, Founder and CEO of GEO Academies, discussed how his organization is focused on breaking the cycle of poverty by providing access to exceptional, non-traditional educational opportunities to all families.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am
Eastern on Apple, Coarclay, and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Let's go back that a Supreme Court decision. We've been
waiting a number of rulings. We got one this morning.
The Supreme Court upholds curbs on treatment for transgender miner.
Judan Grassow Joints is here. She's a legal analyst at
Bloomberg News. Here, Jude, I know it's a big court case. Here,
what did the court find?
Speaker 3 (00:42):
So this is basically expected from what we heard during
the oral arguments, and the court found that this Tennessee
law that bans gender firm and care for minors doesn't
violate the Equal Protection Clause. And the key is the
method of analyzing it, so.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
It could be analyze.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
These laws can be analyzed under a rational basis test
or under a strict scrutiny test.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
The rational basis test is much easier.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
You just have to show that there's a rational connection
between the government's interests and the law, and that's what
the Fifth Circuit did in this case. And then they
found that the law wasn't didn't violate the equal protection claws.
With the strict scrutiny test, which is what the trial
court used, you have to show that there is a
compelling government interest in having this law and that it's
(01:30):
narrowly tailored. So here the Supreme Court said, we don't
have to use the strict scrutiny test. We're going to
use the rational basis test, and under that law, under
that kind of analysis, this law passes.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
And that's you know, as I said, the rational basis
is a pretty easy test. Justice.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
During the oral arguments, there were a lot of questions
and a lot of the Conservatives talked about how they
didn't this was not a question for the court. This
was a question for the lawmaker, and the lawmakers had
decided this. And so the Chief Justice in his opinion
in the last sentence, referred to that. He said, hold on,
(02:11):
I'm looking for it. It's one hundred and eighteen pages. I
don't know if I'll be able to find it.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
At this point.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
He said that this case carries with it the weight
of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy,
and proprietary of medical treatments, and so by the courts,
the court's role is is just to dirt termine whether
it violates the equal protection clause. So we're leaving policy
to the people. They're elected representatives and the democratic process.
(02:39):
Justice Soto Mayor wrote the dissent, and you know, she
was very heartfelt and concerned during the oral arguments about
you know, the fact that transgender people are about one
percent of the population. And so the lawmakers who are
making these laws, she said, are not considering them. They
have no input, really have no voice, they have no voice.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
So what law does this then leave in place? So
it leaves in place.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
The Kentucky ban on gender firming care for minors, which
other states have copied.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
And so but in reality, what does that mean? So
if you're under eighteen, you're not allowed to take steps
to change genders, right exactly transition, I should say.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
It's a little bit of a complicated law. But under
any kind of gender firming care or firming care for
gender dysphoria is not allowed.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
If you're under eighteen.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
So that even includes if your parents are on board
with it. So it eliminates a lot of the treatments
that are out there.
Speaker 6 (03:38):
What are we still waiting form the Supreme Court?
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Aunt, So we're still waiting for the birthright citizenship case,
which is, by the way, not going to rule on
whether the birthright Citizenship Executive Order that Trump put forth
is legal or not. It's going to rule on another
issue about nationwide injunctions. And we're waiting on the age
very garification for porn websites from Texas.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
And let me see, we're also.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Waiting on how I have a list here of the
trans care that was a big one that we were
waiting for, the Universal the FCC's Universal Service Fund.
Speaker 6 (04:14):
All right, so there's still a couple more.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Thanks we're waiting for all right, excellent stuff, Drian Grass,
thank you so much for joining us. Jean Grasso on
short notice on the Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 6 (04:23):
Our legal analyst here for Bloomberger Newspaper.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live
weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple Coarclay, and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (04:40):
Alex Delire alongside paulsw Need. This is Bloomberg Intelligence Radio.
We bring you all the top news and business, economics
and finance threat lens of our Bloomberg Intelligence folks. They
cover two thousand companies and in one hundred and thirty
industries all around the world. We are also following what
is happening around the world. President Donald Trump declining to
say whether the US plans to join Israel's military offensive
on Iran, but had some pretty harsh words for Iran
(05:03):
and what he thought unconditional surrender meant, which.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
Was He's had it. That's what he said, quote, I've
had it.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
Daniel Biman is director of the Warfare of Regular Threats
and Terrorism Program at the Center of Strategic and International
Studies and a professor at Georgetown University. Professor, what do
you take that to mean? Unconditional surrender means I've had it?
What is that?
Speaker 7 (05:26):
It's unclear exactly what President Trump is looking for when
it comes to Iran. Obviously, he was trying negotiations and
was frustrated by Iran's unwillingness to accept the US offer.
But what he actually hopes to accomplish through military threats
or perhaps military action. He still has not made clear.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
What do you think the options are for the US
and its role potentially in that part of the world today.
Speaker 7 (05:54):
So the United States could continue variations of what it's
doing right now, which is eighth israil but on the
relatively light side. So the US is already assisting with
air defense. There are news reports the US has assisted
with intelligence entron and helping resupply Israel as it runs
out of important munitions could be one role basically continuing
(06:16):
what the US is doing, but it could also step
up pressure in lots of ways. One of the ones
being most discussed is using the US ordinance that is
massive and specifically designed to go after sites that are
deeply buried, and Iran's key nuclear site, Foordo, is literally
inside a mountain, So joining that and using the assets
(06:37):
that really only the United States has to go after
this and in so doing probably further devastating Around's new
core program. And it could be even more ambitious than that.
Israel has attacked iran An infrastructure and especially a range
of military and energy targets, and if the United States
joined in that the goal might be to severely weaken
the regime for several years and perhaps even try to
(06:59):
lay the groundwork for regime change, although that's probably a
bridge too far.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Yesterday on television, I was speaking with retired General Wesley Clark.
He's a retired US Army officer. He also was head
of NATO. There's a pre mall ed leader of NATO
for the West, and I wonder and he was pointing
out the three things that happen when you're in the
situation room, sort.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
Of the means, the.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
Ends, and he said something else the house I think
it is, or is how you do it, the means
with which you do it, and then with the end
goal is what is your level of confidence that those
three things are being given equal treatment right now?
Speaker 7 (07:36):
So let me say two things that may seem to contradict,
but I think they're both true. One is, the US
has been preparing for this separation for really for decades.
This is something that has been discussed over the years
by different administrations, and there's tremendous knowledge in the military
and intelligence community on how to target around and so
(07:57):
there's a lot of ability to cut to do this
reasonably well from a tactical sense, but there are a
lot of chaotic factors that are also in play here,
and one of the biggest is simply what the United
States is hoping to achieve from all this. Is it
simply bandwaggoning on what Israel's already doing. Does it have
different goals? And it's unclear to me how the process
(08:20):
is working in terms of who is giving the present advice,
how serious those people are in terms of what they've
thought through, and whether they've thought about some of the
long term consequences that are political as well as military.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Do we have any sense, Daniel, how the Uranians will
respond if the Americans were to aid these rules with
some offensive operations.
Speaker 7 (08:42):
So it's possible that the Irritians will recognize the overwhelming
might of American military forces and simply try to limitate retaliation,
recognizing that they're going to receive a lot worse than
they're going to give, and the best they can know
for is just to hunker down. But no country likes
to frankly be bombed or take a beating and do
(09:04):
nothing about it, and they'll have strong political reasons to
try to respond. A lot could be in the Middle East.
Ron has a strong presence in terms of paramilitary ties
and proxy groups in Iraq in particular, but also other states,
and they'll go after US forces station there, they'll go
after the US personnel there. In the past, Ron has
also supported international terrorism and it is attacked targets around
(09:27):
the world. So these are definite possibilities. And then we
have to accept that Iran is creative and might do
things we don't anticipate, that there are things that maybe
in its playbooks that we just don't know about.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
This is an extremely unfair question. Is there a better
way to go around this? Like, no one thinks that
a nuclear iron is good. Everyone doesn't want that hands down.
What is a better way If we're not going to
get drawn into this on some military level and negotiations
aren't working, is there a third rail?
Speaker 7 (10:00):
When we have negotiations backed by the threat of military force,
they're more likely to succeed. And Iran was moving towards
some degree of acceptance of negotiations. It's just a question
of what level of success the United States was willing
to have with negotiations. Having something similar to the Iran
deal that Present Obama signed, which basically froze Iron's program,
(10:23):
that was definitely in the realm of the possible and
I think could be in the future, but Iran was
drawing the line in terms of having some nuclear program.
It said, we are not going to give it up completely,
even if it's not a nuclear weapons program. Iran was
also drawing the line when it comes to support like
proxy groups. So it's really a question of whether the
United States will accept limits on a deal risk in
(10:44):
other areas, or if it wants a much more absolute solution.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Daniel real quickly, thirty seconds left. Does the US have
the military assets in place now where we need a
few days and or weeks.
Speaker 7 (10:56):
So we have some in place now that can do
a lot of damage to Iran. We also have long
range strike capabilities, so we have aircraft that can fly
from totally from thousands of miles away, refuel in flight,
and do a lot of damage. But having another carrier
in the area certainly would help.
Speaker 6 (11:12):
Daniel, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Daniel Bimen, director of Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, laying out
the options for the US as we heard from President
Trump earlier today on the South Lawn, as you said,
as you quoted him, he's had it, so I'm not
sure what that means, but it feels like a decision
will be coming from the US side, maybe sooner on
(11:36):
than later.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch US Live
weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App, Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch US Live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (11:52):
Something is confirmed when it comes to nip On Steel
and US Steel. I'm still trying to understand if it's
a takeover, if it's a partnership, if it's a golden relationship.
I really couldn't tell you. But you know who Ken
Jod He's an economic estate craft reporter. He's also covered
the steel industry for many many years.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Joe, what kind of.
Speaker 5 (12:10):
Deal is this?
Speaker 8 (12:12):
Well, I mean, this is a takeover takeover. So the
decks just hit and I had a chance to look
through them right before I got here. It's a fourteen
point one billion dollar deal, which is what was agreed
to in December of twenty twenty three, and an additional
eleven billion dollars in investments across the footprint of US Steel.
Now here's the key thing. There's a golden share, and
(12:35):
what is now confirmed that I think is could be
considered by some troubling but also a hurdle for many
who are steel who are investors in nip On Steel.
The Golden share gives the President of the United States
in perpetuity decision making abilities over a number of company
specific decisions that every company on planet Earth has to
(12:57):
make over periods of time, capital investments, decisions to layoff workers,
decisions to cut capacity, and then there's some basic ones
like a decision whether or not they want to move
the headquarters and change the name.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
I've never heard of a golden share type of mechanism.
Speaker 6 (13:14):
Have they been used? Has this been used before?
Speaker 8 (13:16):
Golden shares are not unusual outside of the United States.
We see this in Europe, we do see this across Asia,
but the United States takes a bit of pride in
the fact that it doesn't do golden shares.
Speaker 6 (13:28):
Now.
Speaker 8 (13:28):
Initially, Josh wing Grove and I are one of our
White House reporters had been reporting in this golden share,
and the initial reporting we was getting we were getting
was that, well, the golden share isn't exactly a golden share,
it's more just some veto powers, but what has become
clear is the Golden share gives specific power to the
President of the United States. There's all sorts of questions
(13:50):
that I have there that I don't know if we
can get into right now, but I do think these
are the questions that investors in Nippon Steel are going
to have to be asking themselves.
Speaker 5 (13:59):
Okay, here's the dumb one. Why did Nipon Steel go
for this? Like why spend fourteen billion dollars to have
your investment in the US run by the President of
the United States.
Speaker 8 (14:08):
I think it shows how much Nipon Steel needed this expansion.
The question the idea was if Nippon Steel didn't close
the US Steel deal, they would have to pivot. And
the pivot discussions among investors and analysts who've covered this
company four years said, well, maybe they're going to build
out more steel capacity in India. India is actually their
(14:30):
biggest footprint in terms of production, not Japan. But it
still left them without a foothold in the United States
and North America. And mind you, that is arguably the
most important steel market in the world. The automotive market
in the United States is unbelievably important for steel makers.
It is a crown jewel. If you are Arsener Middle,
(14:52):
if you are any Chinese company, you wish you could
be selling steel into the automotive industry. The margins on
that steal are incredible and the customers are solid gold.
You know that they're going to be taking shipments year
in and year out. The deals that they make with
these guys are three year contracts. It's not just at
hoc So Nippon Steel. Now, they spent a lot, they
(15:16):
put a lot into it, but I think it said
how much the executives at Nippon Steel believed that the
future of Nippon Steele relied on getting this deal. Wow?
Speaker 6 (15:26):
Was this deal subject to shareholder approval?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (15:29):
Absolutely so the shareholders. Sorry, the merger agreement was signed
and agreed to back in April of twenty twenty four
by all the shareholders. The national security agreement that was
signed with the eleven billion dollar investment before twenty twenty
eight was not subject to that same shareholder So this
(15:51):
golden golden share did not come up for shareholder vote, right,
not a direct vote. Interesting and there's a lot to
unpack around that. I mean, to some this deal's done.
The arms are probably going to be celebrating having a
few beers or enjoying their wife and kids for the
first time in a year and a half. But for
(16:11):
those of us who are in the steel market and
follow the steel market, it is going to be interesting
how the landscape morphs around all of these decisions.
Speaker 5 (16:21):
Right, So, what is the biggest thing then that you're
watching for the trickle down of this kind of deal.
Speaker 8 (16:27):
I want to see how Nippon Steel jumps into the market.
Are they going to start selling at below market prices
to gain market share? There is an argument to be
made that the doubling of steel tras that we saw
President of the United States announce in Pittsburgh three weeks
ago when he announced the deal, is actually because the
administration understands that by Nippon Steel getting this deal closed,
(16:51):
they are a formidable opponent to New Core Corporation, which
is the largest US steelmaker, and Steel Dynamics and cliffs.
But that also means you're bringing in a very viable
opponent who can continue to produce and increase their production
in their capacity that would hurt prices technically by putting
in a higher tariff.
Speaker 6 (17:12):
This fifty percent tariff.
Speaker 8 (17:14):
You are on some level closing out most foreign imports,
and therefore you're putting a floor on prices. That will
be interesting to see how it plays out. We're already
in a tough situation in the steel market right now.
It's a cyclical moment. Obviously, the entire trade tariff situation
going on is problematic, even in the steel industry. I
(17:34):
think that's the first thing we're really going to have
to focus on, all right, Joe, thanks so much, appreciated,
Jodee Bloomberg Metals and.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Mining economic Stakecraft, reporter Economic Stakcraft. It's a totally new
section within Bloomberg talk about metals and mining and all
the risks that come with it, the economics with it exactly.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live
weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Oti with the Blue Work Business app, Listen on demand
wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
June is Pride Month, So over the next couple weeks
we're going to highlight segments that on topics related to
a quality and today we decided to speak to Kevin Tilsey,
a founder and CEO of GEO Academies. The organization's focused
on helping to break the cycle of poverty through access
to education. Super pressing topic right now. Hey, Kevin, can
you walk us through specifically what your company does?
Speaker 9 (18:29):
Okay, thanks for having me. GEO stands for Greater Education
Opportunities Foundation, and what we do is we we're a
nonprofit and we support and manage and start public open
enrollment charter schools in the country. We're in Louisiana and
Indiana right now and headed to Ohio.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Give us a talk to us about our Describe one
of your schools, like what grade levels and kind of
what's the focus.
Speaker 9 (18:57):
What we're most known for, first of all, kindergarten through
twelfth grade. But we take a very business like approach
to what we do in the sense that we believe
in spending the money most effectively and efficiently for each
student's needs. And there's nothing in the law anywhere in
the country that says all you can get with K
twelve dollars is a K twelve education. So we're best
(19:19):
known for students graduating from our high school with a
full associate degree. That's two years of college. That's already
paid for by us, earned by them. We're also, i believe,
the only network in the country where students have actually
graduated having earned a full bachelor's degree before graduating from
high school.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
How does school choice benefit the US workforce and how
does that align to the DOE.
Speaker 9 (19:46):
Well, I think we're completely aligned with the current US
Department of Education's goals of preparing students for success, to
be successful citizens in the community. When I use the
term college, that's a universal umbrella name that I put
for both college and career. And what we're trying to
(20:09):
do is get our students to graduate not only from
high school and not just to go to college, but
to complete college. And to say that we have a
problem in the United States is a bit of an
understatement when it comes to college completion, and it's not
necessarily because of lack of money. The US Department of
(20:32):
Education's biggest job is to loan money for kids to
go to college, so they do student loans. You've probably
been following the student loan forgiveness program under the previous administration.
The reality is the US Department of Education and frankly,
all the states across the country have either pel grants
(20:54):
or loans or college scholarship programs, in most they're a failure.
We have students borrowing money or getting money who have
absolutely no college experience whatsoever. And so does that make
any sense. If you're an employer and you're hiring somebody
(21:16):
to come take a job, the very first thing and
employers going to ask is what's your experience? But when
it comes to college loans or grants, PELL grants, FASPA,
which you've probably heard of, the Federal Student Loan program,
even in state grant programs, there's no question on there
that asks what's your college experience? And you may say, well, well,
(21:38):
these are high school kids, why should they have college experience? Well,
many schools across the country are doing dual credit and
dual enrollment now. So if you know that you're going
to need a grant or a loan by the time
you graduate from high school, maybe you ought to be
getting some of that college experience while you're in high school.
And then the loan and grant folks or the officers
(22:01):
that are reviewing the opportunity, they would have a question
there that says, do you have any college experience?
Speaker 7 (22:07):
Right?
Speaker 9 (22:08):
How did you do so? That when they're borrowing that money,
the borrower knows what they're getting into. Makes sense to.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Me, Kevin, what's the economic model for geo academies?
Speaker 9 (22:19):
We try not to rely on philanthropy. We focus one
hundred percent on using the public tax dollar, the federal
and local and state dollars at every traditional public school gets,
and we just try to get as much education as
possible for each of our students. We do need philanthropy
to start the school, but after we get it up
(22:42):
and running, we are self sustaining.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
Really great stuff. Good luck, really appreciate it. What actually
is your biggest hurdle right now before we let you go.
Speaker 9 (22:53):
I think the biggest hurdle is getting adults to understand
that when we get kids that graduate with an associate
degree or bachelor's degree, that that is a great start
to their career and their lives and it benefits all
of us. Believe it or not, there's some adults out
there that think kids in high school should enjoy high school. Well,
(23:15):
in many cases that's okay, But in the student population
that I'm serving, which is Gary, Indiana, Indianapolis, and Baton Rouge,
very low in community, low income communities, These kids are
ready to rock and get going. They don't have time
to sit around and enjoy the traditional high school. They
want to get busy with their life.
Speaker 6 (23:35):
They want to get.
Speaker 9 (23:36):
Moving and earning an income and you know, being successful.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
All right, really great story. Thank you so much, Kevin Telsey.
We wish you all the luck for that in all
your endeavors. He is the founder and CEO Geo Academics.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
This is the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts live each weekday,
ten am to noon Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You
can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and
always on the Bloomberg terminal
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am
Eastern on Apple, Coarclay, and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Let's go back that a Supreme Court decision. We've been
waiting a number of rulings. We got one this morning.
The Supreme Court upholds curbs on treatment for transgender miner.
Judan Grassow Joints is here. She's a legal analyst at
Bloomberg News. Here, Jude, I know it's a big court case. Here,
what did the court find?
Speaker 3 (00:42):
So this is basically expected from what we heard during
the oral arguments, and the court found that this Tennessee
law that bans gender firm and care for minors doesn't
violate the Equal Protection Clause. And the key is the
method of analyzing it, so.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
It could be analyze.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
These laws can be analyzed under a rational basis test
or under a strict scrutiny test.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
The rational basis test is much easier.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
You just have to show that there's a rational connection
between the government's interests and the law, and that's what
the Fifth Circuit did in this case. And then they
found that the law wasn't didn't violate the equal protection claws.
With the strict scrutiny test, which is what the trial
court used, you have to show that there is a
compelling government interest in having this law and that it's
(01:30):
narrowly tailored. So here the Supreme Court said, we don't
have to use the strict scrutiny test. We're going to
use the rational basis test, and under that law, under
that kind of analysis, this law passes.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
And that's you know, as I said, the rational basis
is a pretty easy test. Justice.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
During the oral arguments, there were a lot of questions
and a lot of the Conservatives talked about how they
didn't this was not a question for the court. This
was a question for the lawmaker, and the lawmakers had
decided this. And so the Chief Justice in his opinion
in the last sentence, referred to that. He said, hold on,
(02:11):
I'm looking for it. It's one hundred and eighteen pages. I
don't know if I'll be able to find it.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
At this point.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
He said that this case carries with it the weight
of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy,
and proprietary of medical treatments, and so by the courts,
the court's role is is just to dirt termine whether
it violates the equal protection clause. So we're leaving policy
to the people. They're elected representatives and the democratic process.
(02:39):
Justice Soto Mayor wrote the dissent, and you know, she
was very heartfelt and concerned during the oral arguments about
you know, the fact that transgender people are about one
percent of the population. And so the lawmakers who are
making these laws, she said, are not considering them. They
have no input, really have no voice, they have no voice.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
So what law does this then leave in place? So
it leaves in place.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
The Kentucky ban on gender firming care for minors, which
other states have copied.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
And so but in reality, what does that mean? So
if you're under eighteen, you're not allowed to take steps
to change genders, right exactly transition, I should say.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
It's a little bit of a complicated law. But under
any kind of gender firming care or firming care for
gender dysphoria is not allowed.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
If you're under eighteen.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
So that even includes if your parents are on board
with it. So it eliminates a lot of the treatments
that are out there.
Speaker 6 (03:38):
What are we still waiting form the Supreme Court?
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Aunt, So we're still waiting for the birthright citizenship case,
which is, by the way, not going to rule on
whether the birthright Citizenship Executive Order that Trump put forth
is legal or not. It's going to rule on another
issue about nationwide injunctions. And we're waiting on the age
very garification for porn websites from Texas.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
And let me see, we're also.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Waiting on how I have a list here of the
trans care that was a big one that we were
waiting for, the Universal the FCC's Universal Service Fund.
Speaker 6 (04:14):
All right, so there's still a couple more.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Thanks we're waiting for all right, excellent stuff, Drian Grass,
thank you so much for joining us. Jean Grasso on
short notice on the Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 6 (04:23):
Our legal analyst here for Bloomberger Newspaper.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live
weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple Coarclay, and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (04:40):
Alex Delire alongside paulsw Need. This is Bloomberg Intelligence Radio.
We bring you all the top news and business, economics
and finance threat lens of our Bloomberg Intelligence folks. They
cover two thousand companies and in one hundred and thirty
industries all around the world. We are also following what
is happening around the world. President Donald Trump declining to
say whether the US plans to join Israel's military offensive
on Iran, but had some pretty harsh words for Iran
(05:03):
and what he thought unconditional surrender meant, which.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
Was He's had it. That's what he said, quote, I've
had it.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
Daniel Biman is director of the Warfare of Regular Threats
and Terrorism Program at the Center of Strategic and International
Studies and a professor at Georgetown University. Professor, what do
you take that to mean? Unconditional surrender means I've had it?
What is that?
Speaker 7 (05:26):
It's unclear exactly what President Trump is looking for when
it comes to Iran. Obviously, he was trying negotiations and
was frustrated by Iran's unwillingness to accept the US offer.
But what he actually hopes to accomplish through military threats
or perhaps military action. He still has not made clear.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
What do you think the options are for the US
and its role potentially in that part of the world today.
Speaker 7 (05:54):
So the United States could continue variations of what it's
doing right now, which is eighth israil but on the
relatively light side. So the US is already assisting with
air defense. There are news reports the US has assisted
with intelligence entron and helping resupply Israel as it runs
out of important munitions could be one role basically continuing
(06:16):
what the US is doing, but it could also step
up pressure in lots of ways. One of the ones
being most discussed is using the US ordinance that is
massive and specifically designed to go after sites that are
deeply buried, and Iran's key nuclear site, Foordo, is literally
inside a mountain, So joining that and using the assets
(06:37):
that really only the United States has to go after
this and in so doing probably further devastating Around's new
core program. And it could be even more ambitious than that.
Israel has attacked iran An infrastructure and especially a range
of military and energy targets, and if the United States
joined in that the goal might be to severely weaken
the regime for several years and perhaps even try to
(06:59):
lay the groundwork for regime change, although that's probably a
bridge too far.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Yesterday on television, I was speaking with retired General Wesley Clark.
He's a retired US Army officer. He also was head
of NATO. There's a pre mall ed leader of NATO
for the West, and I wonder and he was pointing
out the three things that happen when you're in the
situation room, sort.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
Of the means, the.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
Ends, and he said something else the house I think
it is, or is how you do it, the means
with which you do it, and then with the end
goal is what is your level of confidence that those
three things are being given equal treatment right now?
Speaker 7 (07:36):
So let me say two things that may seem to contradict,
but I think they're both true. One is, the US
has been preparing for this separation for really for decades.
This is something that has been discussed over the years
by different administrations, and there's tremendous knowledge in the military
and intelligence community on how to target around and so
(07:57):
there's a lot of ability to cut to do this
reasonably well from a tactical sense, but there are a
lot of chaotic factors that are also in play here,
and one of the biggest is simply what the United
States is hoping to achieve from all this. Is it
simply bandwaggoning on what Israel's already doing. Does it have
different goals? And it's unclear to me how the process
(08:20):
is working in terms of who is giving the present advice,
how serious those people are in terms of what they've
thought through, and whether they've thought about some of the
long term consequences that are political as well as military.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Do we have any sense, Daniel, how the Uranians will
respond if the Americans were to aid these rules with
some offensive operations.
Speaker 7 (08:42):
So it's possible that the Irritians will recognize the overwhelming
might of American military forces and simply try to limitate retaliation,
recognizing that they're going to receive a lot worse than
they're going to give, and the best they can know
for is just to hunker down. But no country likes
to frankly be bombed or take a beating and do
(09:04):
nothing about it, and they'll have strong political reasons to
try to respond. A lot could be in the Middle East.
Ron has a strong presence in terms of paramilitary ties
and proxy groups in Iraq in particular, but also other states,
and they'll go after US forces station there, they'll go
after the US personnel there. In the past, Ron has
also supported international terrorism and it is attacked targets around
(09:27):
the world. So these are definite possibilities. And then we
have to accept that Iran is creative and might do
things we don't anticipate, that there are things that maybe
in its playbooks that we just don't know about.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
This is an extremely unfair question. Is there a better
way to go around this? Like, no one thinks that
a nuclear iron is good. Everyone doesn't want that hands down.
What is a better way If we're not going to
get drawn into this on some military level and negotiations
aren't working, is there a third rail?
Speaker 7 (10:00):
When we have negotiations backed by the threat of military force,
they're more likely to succeed. And Iran was moving towards
some degree of acceptance of negotiations. It's just a question
of what level of success the United States was willing
to have with negotiations. Having something similar to the Iran
deal that Present Obama signed, which basically froze Iron's program,
(10:23):
that was definitely in the realm of the possible and
I think could be in the future, but Iran was
drawing the line in terms of having some nuclear program.
It said, we are not going to give it up completely,
even if it's not a nuclear weapons program. Iran was
also drawing the line when it comes to support like
proxy groups. So it's really a question of whether the
United States will accept limits on a deal risk in
(10:44):
other areas, or if it wants a much more absolute solution.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Daniel real quickly, thirty seconds left. Does the US have
the military assets in place now where we need a
few days and or weeks.
Speaker 7 (10:56):
So we have some in place now that can do
a lot of damage to Iran. We also have long
range strike capabilities, so we have aircraft that can fly
from totally from thousands of miles away, refuel in flight,
and do a lot of damage. But having another carrier
in the area certainly would help.
Speaker 6 (11:12):
Daniel, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Daniel Bimen, director of Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, laying out
the options for the US as we heard from President
Trump earlier today on the South Lawn, as you said,
as you quoted him, he's had it, so I'm not
sure what that means, but it feels like a decision
will be coming from the US side, maybe sooner on
(11:36):
than later.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch US Live
weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business App, Listen on demand wherever
you get your podcasts, or watch US Live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (11:52):
Something is confirmed when it comes to nip On Steel
and US Steel. I'm still trying to understand if it's
a takeover, if it's a partnership, if it's a golden relationship.
I really couldn't tell you. But you know who Ken
Jod He's an economic estate craft reporter. He's also covered
the steel industry for many many years.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Joe, what kind of.
Speaker 5 (12:10):
Deal is this?
Speaker 8 (12:12):
Well, I mean, this is a takeover takeover. So the
decks just hit and I had a chance to look
through them right before I got here. It's a fourteen
point one billion dollar deal, which is what was agreed
to in December of twenty twenty three, and an additional
eleven billion dollars in investments across the footprint of US Steel.
Now here's the key thing. There's a golden share, and
(12:35):
what is now confirmed that I think is could be
considered by some troubling but also a hurdle for many
who are steel who are investors in nip On Steel.
The Golden share gives the President of the United States
in perpetuity decision making abilities over a number of company
specific decisions that every company on planet Earth has to
(12:57):
make over periods of time, capital investments, decisions to layoff workers,
decisions to cut capacity, and then there's some basic ones
like a decision whether or not they want to move
the headquarters and change the name.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
I've never heard of a golden share type of mechanism.
Speaker 6 (13:14):
Have they been used? Has this been used before?
Speaker 8 (13:16):
Golden shares are not unusual outside of the United States.
We see this in Europe, we do see this across Asia,
but the United States takes a bit of pride in
the fact that it doesn't do golden shares.
Speaker 6 (13:28):
Now.
Speaker 8 (13:28):
Initially, Josh wing Grove and I are one of our
White House reporters had been reporting in this golden share,
and the initial reporting we was getting we were getting
was that, well, the golden share isn't exactly a golden share,
it's more just some veto powers, but what has become
clear is the Golden share gives specific power to the
President of the United States. There's all sorts of questions
(13:50):
that I have there that I don't know if we
can get into right now, but I do think these
are the questions that investors in Nippon Steel are going
to have to be asking themselves.
Speaker 5 (13:59):
Okay, here's the dumb one. Why did Nipon Steel go
for this? Like why spend fourteen billion dollars to have
your investment in the US run by the President of
the United States.
Speaker 8 (14:08):
I think it shows how much Nipon Steel needed this expansion.
The question the idea was if Nippon Steel didn't close
the US Steel deal, they would have to pivot. And
the pivot discussions among investors and analysts who've covered this
company four years said, well, maybe they're going to build
out more steel capacity in India. India is actually their
(14:30):
biggest footprint in terms of production, not Japan. But it
still left them without a foothold in the United States
and North America. And mind you, that is arguably the
most important steel market in the world. The automotive market
in the United States is unbelievably important for steel makers.
It is a crown jewel. If you are Arsener Middle,
(14:52):
if you are any Chinese company, you wish you could
be selling steel into the automotive industry. The margins on
that steal are incredible and the customers are solid gold.
You know that they're going to be taking shipments year
in and year out. The deals that they make with
these guys are three year contracts. It's not just at
hoc So Nippon Steel. Now, they spent a lot, they
(15:16):
put a lot into it, but I think it said
how much the executives at Nippon Steel believed that the
future of Nippon Steele relied on getting this deal. Wow?
Speaker 6 (15:26):
Was this deal subject to shareholder approval?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (15:29):
Absolutely so the shareholders. Sorry, the merger agreement was signed
and agreed to back in April of twenty twenty four
by all the shareholders. The national security agreement that was
signed with the eleven billion dollar investment before twenty twenty
eight was not subject to that same shareholder So this
(15:51):
golden golden share did not come up for shareholder vote, right,
not a direct vote. Interesting and there's a lot to
unpack around that. I mean, to some this deal's done.
The arms are probably going to be celebrating having a
few beers or enjoying their wife and kids for the
first time in a year and a half. But for
(16:11):
those of us who are in the steel market and
follow the steel market, it is going to be interesting
how the landscape morphs around all of these decisions.
Speaker 5 (16:21):
Right, So, what is the biggest thing then that you're
watching for the trickle down of this kind of deal.
Speaker 8 (16:27):
I want to see how Nippon Steel jumps into the market.
Are they going to start selling at below market prices
to gain market share? There is an argument to be
made that the doubling of steel tras that we saw
President of the United States announce in Pittsburgh three weeks
ago when he announced the deal, is actually because the
administration understands that by Nippon Steel getting this deal closed,
(16:51):
they are a formidable opponent to New Core Corporation, which
is the largest US steelmaker, and Steel Dynamics and cliffs.
But that also means you're bringing in a very viable
opponent who can continue to produce and increase their production
in their capacity that would hurt prices technically by putting
in a higher tariff.
Speaker 6 (17:12):
This fifty percent tariff.
Speaker 8 (17:14):
You are on some level closing out most foreign imports,
and therefore you're putting a floor on prices. That will
be interesting to see how it plays out. We're already
in a tough situation in the steel market right now.
It's a cyclical moment. Obviously, the entire trade tariff situation
going on is problematic, even in the steel industry. I
(17:34):
think that's the first thing we're really going to have
to focus on, all right, Joe, thanks so much, appreciated,
Jodee Bloomberg Metals and.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Mining economic Stakecraft, reporter Economic Stakcraft. It's a totally new
section within Bloomberg talk about metals and mining and all
the risks that come with it, the economics with it exactly.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live
weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Oti with the Blue Work Business app, Listen on demand
wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
June is Pride Month, So over the next couple weeks
we're going to highlight segments that on topics related to
a quality and today we decided to speak to Kevin Tilsey,
a founder and CEO of GEO Academies. The organization's focused
on helping to break the cycle of poverty through access
to education. Super pressing topic right now. Hey, Kevin, can
you walk us through specifically what your company does?
Speaker 9 (18:29):
Okay, thanks for having me. GEO stands for Greater Education
Opportunities Foundation, and what we do is we we're a
nonprofit and we support and manage and start public open
enrollment charter schools in the country. We're in Louisiana and
Indiana right now and headed to Ohio.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Give us a talk to us about our Describe one
of your schools, like what grade levels and kind of
what's the focus.
Speaker 9 (18:57):
What we're most known for, first of all, kindergarten through
twelfth grade. But we take a very business like approach
to what we do in the sense that we believe
in spending the money most effectively and efficiently for each
student's needs. And there's nothing in the law anywhere in
the country that says all you can get with K
twelve dollars is a K twelve education. So we're best
(19:19):
known for students graduating from our high school with a
full associate degree. That's two years of college. That's already
paid for by us, earned by them. We're also, i believe,
the only network in the country where students have actually
graduated having earned a full bachelor's degree before graduating from
high school.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
How does school choice benefit the US workforce and how
does that align to the DOE.
Speaker 9 (19:46):
Well, I think we're completely aligned with the current US
Department of Education's goals of preparing students for success, to
be successful citizens in the community. When I use the
term college, that's a universal umbrella name that I put
for both college and career. And what we're trying to
(20:09):
do is get our students to graduate not only from
high school and not just to go to college, but
to complete college. And to say that we have a
problem in the United States is a bit of an
understatement when it comes to college completion, and it's not
necessarily because of lack of money. The US Department of
(20:32):
Education's biggest job is to loan money for kids to
go to college, so they do student loans. You've probably
been following the student loan forgiveness program under the previous administration.
The reality is the US Department of Education and frankly,
all the states across the country have either pel grants
(20:54):
or loans or college scholarship programs, in most they're a failure.
We have students borrowing money or getting money who have
absolutely no college experience whatsoever. And so does that make
any sense. If you're an employer and you're hiring somebody
(21:16):
to come take a job, the very first thing and
employers going to ask is what's your experience? But when
it comes to college loans or grants, PELL grants, FASPA,
which you've probably heard of, the Federal Student Loan program,
even in state grant programs, there's no question on there
that asks what's your college experience? And you may say, well, well,
(21:38):
these are high school kids, why should they have college experience? Well,
many schools across the country are doing dual credit and
dual enrollment now. So if you know that you're going
to need a grant or a loan by the time
you graduate from high school, maybe you ought to be
getting some of that college experience while you're in high school.
And then the loan and grant folks or the officers
(22:01):
that are reviewing the opportunity, they would have a question
there that says, do you have any college experience?
Speaker 7 (22:07):
Right?
Speaker 9 (22:08):
How did you do so? That when they're borrowing that money,
the borrower knows what they're getting into. Makes sense to.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Me, Kevin, what's the economic model for geo academies?
Speaker 9 (22:19):
We try not to rely on philanthropy. We focus one
hundred percent on using the public tax dollar, the federal
and local and state dollars at every traditional public school gets,
and we just try to get as much education as
possible for each of our students. We do need philanthropy
to start the school, but after we get it up
(22:42):
and running, we are self sustaining.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
Really great stuff. Good luck, really appreciate it. What actually
is your biggest hurdle right now before we let you go.
Speaker 9 (22:53):
I think the biggest hurdle is getting adults to understand
that when we get kids that graduate with an associate
degree or bachelor's degree, that that is a great start
to their career and their lives and it benefits all
of us. Believe it or not, there's some adults out
there that think kids in high school should enjoy high school. Well,
(23:15):
in many cases that's okay, But in the student population
that I'm serving, which is Gary, Indiana, Indianapolis, and Baton Rouge,
very low in community, low income communities, These kids are
ready to rock and get going. They don't have time
to sit around and enjoy the traditional high school. They
want to get busy with their life.
Speaker 6 (23:35):
They want to get.
Speaker 9 (23:36):
Moving and earning an income and you know, being successful.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
All right, really great story. Thank you so much, Kevin Telsey.
We wish you all the luck for that in all
your endeavors. He is the founder and CEO Geo Academics.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
This is the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts live each weekday,
ten am to noon Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You
can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and
always on the Bloomberg terminal
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.