WEBVTT - Tariff Suits, Broadcast Caps, Crypto Bills 0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:16.840 Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast, hosted 0:00:16.880 --> 0:00:20.560 by the litigation and policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the 0:00:20.640 --> 0:00:24.639 investment research platform of Bloomberg LP on the Bloomberg terminal. 0:00:25.200 --> 0:00:29.040 Bloomberg Intelligence has five hundred analysts and strategists working across 0:00:29.040 --> 0:00:31.920 the globe and focus on all major markets. Our coverage 0:00:31.960 --> 0:00:34.839 includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have 0:00:34.840 --> 0:00:38.200 outlooks on more than ninety industries and one hundred market indices, 0:00:38.200 --> 0:00:43.479 currencies and commodities. This podcast series examines the intersection of 0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:48.240 business policy and law, and today we're recording our weekly 0:00:48.400 --> 0:00:51.760 check in on the litigation and policy catalysts that we're 0:00:51.800 --> 0:00:55.240 watching and that we think will impact companies across a 0:00:55.320 --> 0:00:58.840 number of different sectors. My name is Elliot Stein. I'm 0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:03.080 an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence covering litigation in the financials sector. 0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:06.639 I'm joined today by three of my colleagues, Holly from, 0:01:06.800 --> 0:01:11.360 Matt Schuttenhelm and Nathan Dean. And today is May eighth, 0:01:11.880 --> 0:01:15.080 twenty twenty five. And because things move so fast, we 0:01:15.120 --> 0:01:18.800 should time stamp it as well. It's two pm Eastern time. 0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:21.480 You can find all of our research on the Bloomberg 0:01:21.560 --> 0:01:26.120 terminal at bi go and more specifically on our dashboard 0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:31.000 bi laws Go. That's for Bloomberg Terminal subscribers. But why 0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:34.679 don't we jump into the content, Holly, Let's start with you. 0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:37.880 You've been covering a lot of things related to tariffs, 0:01:37.880 --> 0:01:42.360 including the lawsuits, the several lawsuits at this point challenging 0:01:43.200 --> 0:01:46.960 the US tariffs on other countries imports from other countries. 0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:49.880 I know there's a hearing next week on May thirteenth 0:01:49.920 --> 0:01:53.160 in one of the lawsuits in the Court of International Trade. 0:01:53.280 --> 0:01:54.840 I know you're going to be watching that. I'm going 0:01:54.920 --> 0:01:57.720 to try to watch it as well. Definitely sort of 0:01:58.080 --> 0:02:00.880 in an area of law that we don't have a 0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:06.000 lot of precedent. Maybe tell us about the case and 0:02:06.120 --> 0:02:07.520 what you're expecting in the argument. 0:02:08.000 --> 0:02:09.000 Sure, thanks, Elliott. 0:02:09.720 --> 0:02:14.280 So the challengers, there have been about seven lawsuits filed, 0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:17.320 and most of them are filed in the US International 0:02:17.360 --> 0:02:21.600 Trade Court. Some of them are filed in other jurisdiction 0:02:22.000 --> 0:02:25.800 district courts around the country, but they mostly argue the 0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:29.680 same things. And what they're saying is that the President 0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:35.040 Trump's terroriffs are unlawful because the statute he relied on, 0:02:35.080 --> 0:02:39.280 which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Actor or AIPA 0:02:39.440 --> 0:02:46.639 doesn't authorize the terroriffs. To the emergency he's cited as 0:02:46.680 --> 0:02:49.000 a basis for the terriffs is not a real emergency 0:02:49.040 --> 0:02:52.720 who want, namely the trade deficit. They're saying that that's 0:02:52.760 --> 0:02:55.880 been in existence for fifty years, and the executive order 0:02:55.960 --> 0:02:59.480 which in which he imposed the tariffs even said that 0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:01.200 that's a persistent problems. 0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:02.160 So it doesn't. 0:03:01.840 --> 0:03:05.280 Arise to the level of emergency that prevents presents an 0:03:05.360 --> 0:03:08.480 unusual and extraordinary threat as the statute requires. 0:03:08.840 --> 0:03:11.280 And three, if AYIPA does authorize the. 0:03:11.240 --> 0:03:16.080 Tariffs, it's an unconstitutional delegation of power. So what we're 0:03:16.160 --> 0:03:20.880 watching now is that several of the challengers in the 0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:25.160 different lawsuits have filed separate motions for programming injunctions seeking 0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:29.800 to stay the tariffs, and one of those motions is 0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:33.600 going to be heard before the International Trade Court on 0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:36.680 May thirteen. So that's the next sort of catalyst that 0:03:36.680 --> 0:03:40.880 we're watching, and we think that that can inform probably 0:03:40.920 --> 0:03:43.360 the other pulmary injunction motions that are going to be 0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:44.600 heard by that court as well. 0:03:46.720 --> 0:03:49.000 Was this the case where there was a tro that 0:03:49.200 --> 0:03:54.000 was denied? That's right, and I mean does that give 0:03:54.080 --> 0:03:56.480 us any clues as to what's going to happen on 0:03:56.520 --> 0:03:58.400 the preliminary injunction motion. 0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:05.600 Not necessarily, because the grounds to the court relied on 0:04:05.640 --> 0:04:09.560 to deny the TIRO was that the challengers didn't present 0:04:10.000 --> 0:04:14.720 immediate irreparable harm. So the way the TIRO works is 0:04:14.760 --> 0:04:18.200 that it puts it restrains that it would have restrained 0:04:18.200 --> 0:04:19.599 the terffs for fourteen days. 0:04:19.680 --> 0:04:20.560 And what the court. 0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:23.080 Said is that none of these challengers have said that 0:04:23.120 --> 0:04:26.760 they've even paid a tariff yet or that they would 0:04:26.760 --> 0:04:30.240 have paid the tariff within the next fourteen days. So 0:04:30.279 --> 0:04:32.600 it didn't go to the merits of the argument. So 0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:35.560 in terms of the merits, it definitely doesn't speak to that. 0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:40.320 But in terms of irreparable harm, and because that's also 0:04:40.360 --> 0:04:44.720 required to get a preliminary injunction motion, the challengers may 0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:48.240 be able to say, you know, we're not able to 0:04:48.240 --> 0:04:50.920 show harm in this fourteen day period, but it's coming 0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:54.960 and so that may be, you know, an distinction that 0:04:55.400 --> 0:04:57.120 makes the outcome different. 0:04:57.720 --> 0:05:00.120 Right, they don't have to show as much of an 0:05:00.120 --> 0:05:04.440 emergency as it did on the t RO application, But 0:05:04.800 --> 0:05:08.479 I suppose it's it's possible that they still win on 0:05:08.640 --> 0:05:11.279 irreparable harm, and we still don't get much insight on 0:05:11.600 --> 0:05:13.840 likelihood of success of the merits, but I guess we'll 0:05:13.839 --> 0:05:15.359 see next week, right. 0:05:15.839 --> 0:05:17.640 That that could be the case. Yeah, we will see 0:05:17.680 --> 0:05:20.680 next week. They also file the summary judgment motion, So 0:05:20.880 --> 0:05:22.600 that's sort of like a belt in suspenders, like, if 0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:25.400 we can't if we can't show our repeable harm, at 0:05:25.480 --> 0:05:28.440 least we went on the merits, we should get a judgment. 0:05:28.600 --> 0:05:34.080 So so they've also filed that motion also. 0:05:34.040 --> 0:05:36.160 So it's more so that that does suggest still have 0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:40.000 to reach the merits, right, given the summary judgment motion? 0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:40.880 Right? 0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:45.080 And how long do you think so this is like 0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:48.800 a three judge panel, right, that's right? And and how 0:05:48.920 --> 0:05:50.440 quickly do you expect a decision? 0:05:52.080 --> 0:05:54.960 I think it's going to be relatively quickly because the 0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:58.760 country is, you know, watching for this decision. A lot, 0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:02.120 a lot depends on this decision, and it's impacting almost everyone. 0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:05.200 So I think they're going to push it out relatively quickly. 0:06:05.279 --> 0:06:07.440 So I think it could come as early as too 0:06:07.520 --> 0:06:11.640 Q and then and then you know, whoever loses, well, 0:06:11.880 --> 0:06:13.680 you know, we're anticipating that they're going to file an 0:06:13.720 --> 0:06:15.000 immediate appeal. 0:06:15.960 --> 0:06:18.960 And that goes to the Federal Circuit, right, that's right? 0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:23.080 All right, Well, that that's going to be a fun 0:06:23.120 --> 0:06:24.320 one to watch. You're going to go to court, you're 0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:25.560 going to you're going to live stream it. 0:06:26.640 --> 0:06:28.000 I'm going to watch the live stream. 0:06:28.160 --> 0:06:31.159 Yeah, I think I am too. Hopefully it works. 0:06:31.400 --> 0:06:33.280 Yeah, that's always dicey. 0:06:33.560 --> 0:06:36.279 And what about the other case. I mean there is like, 0:06:36.480 --> 0:06:39.360 well you said, at least a half dozen other cases, right, 0:06:39.680 --> 0:06:41.799 and are there any other catalysts in those cases? 0:06:42.200 --> 0:06:42.440 Yes? 0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:44.960 So there are there are seven cases total that we 0:06:45.040 --> 0:06:47.599 found some where there could be more, but there are 0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:52.840 at least seven, and four have filed I believe it's 0:06:52.839 --> 0:06:55.480 four at this point have filed motions for preliminary injunction. 0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:58.160 So we have the hearing that's coming up on May 0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:01.359 thirteenth in the Boss case, which is before the International 0:07:01.440 --> 0:07:05.520 Trade Court. Then we have there's a hearing on May 0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:08.039 twenty seventh before the court in Washington, d C. The 0:07:08.040 --> 0:07:11.920 Federal District Court there. And that's an interesting one because 0:07:11.960 --> 0:07:16.000 the challengers who file, who are challenging the terriffs, filed 0:07:16.000 --> 0:07:18.560 it there saying the US International Trade Court does not 0:07:18.600 --> 0:07:23.840 have jurisdiction to hear the claims. The lawsuit because they're 0:07:23.880 --> 0:07:28.120 saying the Court of International Trade only as jurisdiction to 0:07:28.160 --> 0:07:32.120 hear disputes arising out of a law that provides for 0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:35.080 terroriffs and that authorizes tariffs, and they're saying this law 0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:38.560 ayep IT does not authorize tarriffs, so the US International 0:07:38.800 --> 0:07:43.200 Trade Court does not have jurisdiction. So they filed they 0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:46.160 filed the motion for preliminary in junction, the government filed 0:07:46.160 --> 0:07:48.480 a motion to transfer, and those are being heard on 0:07:48.520 --> 0:07:50.760 the same day on May twenty seventh. And it makes 0:07:50.760 --> 0:07:54.080 sense because if the court finds that aep IT doesn't 0:07:54.120 --> 0:07:56.080 authorize the tariffs, that goes to the merits of the 0:07:56.760 --> 0:07:58.200 case as well, in. 0:07:58.160 --> 0:08:00.800 Which case in which case the transfer would be denied. 0:08:00.840 --> 0:08:02.920 In those cases, the transfer would be denied. 0:08:02.960 --> 0:08:06.040 And so the court would have decided something on the merits, 0:08:06.040 --> 0:08:08.560 which is that ayep IT doesn't authorize the terrorists. 0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:11.040 It would then just have to decide. 0:08:10.680 --> 0:08:13.200 Whether there's a reparable harm such that it grants a 0:08:13.200 --> 0:08:18.120 preliminary in junction or it has has a grant summary. 0:08:17.880 --> 0:08:20.120 Judgment in the case that's being argued next week. Has 0:08:20.160 --> 0:08:22.800 this issue, the issue of the court's jurisdiction come up, 0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:24.960 because I would I would think that the court has 0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:28.640 to determine that sort of in the first instance, it. 0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:32.280 Hasn't because the challengers sort of, you know, they filed there, 0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:36.120 so they're conceding that the court has jurisdiction. What they 0:08:36.480 --> 0:08:39.920 do is sort of like this nuanced argument that IPA 0:08:40.000 --> 0:08:42.360 may allow for some terrorists, but it doesn't allow for 0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:47.680 these terrorists. So they don't really say that, you know, 0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:53.080 very directly, but that's the implication, is that it allows 0:08:53.080 --> 0:08:54.880 for some terrorists, but it doesn't allow. 0:08:54.640 --> 0:08:55.560 For these terrorifts. 0:08:55.559 --> 0:08:59.600 This like wide skill application of terrorists, and it doesn't 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:04.199 allow for terrorists when there's no unusual or extraordinary threat. 0:09:04.400 --> 0:09:10.800 Preliminary injunction motion file just yesterday May seventh, by twelve states, 0:09:11.000 --> 0:09:16.080 led by Oregon, that are challenging reciprocal terriffs and the 0:09:16.160 --> 0:09:19.400 tariffs Tanate of China and Mexico. They got the offer 0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:21.960 to opine on what's happening in the Bus case, which 0:09:22.000 --> 0:09:22.880 is the case that's. 0:09:22.720 --> 0:09:23.840 Being heard May thirteenth. 0:09:24.160 --> 0:09:27.200 So I think it's you know, it's likely that whatever 0:09:27.240 --> 0:09:32.080 happens on May thirteenth will affect this Oregon case as well. 0:09:32.920 --> 0:09:35.800 And inevitably all these cases at least one of them 0:09:35.840 --> 0:09:38.880 is headed to the Supreme Court. I think so some 0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:42.040 sort of official final ruling on this issue. 0:09:42.240 --> 0:09:44.600 I think so. I think that's a safe thing to say. 0:09:44.720 --> 0:09:48.319 Yes, yep, cool, anything else on these cases. 0:09:48.880 --> 0:09:50.680 No, that's it. We'll be watching. 0:09:50.800 --> 0:09:53.080 We'll be watching to see what happens on May thirteenth, 0:09:53.160 --> 0:09:55.960 and you know, hopefully we can get some sort of 0:09:56.400 --> 0:09:58.760 guidance about which way the court is leaning. They don't 0:09:58.760 --> 0:10:00.920 always show their hand oral argument. 0:10:01.000 --> 0:10:01.640 Sometimes they do. 0:10:01.720 --> 0:10:04.800 Sometimes the questions that they that they ask, can you 0:10:05.040 --> 0:10:09.080 show that you know, they're concerns about some things. But 0:10:09.120 --> 0:10:11.800 I think it will definitely be interestingly we'll be waiting 0:10:11.840 --> 0:10:13.120 for that decision. 0:10:14.080 --> 0:10:17.120 Yep. All right, great, thanks Holly, and I should plug 0:10:17.160 --> 0:10:20.160 now as well. For those of you who are on 0:10:20.240 --> 0:10:23.960 a Bloomberg terminal, you can access all of Bloomberg Intelligence's 0:10:24.400 --> 0:10:29.120 tariff related research at BIS based tariff Go and just 0:10:29.160 --> 0:10:34.440 recently we launched a bive Tariff Impact Matrix, which lists 0:10:34.440 --> 0:10:38.360 almost three hundred companies across twenty different industries and shows 0:10:38.400 --> 0:10:42.400 you how the tariffs will impact each of those companies. 0:10:42.400 --> 0:10:45.760 It shows you what their average tariff rate is based 0:10:45.800 --> 0:10:48.920 on their exposure to different countries and the rates of 0:10:48.920 --> 0:10:51.880 tariffs impose on those countries, and then it shows you 0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:54.760 how much the cost of goods for those companies would increase, 0:10:54.800 --> 0:10:57.480 how much their operating income would suffer as a result 0:10:57.520 --> 0:10:58.839 of the tariffs, and how much they would have to 0:10:58.880 --> 0:11:02.760 raise prices within the US and globally to offset the 0:11:02.960 --> 0:11:06.480 impact of the tariffs, sort of in a worst case 0:11:06.520 --> 0:11:10.360 scenario without taking mitigation efforts into account. All right, so 0:11:10.760 --> 0:11:13.760 let's move away from tariffs at this point. Matt, let's 0:11:13.880 --> 0:11:20.920 bring you in. Matt covers TMT litigation and policy for US. So. 0:11:21.040 --> 0:11:25.400 Last week, FCC Commissioner Simington I think wrote an op 0:11:25.559 --> 0:11:28.800 ed saying that the FCC needed to hit the broadcast 0:11:28.880 --> 0:11:33.320 networks quote where it hurts most financially end quote and 0:11:33.360 --> 0:11:35.240 to do so, he said, the FCC should cap how 0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:37.920 much local TV stations have to pay the big national 0:11:37.920 --> 0:11:40.959 TV networks for their programs. Can you tell us more 0:11:41.080 --> 0:11:43.000 about what this proposal means? 0:11:43.120 --> 0:11:43.240 What? 0:11:43.480 --> 0:11:47.280 Why is that coming up now? And you know, give 0:11:47.320 --> 0:11:48.280 us your overall view on it. 0:11:48.360 --> 0:11:51.600 Yeah, it's just going to be a fascinating chapter at 0:11:51.640 --> 0:11:55.960 the FCC for broadcasters for a number of reasons. 0:11:56.040 --> 0:11:58.240 Because this FCC is. 0:11:59.640 --> 0:12:04.319 There very aware of the need to deregulate in the space. 0:12:04.920 --> 0:12:08.240 Broadcasters have been regulated in ways that the Internet and 0:12:08.320 --> 0:12:11.400 new media aren't regulated, and it's and it's very difficult 0:12:11.480 --> 0:12:14.280 for that business. And so on one hand, the Republicans 0:12:14.280 --> 0:12:17.560 at the FCC want to ease those rules. At the 0:12:17.640 --> 0:12:21.720 same time, though President Trump is not thrilled with how 0:12:21.800 --> 0:12:25.960 the national TV networks are operating and and so there's 0:12:26.559 --> 0:12:31.160 frequent criticism of of their their content as fake news, 0:12:31.920 --> 0:12:38.760 and the the Republicans at the FCC are very conscious 0:12:38.880 --> 0:12:42.120 about making sure they don't offend President Trump on this, 0:12:42.360 --> 0:12:45.040 and so they want to go after the big networks, 0:12:45.320 --> 0:12:48.560 but they want to protect the local TV stations that 0:12:48.559 --> 0:12:49.160 that own it. 0:12:49.200 --> 0:12:50.319 So it's a fine line. 0:12:50.400 --> 0:12:53.239 And I think what you saw from from from Commissioner 0:12:53.280 --> 0:12:58.480 Symington last week with this proposal was very much aimed 0:12:58.600 --> 0:13:03.199 at the political side of keeping President Trump happy by 0:13:03.280 --> 0:13:04.280 going after. 0:13:04.240 --> 0:13:07.000 ABC, CBS, NBC. 0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:10.360 Fox, and UH and and with the proposal, that would 0:13:10.360 --> 0:13:14.680 be very good news for the local TV station owners. 0:13:14.720 --> 0:13:19.400 And here you're thinking about smaller companies next Star, Tegna, Sinclair, 0:13:19.920 --> 0:13:23.439 who don't produce that big national TV content, but they 0:13:23.480 --> 0:13:27.240 own TV stations in local markets all across the country. 0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:31.160 And so basically Simington's proposal would say, look right now, 0:13:31.200 --> 0:13:34.440 those ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, those big guys are taking 0:13:34.480 --> 0:13:38.720 fifty percent of the cut in these deals, we're gonna 0:13:38.720 --> 0:13:41.840 cut We're gonna limit that only thirty percent they can get. 0:13:41.880 --> 0:13:44.920 So it's it's a big increase for those local TV 0:13:45.040 --> 0:13:48.880 station owners if the FCC can do this, and if 0:13:48.920 --> 0:13:49.439 the law. 0:13:49.480 --> 0:13:51.160 You were going to finish your thought, but good time 0:13:51.160 --> 0:13:52.240 to ask can they do this? 0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:56.520 That's exactly the problem. The FCC is confined by the 0:13:56.559 --> 0:14:03.199 Communications Act, which historic Brendan Carr is. He's made the 0:14:03.240 --> 0:14:05.959 point that look, there's there's this standard in the law 0:14:06.040 --> 0:14:08.960 called the public interest standard, and that broadcasters have to 0:14:09.000 --> 0:14:12.040 act in the public interest, and courts you can go 0:14:12.080 --> 0:14:14.960 back to the nineteen forties and find Supreme Court decisions 0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:19.280 that that read that clause in the statute to delegate 0:14:19.640 --> 0:14:24.600 very broad discretion to the FCC to regulate broadcasters in 0:14:24.640 --> 0:14:28.040 the public interest. And so what what I think the 0:14:28.080 --> 0:14:29.960 Republicans at the FCC are going to try to do 0:14:30.120 --> 0:14:33.880 as they defend proposals like this, is say those two 0:14:34.000 --> 0:14:37.400 terms public interests, we can squeeze into that some new 0:14:37.560 --> 0:14:42.480 novel regulatory approaches and go after the networks to try 0:14:42.520 --> 0:14:45.600 to do that. Now, is that going to work? I'm 0:14:45.880 --> 0:14:49.160 I'm really skeptical. To me, it's about the worst possible 0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:52.920 time to be doing that, as you know, Elliott, like 0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:55.560 with the with the rise of you know, the Lowe 0:14:55.640 --> 0:14:57.800 or Bright cutting into Chevron deference. 0:14:58.240 --> 0:14:59.080 This is a tough time. 0:14:59.160 --> 0:15:00.560 I was just about to ask, how's that going to 0:15:00.600 --> 0:15:01.480 square with lower Bright? 0:15:01.920 --> 0:15:02.320 Exactly? 0:15:03.400 --> 0:15:06.120 Do all the trends in the court are going the 0:15:06.200 --> 0:15:10.160 other way that to say that regulators can't take old 0:15:10.240 --> 0:15:14.760 statutes that have these vague terms and then squeeze in major, 0:15:14.760 --> 0:15:19.120 disruptive new regulation, and that that is precisely what what 0:15:19.200 --> 0:15:23.680 this is is taking the words public interest and and 0:15:23.760 --> 0:15:27.240 squeezing into it a whole new regulatory scheme in a 0:15:27.320 --> 0:15:30.560 statue where we're sitting next to it, there's specific language 0:15:30.600 --> 0:15:33.000 about what the FCC can regulate and what it can 0:15:33.720 --> 0:15:38.200 and and so when when the broadcast networks challenge this, 0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:41.200 they're going to have a very strong argument that this 0:15:41.240 --> 0:15:45.240 is the sort of major question, uh that that Congress 0:15:45.240 --> 0:15:47.600 could address if it wanted to, but it never has. 0:15:47.960 --> 0:15:50.080 And and if you you search for the law through 0:15:50.080 --> 0:15:52.160 the law there's nothing in the law that allows them 0:15:52.200 --> 0:15:55.320 to do this. So I think the FCC will probably 0:15:55.440 --> 0:15:58.320 push the envelope on. 0:15:58.280 --> 0:16:00.480 This and and stretches. It's at the already as far 0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:00.880 as it can go. 0:16:00.920 --> 0:16:03.920 It might even adopt, you know, vote to adopt these 0:16:04.000 --> 0:16:06.240 rules and take its chances in court. 0:16:06.880 --> 0:16:10.040 But will it get through the courts. Probably not. 0:16:10.760 --> 0:16:13.280 There's a chance they get a good draw on judges 0:16:13.440 --> 0:16:16.240 and they end up in a good circuit, but most 0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:18.680 likely with the Supreme Court sitting behind that. Even with 0:16:18.880 --> 0:16:22.520 this being you know, maybe fitting in some way sort 0:16:22.560 --> 0:16:26.480 of a deregulatory approach that at least the politics might 0:16:26.560 --> 0:16:29.000 might cut in a way that some justice is like, 0:16:29.520 --> 0:16:31.520 I still don't think that they're going to go for this. 0:16:31.640 --> 0:16:32.960 I think you got to go to Congress. 0:16:33.000 --> 0:16:34.360 It doesn't really sound irregulatory. 0:16:34.520 --> 0:16:40.320 It's really not. Yeah, it's good for the little it's 0:16:40.320 --> 0:16:41.120 good for the little guy. 0:16:41.160 --> 0:16:42.960 It's more of the politics, I think than it is 0:16:43.040 --> 0:16:46.640 the deregulation. It's it's regulation that that doesn't exist now. 0:16:46.720 --> 0:16:49.440 So I don't see see the justices allowing this. 0:16:50.040 --> 0:16:52.480 What's the composition of the FCC right now? 0:16:52.880 --> 0:16:57.000 Right now it is two to two, evenly divided and 0:16:57.120 --> 0:17:00.600 so we are awaiting. President Trump has nominated did Olivia 0:17:00.640 --> 0:17:05.520 Trustee to be his third Republican commissioner at the FCC. 0:17:05.600 --> 0:17:08.800 She cleared the Senate Commerce Committee. We're just waiting for 0:17:08.840 --> 0:17:11.160 a final vote on the Senate floor, which I think 0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:14.679 will probably happen this month, maybe maybe June. So I 0:17:14.680 --> 0:17:16.960 think the FCC is going to get rolling on all 0:17:17.000 --> 0:17:22.840 these momentous rulemakings regarding broadcasters, if not in the second quarter, 0:17:22.920 --> 0:17:23.840 early in the third. 0:17:24.240 --> 0:17:27.400 And you expect to vote at the FCC to sort 0:17:27.400 --> 0:17:30.200 of be along ideological lines on someone like this too. 0:17:30.440 --> 0:17:33.439 I would think so, I would think this is this 0:17:33.560 --> 0:17:37.159 is going to cut on party lines on something like this. 0:17:37.240 --> 0:17:40.320 You know, we've sort of clearly now moved away from 0:17:40.359 --> 0:17:45.240 the days of the FCC being an independent agency where 0:17:45.320 --> 0:17:49.120 they don't have to keep the president happy. They could 0:17:49.119 --> 0:17:54.560 they could act independently without risk of being fired. Brendan 0:17:54.640 --> 0:17:59.000 Carr at least is acting like he works for President Trump, 0:17:59.080 --> 0:18:02.080 and I think the other Republicans at the FCC, you 0:18:02.280 --> 0:18:05.200 can see the trend in the law, and for that reason, 0:18:05.280 --> 0:18:09.400 are very likely to support these sort of politically driven 0:18:09.800 --> 0:18:13.320 issues in the way that President Trump would want them to. 0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:16.200 Got it and so you think a rule finalization towards 0:18:16.200 --> 0:18:16.880 the end of this year. 0:18:17.640 --> 0:18:18.360 I think that's right. 0:18:18.359 --> 0:18:20.280 I think they're going to go through the full APA 0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:22.879 process on this and then so you would see the 0:18:23.480 --> 0:18:26.320 finalization toward the end of these year or maybe early 0:18:26.359 --> 0:18:28.520 next year, and then a legal fight mostly next year. 0:18:28.760 --> 0:18:31.080 Got it, all right? Well, be fun for you to 0:18:31.119 --> 0:18:35.159 cover the whole process absolutely. All right, great, thanks Matt. Yeah, 0:18:35.240 --> 0:18:38.040 all right, Nathan, let's bring you in. Let's round out 0:18:38.080 --> 0:18:42.840 today's discussion with some crypto talk in DC. I know 0:18:44.000 --> 0:18:46.840 Congress is taking up a stable coin bill, there's a 0:18:46.840 --> 0:18:50.040 build over crypto market structure. For a while, it looked 0:18:50.040 --> 0:18:53.120 like there was some bipartisan support for these, especially the 0:18:53.160 --> 0:18:56.280 stable coin bill. Now I'm not so sure. What's the latest. 0:18:56.760 --> 0:18:59.000 Yeah, so you know earlier you said your recording is 0:18:59.040 --> 0:19:03.480 it is currently two twenty and twenty three seconds according 0:19:03.520 --> 0:19:05.679 to my watch Eastern time. I don't know if it's 0:19:05.680 --> 0:19:07.320 standard or whatever. 0:19:07.080 --> 0:19:08.400 But it's daylight time. 0:19:08.920 --> 0:19:10.439 The reason why I bring that up, though, is that 0:19:10.480 --> 0:19:13.440 the Senate vote on cloture is happening as we speak, 0:19:14.040 --> 0:19:15.879 and this is on the stable Coin also known as 0:19:15.920 --> 0:19:18.080 the Genius Act. This is a bill that would require 0:19:18.119 --> 0:19:20.560 stable coins to be backed up by one hundred percent 0:19:20.600 --> 0:19:23.520 high quality liquid assets, and also give stable coin issuers, 0:19:23.800 --> 0:19:26.480 both bank owned and non bank owned issuers, the ability 0:19:26.520 --> 0:19:30.840 to register with appropriate regulatory authorities. And it looks like 0:19:30.880 --> 0:19:33.800 that vote is going to fail. As of our account 0:19:33.880 --> 0:19:36.439 right now, forty two senators have voted against it, and 0:19:36.520 --> 0:19:39.159 as a result, the bill's not going to move forward 0:19:39.480 --> 0:19:42.879 for now. The opposition coming from the Democrats is largely 0:19:42.920 --> 0:19:46.960 tied to AML Bank Secrecy Act other type of national 0:19:47.000 --> 0:19:50.960 security Plus you have the also opposition to the idea 0:19:51.000 --> 0:19:53.560 that President Trump is and his family is actively involved 0:19:53.600 --> 0:19:56.120 in the crypto space and then they would oversee the 0:19:56.200 --> 0:19:58.960 SEC and the CFTC and the regulators and so forth. 0:19:59.359 --> 0:20:01.440 So you know what we think is going to happen 0:20:01.520 --> 0:20:03.800 is is that Senator Thun, the majority leader, is going 0:20:03.800 --> 0:20:06.600 to try again next week. The reason why I'm still 0:20:06.600 --> 0:20:10.960 optimistic this bill can happen is because, unlike situations where 0:20:10.960 --> 0:20:13.239 they went into a vote and the vote failed, they 0:20:13.240 --> 0:20:15.840 had been negotiating. They be in the Republican's Democrats have 0:20:15.880 --> 0:20:19.240 been negotiating on that pretty much the entire day plus 0:20:19.320 --> 0:20:22.679 most of last night. And you know, you don't spend 0:20:22.680 --> 0:20:25.760 twelve hours negotiating with the other side if you don't 0:20:25.800 --> 0:20:27.760 think a deal can actually be made, and so I 0:20:27.760 --> 0:20:30.160 think they are still you know, I think this political 0:20:30.240 --> 0:20:33.640 hiccup doesn't derail the process. I think they do come 0:20:33.680 --> 0:20:36.560 together and they get something done. May not happen next week. 0:20:36.680 --> 0:20:38.360 You know, we've been telling our clients that we think 0:20:38.359 --> 0:20:42.280 it can get done before this summer. But again, we 0:20:42.359 --> 0:20:46.480 do think that the stable Cooin bill can pass. We're 0:20:46.480 --> 0:20:48.879 at a seventy percent chance. If it passes, the Senate 0:20:48.920 --> 0:20:51.040 will go to an eighty percent, and just remeinder folks 0:20:51.119 --> 0:20:53.239 like we do ours and increments in ten and for 0:20:53.280 --> 0:20:54.920 me to go to eighty percent, I actually have to 0:20:54.920 --> 0:20:57.760 feel really good that a bill is going to pass. 0:20:57.840 --> 0:20:59.840 So just go ahead. 0:21:00.160 --> 0:21:03.560 Well, I was just going to ask, how how do 0:21:03.720 --> 0:21:08.040 the Republicans delay the concerns of the Democrats on all 0:21:08.080 --> 0:21:11.520 those issues that the AML stuff, and then more importantly 0:21:11.520 --> 0:21:13.800 probably for them, the Trump issues. 0:21:14.119 --> 0:21:15.720 So the Trump issues, I don't think you're going to 0:21:15.720 --> 0:21:17.720 be able to get around. I mean, it's just at 0:21:17.760 --> 0:21:20.040 the end of the day, President Trump's family is active 0:21:20.119 --> 0:21:23.680 in the crypto space, and there's nothing that I think 0:21:23.800 --> 0:21:27.639 legislatively that they Republicans can do to get the Democrats 0:21:27.640 --> 0:21:31.280 on board when it comes to that, But I also 0:21:31.320 --> 0:21:35.200 don't think all the Democrats are united in that opposition 0:21:35.320 --> 0:21:38.479 due to President Trump's family as well as I'll talk 0:21:38.520 --> 0:21:40.919 about in a minute. There was another joint hearing this 0:21:41.000 --> 0:21:44.040 week of the House Financial Services Committee and the Agricultural 0:21:44.080 --> 0:21:48.560