WEBVTT - Checking the Math on Trump’s $2,000 Checks

0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:07.200
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:09.119 --> 0:00:13.640
<v Speaker 2>Lately, President Donald Trump has been talking about in unconventional

0:00:13.800 --> 0:00:16.880
<v Speaker 2>economic policy idea, the tariffs.

0:00:16.480 --> 0:00:19.479
<v Speaker 3>Allow us to give a dividend if we want to

0:00:19.480 --> 0:00:20.000
<v Speaker 3>do that now.

0:00:20.480 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 2>On November ninth, the President posted about the idea on

0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:27.600
<v Speaker 2>Truth Social A dividend of at least two thousand dollars

0:00:27.600 --> 0:00:30.880
<v Speaker 2>a person, not including high income people, will be paid

0:00:30.920 --> 0:00:34.120
<v Speaker 2>to everyone, he wrote. He brought it up again a

0:00:34.159 --> 0:00:35.680
<v Speaker 2>few days later, so we're.

0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:38.400
<v Speaker 3>Going to be doing a dividend which people will enjoy

0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:40.000
<v Speaker 3>and spend and do what they want.

0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:43.479
<v Speaker 4>Essentially, he's talked about taking some of the tariff revenue

0:00:43.560 --> 0:00:46.400
<v Speaker 4>that the US has collected and using that to issue

0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:49.680
<v Speaker 4>two thousand dollars payments directly to US citizens.

0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:53.440
<v Speaker 2>That's Dan Flatley, a US Treasury reporter for Bloomberg.

0:00:53.920 --> 0:00:56.120
<v Speaker 4>The idea would be to take some of that revenue

0:00:56.120 --> 0:00:59.640
<v Speaker 4>and redistribute it to families making under one hundred thousand

0:00:59.640 --> 0:01:02.600
<v Speaker 4>dollars right or individuals making under a hundred thousand dollars.

0:01:03.000 --> 0:01:06.240
<v Speaker 2>Since Trump began his trade war in April, the US

0:01:06.520 --> 0:01:10.240
<v Speaker 2>has made money from tariffs. The Treasury Department says the

0:01:10.360 --> 0:01:13.679
<v Speaker 2>US has collected one hundred and ninety five billion dollars

0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:16.880
<v Speaker 2>in customs duties in the twenty twenty five fiscal year.

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:21.399
<v Speaker 2>But there's a small problem with the math. The Yell

0:01:21.480 --> 0:01:24.600
<v Speaker 2>Budget Lab estimated that it would actually cost four hundred

0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:27.280
<v Speaker 2>and fifty billion dollars to pay out dividends in the

0:01:27.280 --> 0:01:30.959
<v Speaker 2>way Trump is proposing. The Committee for a Responsible Federal

0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:35.800
<v Speaker 2>Budget estimated that these dividends could cost six hundred billion dollars.

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:39.400
<v Speaker 5>And so this would be sort of a money loser,

0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:42.800
<v Speaker 5>regardless of whether the budget it's four fifty six hundred.

0:01:43.120 --> 0:01:46.080
<v Speaker 2>That's Nancy Cook, a White House reporter for Bloomberg.

0:01:46.480 --> 0:01:48.760
<v Speaker 5>It's going to cost more money than they're bringing in.

0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:52.640
<v Speaker 2>And that's just one of the unanswered questions about how

0:01:52.760 --> 0:01:57.880
<v Speaker 2>these two thousand dollars dividends would work. It's also not

0:01:58.040 --> 0:02:01.320
<v Speaker 2>clear how the administration would act actually go about paying

0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:05.000
<v Speaker 2>the money to Americans. In a recent interview with ABC News,

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:09.360
<v Speaker 2>Treasury Secretary Scott Bessont was asked by George Stephanopoulos about

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:11.079
<v Speaker 2>whether there's a plan for that.

0:02:11.400 --> 0:02:15.240
<v Speaker 1>I haven't spoken to the President about this yet, but

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:18.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, it could. The two thousand dollars dividend could

0:02:18.760 --> 0:02:22.240
<v Speaker 1>come in lots of forms in lots of ways, George,

0:02:22.720 --> 0:02:26.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, it could be just the tax decreases that

0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:26.799
<v Speaker 1>we are seeing.

0:02:26.840 --> 0:02:31.160
<v Speaker 2>Trump meanwhile, insists the dividend would be paid out in checks.

0:02:31.680 --> 0:02:34.200
<v Speaker 3>That's not made up. That's real money that comes from

0:02:34.240 --> 0:02:34.960
<v Speaker 3>other countries.

0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:38.600
<v Speaker 2>But there's another big hurdle, the politics.

0:02:38.880 --> 0:02:41.720
<v Speaker 5>It's a tricky idea politically, forget like sort of the

0:02:41.919 --> 0:02:44.520
<v Speaker 5>economics of it. It's not something that Trump can just do.

0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:44.720
<v Speaker 4>You know.

0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:51.840
<v Speaker 2>Latterally, I'm Sarah Holder and this is the big take

0:02:51.880 --> 0:02:55.520
<v Speaker 2>from Bloomberg News today on the show, breaking down Trump's

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:59.080
<v Speaker 2>proposal to dole out tariff revenue to Americans, how it

0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:02.320
<v Speaker 2>fits into the ability debate that will define the midterms,

0:03:02.760 --> 0:03:05.880
<v Speaker 2>and the many obstacles to making it a reality.

0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:13.560
<v Speaker 4>There's lots of economic implications for this. There's lots of

0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:15.600
<v Speaker 4>practical implications for this. There's lots of things that we

0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:16.520
<v Speaker 4>can sort of get into.

0:03:17.080 --> 0:03:20.400
<v Speaker 2>Dan Flatley is a treasury reporter for Bloomberg. He's been

0:03:20.480 --> 0:03:24.680
<v Speaker 2>chasing down the details of Trump's dividend check proposal, starting

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:28.760
<v Speaker 2>with how the administration would pay for it. Trump's idea

0:03:28.919 --> 0:03:31.320
<v Speaker 2>is to use the money the US has collected in

0:03:31.400 --> 0:03:32.360
<v Speaker 2>tariff revenue.

0:03:32.440 --> 0:03:34.880
<v Speaker 4>There's no question that US has brought in a lot

0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:37.600
<v Speaker 4>of money in this fashion. The last we looked was

0:03:37.600 --> 0:03:40.480
<v Speaker 4>the end of the fiscal year, which ended September thirtieth.

0:03:40.560 --> 0:03:42.760
<v Speaker 4>It's the fiscal year for twenty twenty five, one hundred

0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:46.920
<v Speaker 4>and ninety five billion dollars worth of customs duties were collected.

0:03:47.360 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 4>Not small change, but it's a fraction really of the

0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:53.000
<v Speaker 4>overall federal budget, which is, you know, trillions of dollars.

0:03:53.280 --> 0:03:56.480
<v Speaker 2>But there are lots of competing priorities for that money.

0:03:57.480 --> 0:04:01.680
<v Speaker 4>This money has been earmarked or lots of different things.

0:04:01.760 --> 0:04:04.240
<v Speaker 4>People have talked about using it primarily to pay down

0:04:04.600 --> 0:04:09.000
<v Speaker 4>the deficit, reduce the federal debt. Scott Besstt, the Treasury Secretary,

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:11.760
<v Speaker 4>has talked about bringing down the deficit to GDP ratio,

0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:16.120
<v Speaker 4>which is a key metric for judging a country's economic health. Basically,

0:04:16.200 --> 0:04:18.640
<v Speaker 4>everybody kind of wants to get their hands on this money,

0:04:19.200 --> 0:04:21.120
<v Speaker 4>and it makes it a little bit complicated to then

0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:23.599
<v Speaker 4>start to say, oh, we're going to start cutting checks

0:04:23.680 --> 0:04:27.159
<v Speaker 4>using this revenue stream, because there's only so much that

0:04:27.200 --> 0:04:29.000
<v Speaker 4>the government is going to be bringing in over the

0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:32.479
<v Speaker 4>next few years. Estimates are around about three hundred billion

0:04:32.520 --> 0:04:32.880
<v Speaker 4>a year.

0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 2>Trump has claimed that he doesn't have to choose between

0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:39.719
<v Speaker 2>bringing down the deficit and issuing dividend checks that he

0:04:39.760 --> 0:04:40.359
<v Speaker 2>can do both.

0:04:40.600 --> 0:04:42.919
<v Speaker 3>Now we're going to do a dividend, and we're also

0:04:43.000 --> 0:04:46.840
<v Speaker 3>going to be reducing debt we have because of fighting

0:04:46.880 --> 0:04:51.039
<v Speaker 3>and others. We have a thirty seven trigger in the debt.

0:04:51.240 --> 0:04:54.880
<v Speaker 2>Since Trump announced sweeping global tariffs on April second, the

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:58.599
<v Speaker 2>national debt has risen by five point five percent. The

0:04:58.720 --> 0:05:01.920
<v Speaker 2>US hit thirty eight it's billion dollars in debt in October.

0:05:02.920 --> 0:05:06.159
<v Speaker 2>But for everyday voters, bringing down the deficit sounds a

0:05:06.200 --> 0:05:09.240
<v Speaker 2>lot more abstract than receiving a check in the mail,

0:05:09.560 --> 0:05:13.119
<v Speaker 2>And Nancy Cook, who's covered Trump since his first term, says,

0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:17.280
<v Speaker 2>that's a political calculus this administration is well aware of.

0:05:17.760 --> 0:05:20.440
<v Speaker 5>They did cut stimulus checks when Trump was president. At

0:05:20.440 --> 0:05:23.479
<v Speaker 5>the beginning of COVID, Biden did the same thing. The

0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:25.640
<v Speaker 5>stimulus checks were really born out of the fact that

0:05:25.640 --> 0:05:28.640
<v Speaker 5>the economy was in the tank and unemployment was high,

0:05:28.880 --> 0:05:32.320
<v Speaker 5>and so those stimulus checks were really given to people

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:34.400
<v Speaker 5>as a way to kind of patch over what was

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:38.840
<v Speaker 5>just a really unusual time. I think Trump always likes

0:05:38.839 --> 0:05:41.840
<v Speaker 5>the idea though, of kind of a simple branding I mean,

0:05:41.880 --> 0:05:44.560
<v Speaker 5>it's like you send people two thousand dollars checks. The

0:05:44.640 --> 0:05:47.000
<v Speaker 5>average American is not going to know that it came

0:05:47.000 --> 0:05:49.360
<v Speaker 5>from tariff revenue. You know, they're not going to care.

0:05:49.440 --> 0:05:51.480
<v Speaker 5>They're just going to see that like Trump sent them

0:05:51.480 --> 0:05:54.640
<v Speaker 5>a check, and then the hope for the Republicans would

0:05:54.640 --> 0:05:57.039
<v Speaker 5>be they would vote accordingly in the midterms. And so

0:05:57.120 --> 0:06:00.000
<v Speaker 5>I think politically that's how the White House is thinking

0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:00.520
<v Speaker 5>about this.

0:06:00.960 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 2>So what is Trump's play here as he doubles down

0:06:04.839 --> 0:06:08.680
<v Speaker 2>on this idea. What do you think he's trying to accomplish.

0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:13.040
<v Speaker 2>Is the main priority getting his name on a check again?

0:06:13.240 --> 0:06:16.039
<v Speaker 5>Yes, I mean just the short answers, Yes, he wants

0:06:16.040 --> 0:06:18.359
<v Speaker 5>his name on a check. Trump is just really on

0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:20.600
<v Speaker 5>the defensive right now. He has not had a good

0:06:20.680 --> 0:06:24.400
<v Speaker 5>few weeks between the Epstein files and Republicans sort of

0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:26.040
<v Speaker 5>not going along on the hill with his idea of

0:06:26.120 --> 0:06:30.320
<v Speaker 5>the filibuster. Democrats swept a bunch of elections in early November,

0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 5>and so he is just looking for ways to juice

0:06:32.760 --> 0:06:35.440
<v Speaker 5>the economy ahead of the midterms. And we've seen him

0:06:35.440 --> 0:06:37.760
<v Speaker 5>do that with the check's idea. We've seen them have

0:06:37.880 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 5>to roll back some tariffs on some key agricultural products, coffee, bananas, beef,

0:06:43.560 --> 0:06:45.320
<v Speaker 5>you know, just to try to give people a little

0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:46.960
<v Speaker 5>bit more relief at the grocery store.

0:06:47.080 --> 0:06:47.279
<v Speaker 3>I know.

0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:49.000
<v Speaker 2>He was even, you know, floating the idea of a

0:06:49.000 --> 0:06:52.120
<v Speaker 2>fifty year mortgage, which people also have questions about the

0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:54.440
<v Speaker 2>feasibility and the viability of. But it seems to be

0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:58.880
<v Speaker 2>part of this broader desperation to address affordability right now.

0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:01.640
<v Speaker 5>Absolutely, I think part of the problem is that there's

0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:04.479
<v Speaker 5>both the policy considerations, like how do we bring down prices,

0:07:04.520 --> 0:07:06.840
<v Speaker 5>but how do we also make people feel like we're

0:07:06.839 --> 0:07:10.920
<v Speaker 5>taking it seriously. Trump this week at an investment forum

0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:13.560
<v Speaker 5>with the Saudi's who were in town. You know, he

0:07:13.720 --> 0:07:17.360
<v Speaker 5>had this amazing line where he said, sort of dismissively,

0:07:17.440 --> 0:07:21.080
<v Speaker 5>like Democrats came up with this idea of affordability, but they.

0:07:21.000 --> 0:07:24.560
<v Speaker 6>Came up with the new word affordability. They look at

0:07:24.560 --> 0:07:28.480
<v Speaker 6>the we were all about affordability, and everyone assumes that

0:07:28.480 --> 0:07:30.960
<v Speaker 6>that meant said, no, their prices were high.

0:07:31.560 --> 0:07:33.720
<v Speaker 5>In that same forum, he said, the stock market is

0:07:33.720 --> 0:07:34.600
<v Speaker 5>doing great.

0:07:34.600 --> 0:07:35.360
<v Speaker 4>Since the election.

0:07:35.600 --> 0:07:39.800
<v Speaker 6>The stock market has set and this is a little

0:07:39.840 --> 0:07:43.160
<v Speaker 6>more than nine months forty six all time record has

0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:47.400
<v Speaker 6>and the growth is now amazing and it's lifting up.

0:07:47.440 --> 0:07:50.160
<v Speaker 5>But that stuff doesn't always trickle down to people when

0:07:50.200 --> 0:07:52.440
<v Speaker 5>they're trying to buy a home or go to the

0:07:52.440 --> 0:07:55.480
<v Speaker 5>grocery store and their groceries are fifty dollars more expensive

0:07:55.480 --> 0:07:57.600
<v Speaker 5>than they were three years ago. He is having a

0:07:57.600 --> 0:07:59.800
<v Speaker 5>hard time, I think, wrapping his mind around the idea

0:07:59.840 --> 0:08:02.920
<v Speaker 5>that that Americans don't view the economy as a golden

0:08:02.960 --> 0:08:03.840
<v Speaker 5>age like he does.

0:08:04.600 --> 0:08:07.960
<v Speaker 2>Issuing two thousand dollars checks could offer immediate relief to

0:08:08.000 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 2>Americans struggling to afford basics right now, just like the

0:08:11.480 --> 0:08:14.760
<v Speaker 2>COVID stimulus checks were a boost during a previous period

0:08:14.800 --> 0:08:18.680
<v Speaker 2>of economic turmoil. But there was also a downside to

0:08:18.760 --> 0:08:20.880
<v Speaker 2>all that Pandemic era stimulus.

0:08:21.440 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 5>Mainstream economists agree that that really contributed to the historically

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:28.360
<v Speaker 5>high inflation that we saw. Just that amount of money

0:08:28.400 --> 0:08:29.560
<v Speaker 5>pumped into the economy.

0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:33.000
<v Speaker 2>All that extra money circulating around the economy in twenty

0:08:33.040 --> 0:08:36.040
<v Speaker 2>twenty one and twenty twenty two set off a flurry

0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:41.720
<v Speaker 2>of consumer spending. While pandemic disruptions constrain supply, economists say

0:08:41.760 --> 0:08:46.000
<v Speaker 2>the sudden demand contributed to driving prices up, fueling inflation

0:08:46.280 --> 0:08:50.520
<v Speaker 2>that's still here today, and some economists feared these dividends

0:08:50.679 --> 0:08:52.120
<v Speaker 2>could do a similar thing.

0:08:52.800 --> 0:08:55.439
<v Speaker 5>There would be a concern if they spent four hundred

0:08:55.440 --> 0:08:58.040
<v Speaker 5>and fifty billion two six hundred billion dollars on these

0:08:58.040 --> 0:09:01.400
<v Speaker 5>stimulus checks at a point when prices haven't still totally

0:09:01.440 --> 0:09:05.600
<v Speaker 5>come down, that that would cause more inflation again. And

0:09:05.640 --> 0:09:08.480
<v Speaker 5>so it's interesting that, you know, one of Trump's sort

0:09:08.480 --> 0:09:12.000
<v Speaker 5>of go to policy moves to deal with higher prices

0:09:12.080 --> 0:09:14.680
<v Speaker 5>and people's, you know, people being mad about the state

0:09:14.679 --> 0:09:17.920
<v Speaker 5>of the economy is to cut checks, which could actually

0:09:18.000 --> 0:09:19.240
<v Speaker 5>just add to more inflation.

0:09:22.440 --> 0:09:25.520
<v Speaker 2>After the break, we talk about the other hurdles facing

0:09:25.559 --> 0:09:37.960
<v Speaker 2>this idea and how Trump might navigate them.

0:09:38.040 --> 0:09:40.840
<v Speaker 3>When I spend when I pay people two thousand dollars

0:09:40.880 --> 0:09:46.160
<v Speaker 3>each for low and moderate incumbentment income people, everybody but

0:09:46.240 --> 0:09:47.599
<v Speaker 3>the rich, we'll get this.

0:09:48.160 --> 0:09:52.040
<v Speaker 2>President Donald Trump's proposal to send millions of Americans dividend

0:09:52.080 --> 0:09:55.560
<v Speaker 2>checks is part of the administration's effort to get people

0:09:55.600 --> 0:09:59.520
<v Speaker 2>feeling good about the economy again. But last time stimulus

0:09:59.559 --> 0:10:02.920
<v Speaker 2>checks w to millions of Americans, economists say they played

0:10:02.920 --> 0:10:06.320
<v Speaker 2>a role in creating the inflation we're dealing with today.

0:10:06.559 --> 0:10:09.480
<v Speaker 5>And that's something that federal government has been wrestling with.

0:10:09.520 --> 0:10:11.600
<v Speaker 5>The federal Reserve has been wrestling with and it's not

0:10:11.720 --> 0:10:14.480
<v Speaker 5>something that they've really been able to solve, and Americans

0:10:14.480 --> 0:10:16.880
<v Speaker 5>have been facing higher prices for the last several years

0:10:16.880 --> 0:10:17.439
<v Speaker 5>at this point.

0:10:18.240 --> 0:10:21.680
<v Speaker 2>That's White House reporter Nancy Cook again. The fear that

0:10:21.720 --> 0:10:24.400
<v Speaker 2>a new wave of two thousand dollars checks could send

0:10:24.400 --> 0:10:27.560
<v Speaker 2>prices even higher is just one of the reasons that

0:10:27.720 --> 0:10:30.800
<v Speaker 2>lots of people, from prominent economists to members of the

0:10:30.840 --> 0:10:34.720
<v Speaker 2>Trump administration and the Republican Party have been lukewarm on

0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:35.400
<v Speaker 2>the proposal.

0:10:35.600 --> 0:10:37.840
<v Speaker 4>People are very skeptical of this idea.

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:40.760
<v Speaker 2>Treasury reporter Dan Flatley, and I.

0:10:40.640 --> 0:10:43.720
<v Speaker 4>Haven't spoken to him about it, but I even detect

0:10:43.760 --> 0:10:47.640
<v Speaker 4>a little bit of hesitancy in Secretary Besson's comments on

0:10:47.720 --> 0:10:51.199
<v Speaker 4>this issue. He sort of floated the idea of Americans

0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:52.880
<v Speaker 4>saving these checks if they are issued.

0:10:53.280 --> 0:10:56.520
<v Speaker 2>What Treasury Secretary Scott Besson was implying is that if

0:10:56.559 --> 0:10:59.680
<v Speaker 2>people put that money into savings, they're spending might not

0:10:59.800 --> 0:11:04.319
<v Speaker 2>drive inflation. Bessen has also suggested using the tariff revenue

0:11:04.360 --> 0:11:07.000
<v Speaker 2>to offset tax cuts instead of paying it out to

0:11:07.040 --> 0:11:11.360
<v Speaker 2>people directly. Meanwhile, lawmakers haven't jumped at the chance to

0:11:11.440 --> 0:11:12.600
<v Speaker 2>back this plan either.

0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:14.800
<v Speaker 4>My colleagues who cover Capitol Hill. Have spoken to a

0:11:14.840 --> 0:11:17.520
<v Speaker 4>lot of lawmakers who are very skeptical about this, and

0:11:17.679 --> 0:11:20.120
<v Speaker 4>you really would need, according to the letter of the law,

0:11:20.480 --> 0:11:23.360
<v Speaker 4>the consent of Congress or legislation passed by Congress in

0:11:23.480 --> 0:11:25.160
<v Speaker 4>order to do this. If you're going to have this

0:11:25.200 --> 0:11:29.000
<v Speaker 4>tariff revenue coming in, most lawmakers would prefer to see

0:11:29.040 --> 0:11:32.319
<v Speaker 4>that go directly toward bringing down the deficit, paying down

0:11:32.360 --> 0:11:36.720
<v Speaker 4>the debt, and rebalancing the US's books over time, rather

0:11:36.800 --> 0:11:40.040
<v Speaker 4>than injecting this money into the economy in a way

0:11:40.080 --> 0:11:44.600
<v Speaker 4>that could spark additional inflation and have very unpredictable effects

0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:46.679
<v Speaker 4>in terms of how this would all play out.

0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:50.000
<v Speaker 2>And just to be clear, Nancy, does Trump need Congress's

0:11:50.000 --> 0:11:52.679
<v Speaker 2>approval to follow through with this proposal.

0:11:52.880 --> 0:11:56.120
<v Speaker 5>Yes, he would need congressional approval. One of his aids

0:11:56.160 --> 0:11:59.120
<v Speaker 5>this week at an event the Bloomberg government did said

0:11:59.120 --> 0:12:00.840
<v Speaker 5>that they were looking at into ways that he could

0:12:00.880 --> 0:12:03.920
<v Speaker 5>do to unilaterally, but realistically, at this point he needs

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:07.160
<v Speaker 5>congressional approval. And Dan is right. Senate Republicans people on

0:12:07.200 --> 0:12:09.440
<v Speaker 5>the Hill are very cool to this idea. This is

0:12:09.480 --> 0:12:11.360
<v Speaker 5>not something that they're interested in doing.

0:12:12.080 --> 0:12:14.480
<v Speaker 2>Well. I want to talk about another potential hurdle to

0:12:14.520 --> 0:12:17.120
<v Speaker 2>getting these checks out, which is the Supreme Court case

0:12:17.160 --> 0:12:21.080
<v Speaker 2>evaluating whether a large swath of Trump's tariffs are even legal.

0:12:21.720 --> 0:12:25.640
<v Speaker 2>Dan if tariffs are rolled back ruled illegal, does all

0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:28.880
<v Speaker 2>that money get clawed back too, And what would that

0:12:29.000 --> 0:12:31.040
<v Speaker 2>mean for a dividend like this.

0:12:31.440 --> 0:12:34.520
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, we don't exactly know what the process will look

0:12:34.640 --> 0:12:38.440
<v Speaker 4>like if the Supreme Court rules against Trump's tariffs. So,

0:12:38.480 --> 0:12:42.079
<v Speaker 4>in other words, if the Supreme Court decides that Trump

0:12:42.200 --> 0:12:46.160
<v Speaker 4>misused his emergency authorities in order to put these tariffs

0:12:46.200 --> 0:12:49.040
<v Speaker 4>into place, there is a school of thought that says

0:12:49.480 --> 0:12:52.240
<v Speaker 4>the government would have to refund this money to the

0:12:52.280 --> 0:12:55.000
<v Speaker 4>importers who have paid these tariffs up to this point.

0:12:55.440 --> 0:12:58.040
<v Speaker 4>There's also another school of thought that says the court

0:12:58.120 --> 0:13:01.720
<v Speaker 4>could make it prospective words, the government could keep the

0:13:01.760 --> 0:13:04.439
<v Speaker 4>money as collected so far, but going forward would no

0:13:04.480 --> 0:13:07.720
<v Speaker 4>longer be able to collect the revenue from tariffs cet

0:13:07.760 --> 0:13:11.560
<v Speaker 4>or implemented using these authorities. So either way, there's going

0:13:11.600 --> 0:13:13.760
<v Speaker 4>to be a drop in the amount of revenue that

0:13:13.800 --> 0:13:16.520
<v Speaker 4>the government is going to be collecting. If the government

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:18.920
<v Speaker 4>has to pay back a substantial portion of that money,

0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:20.440
<v Speaker 4>it could make things very tricky.

0:13:20.840 --> 0:13:22.960
<v Speaker 5>The political people that I speak to in the Trump

0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:26.480
<v Speaker 5>Orbit largely believe that this is one case in which

0:13:26.480 --> 0:13:28.600
<v Speaker 5>the Supreme Court will not side with Trump, and.

0:13:28.640 --> 0:13:31.400
<v Speaker 2>Even in opening arguments, they seem quite skeptical, exactly.

0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:34.280
<v Speaker 5>You can hear that in the Justice's own questions about

0:13:34.320 --> 0:13:36.760
<v Speaker 5>the case, and so they're sort of working from the

0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:39.320
<v Speaker 5>idea that it will get struck down. These tariffs are

0:13:39.360 --> 0:13:42.000
<v Speaker 5>such a big part of what he firmly believes will

0:13:42.000 --> 0:13:45.080
<v Speaker 5>make the economy better, and he's always viewed tariff revenue

0:13:45.080 --> 0:13:47.280
<v Speaker 5>as a way like if he has this extra money,

0:13:47.320 --> 0:13:50.520
<v Speaker 5>then he could do different things on tax policy, and

0:13:50.600 --> 0:13:52.839
<v Speaker 5>so it will just be another big blow to his

0:13:52.920 --> 0:13:55.960
<v Speaker 5>economic agenda ahead of the twenty twenty six men terms.

0:13:56.720 --> 0:13:59.000
<v Speaker 2>Is there any sort of three D chests happening here

0:13:59.040 --> 0:14:03.000
<v Speaker 2>where if two thousand dollars checks using this tariff revenue

0:14:03.040 --> 0:14:06.520
<v Speaker 2>get sent out, it would be harder to claw back

0:14:06.559 --> 0:14:08.800
<v Speaker 2>tariff revenue in the case that the Supreme Court does

0:14:08.880 --> 0:14:09.600
<v Speaker 2>not rule his way.

0:14:10.080 --> 0:14:13.120
<v Speaker 4>I think that there is a little bit of strategizing

0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:14.920
<v Speaker 4>happening on the part of the White House when it

0:14:14.960 --> 0:14:18.920
<v Speaker 4>comes to this case. You brought up one potential justification,

0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:21.640
<v Speaker 4>but one that we hear a lot from administration officials

0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:25.720
<v Speaker 4>is that the president needs to retain these authorities and

0:14:25.760 --> 0:14:29.600
<v Speaker 4>the ability to impose tariffs for national security reasons. He

0:14:29.680 --> 0:14:32.640
<v Speaker 4>needs to be able to use it as leverage when

0:14:32.640 --> 0:14:35.680
<v Speaker 4>it comes to bargaining over different things with other countries.

0:14:36.160 --> 0:14:38.720
<v Speaker 4>So whether the two thousand dollars checks play into this

0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:41.760
<v Speaker 4>court case directly is sort of an open question. But

0:14:41.800 --> 0:14:45.000
<v Speaker 4>there's certainly a number of justifications that the administration has

0:14:45.040 --> 0:14:47.480
<v Speaker 4>made for why it's important for the president to have

0:14:47.560 --> 0:14:50.240
<v Speaker 4>this ability and to have flexibility and how he uses

0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:52.800
<v Speaker 4>it that others have argued that the law does not

0:14:52.960 --> 0:14:53.600
<v Speaker 4>give him.

0:14:53.920 --> 0:14:57.280
<v Speaker 2>Well, how is the Federal Reserve thinking about this? Has

0:14:57.400 --> 0:15:01.200
<v Speaker 2>Jron Powell commented on this idea, It impact how the

0:15:01.240 --> 0:15:04.720
<v Speaker 2>Fed thinks about the urgency of addressing inflation. Again, if

0:15:04.760 --> 0:15:08.040
<v Speaker 2>this were to happen or seem more possible to have.

0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:10.680
<v Speaker 4>In what the Fed is looking at at the moment

0:15:10.840 --> 0:15:15.320
<v Speaker 4>is a very mixed picture, right. So you have inflation

0:15:15.520 --> 0:15:18.360
<v Speaker 4>that has come down obviously from the high rates that

0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:20.040
<v Speaker 4>we saw a couple of years ago, but is still

0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:23.640
<v Speaker 4>stubbornly around that three percent range. You have a job

0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:26.400
<v Speaker 4>market which is slowing a little bit at a time,

0:15:26.840 --> 0:15:30.240
<v Speaker 4>and you have Federal Reserve officials who are trying to

0:15:30.280 --> 0:15:33.240
<v Speaker 4>decide whether or not they want to do another twenty

0:15:33.240 --> 0:15:37.000
<v Speaker 4>five basis point cut in December, notwithstanding the pressure that

0:15:37.160 --> 0:15:40.240
<v Speaker 4>Pow is getting from President Trump to lower interest rates

0:15:40.280 --> 0:15:43.120
<v Speaker 4>and lower them quickly, but also to try to figure

0:15:43.160 --> 0:15:47.440
<v Speaker 4>out how to navigate this sort of set of mixed signals,

0:15:47.840 --> 0:15:50.200
<v Speaker 4>also at a time, by the way, where data is

0:15:50.240 --> 0:15:52.760
<v Speaker 4>a little bit behind because of the government shutdown and

0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:55.640
<v Speaker 4>other things are happening in the economy. So it doesn't

0:15:55.640 --> 0:15:58.880
<v Speaker 4>make Pal's job any easier, and it also makes Secretary

0:15:58.920 --> 0:16:01.240
<v Speaker 4>Beston's job a little bit more difficult as he tries

0:16:01.280 --> 0:16:04.280
<v Speaker 4>to interview successors to Pal and present those to Trump.

0:16:05.520 --> 0:16:07.880
<v Speaker 2>Trump has said he wants these checks to go out

0:16:07.880 --> 0:16:11.600
<v Speaker 2>sometime next year, and there's a lot in flux that

0:16:11.640 --> 0:16:13.600
<v Speaker 2>Powell's termus FED chair is said to end in May

0:16:13.640 --> 0:16:15.800
<v Speaker 2>of twenty twenty six, and there's this process underway to

0:16:15.880 --> 0:16:19.360
<v Speaker 2>name his successor. As you mentioned, Dan, Secretary Bessant is

0:16:19.960 --> 0:16:23.520
<v Speaker 2>deeply involved in both these efforts. So what will you

0:16:24.080 --> 0:16:26.640
<v Speaker 2>be looking out for in the economy and from the

0:16:26.640 --> 0:16:30.040
<v Speaker 2>White House and from the Treasury as we try to

0:16:30.120 --> 0:16:34.119
<v Speaker 2>understand whether and when these checks will actually.

0:16:33.920 --> 0:16:38.600
<v Speaker 4>Go out voters? As Nancy has talked about were unhappy

0:16:38.600 --> 0:16:41.800
<v Speaker 4>with the state of the economy. Poles heading into the

0:16:41.880 --> 0:16:44.640
<v Speaker 4>last presidential election showed that they trusted Trump to a

0:16:44.640 --> 0:16:47.800
<v Speaker 4>certain extent, more than Vice President Harris. I think that

0:16:47.840 --> 0:16:53.360
<v Speaker 4>Trump launched on a very ambitious economic agenda, overturning years

0:16:53.400 --> 0:16:58.120
<v Speaker 4>of received wisdom about how the economy works, basically on

0:16:58.240 --> 0:17:01.840
<v Speaker 4>his own gut instincts. So what we're seeing now is

0:17:02.280 --> 0:17:05.160
<v Speaker 4>some feedback from that experiment, and how that plays into

0:17:05.160 --> 0:17:07.640
<v Speaker 4>the midterm elections is going to be very interesting. I

0:17:07.640 --> 0:17:10.040
<v Speaker 4>was at an event with jd Vance where he was

0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:14.160
<v Speaker 4>talking about needing more patients from voters as the Trump

0:17:14.160 --> 0:17:19.320
<v Speaker 4>administration tries to implement this wholesale economic reimagining. The problem

0:17:19.400 --> 0:17:21.840
<v Speaker 4>is is that people are already hurting, right, and so

0:17:22.280 --> 0:17:25.360
<v Speaker 4>I think that it's a question of how much patients

0:17:25.480 --> 0:17:28.960
<v Speaker 4>voters are really going to have with this really ambitious

0:17:29.160 --> 0:17:31.679
<v Speaker 4>remaking of the US economy. And I think there's going

0:17:31.720 --> 0:17:34.000
<v Speaker 4>to be a lot of messaging around that, and who

0:17:34.080 --> 0:17:37.000
<v Speaker 4>does that more effectively will be something that will be

0:17:37.119 --> 0:17:39.080
<v Speaker 4>determinative of the midterm elections.

0:17:43.880 --> 0:17:46.919
<v Speaker 2>This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Sarah Holder.

0:17:47.760 --> 0:17:50.240
<v Speaker 2>To get more from the Big Take and unlimited access

0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:54.120
<v Speaker 2>to all of bloomberg dot com. Subscribe today at bloomberg

0:17:54.160 --> 0:17:58.359
<v Speaker 2>dot com. Slash podcast offer thanks for listening, we'll be

0:17:58.440 --> 0:18:01.080
<v Speaker 2>back tomorrow, and

0:18:01.359 --> 0:18:03.160
<v Speaker 5>You slay mind.