Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Also headlines coming from Ukraine. President Zelenski met with reporters
Speaker 2: a bit earlier today and it's giving us a little
Speaker 2: bit more information ahead of the summit on Friday in Alaska,
Speaker 2: when President Trump sits down with Vladimir Putin. This is
Speaker 2: not going to be easy, remembering that the idea floated
Speaker 2: for a truce would include freezing lines in place, effectively
Speaker 2: giving up the eastern part of Ukraine, the dun Boss
Speaker 2: and Crimea to Russia. That's what Vladimir Putin was calling for,
Speaker 2: not that we even know that it would be in
Speaker 2: a final deal. President Zelenski sat down with reporters a
Speaker 2: short time ago, saying no, he will not withdraw troops
Speaker 2: from the Dunboss and will not give the Donatsky Lahansk
Speaker 2: regions to Russia if it means unlocking a ceasefire. Here's
Speaker 2: the quote for Russians. The dun Boss is a bridgehead
Speaker 2: for a future new offensive. Any of territorial issues, he says,
Speaker 2: cannot be separated from security guarantees. It's where we start
Speaker 2: our conversation with Congressman Jake Auchincloss, the Democrat from Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: fourth District is with us now live on Bloomberg TV
Speaker 2: and radio.
Speaker 3: It's great to see you, Congressman.
Speaker 2: As a marine combat veteran, I know you have very
Speaker 2: strong feelings about this. When you hear language like this
Speaker 2: from President Zelenski, it doesn't sound like we are any
Speaker 2: closer to a deal with Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 3: Why are we hosting him for peace talks this week?
Speaker 4: Good afternoon, and good question.
Speaker 1: This public fracture underscorees why it has been so critical
Speaker 1: for NATO and Ukraine to collectively define victory in the
Speaker 1: public imagination as well as, most importantly, in the Ukrainian imagination.
Speaker 1: And I've been saying this for two years. I said
Speaker 1: it to Joe Biden, I'm saying it to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So it's not partisan, it's policy. We need to define victory.
Speaker 1: And that's three things. It's a secure eastern border. Two,
Speaker 1: it's freedom of navigation in the Black Sea, and three
Speaker 1: it's Ukrainian accession to the European Union. You deliver those
Speaker 1: three things, you have a sovereign, prosperous, democratic Ukraine.
Speaker 4: That's a victory.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Does that sound like something that President Trump can accomplish
Speaker 2: on Friday?
Speaker 1: No, what he could accomplish on Friday would be to
Speaker 1: issue an ultimatum to Vladimir Putin that Putin must release
Speaker 1: the kidnap Ukrainian children as a good faith beginning to negotiations.
Speaker 1: There will be no deal in this summer, but Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin's release of Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped and
Speaker 1: held in captivity, held under false premises, would I think
Speaker 1: be a good faith marker towards what could be productive
Speaker 1: negotiations around that definition of victory.
Speaker 2: Well, there been a lot of questions about why were
Speaker 2: the host nation here, beyond why the talks are even
Speaker 2: happening at all. Even in the pursuit of peace, typically
Speaker 2: there are agreements that are made, there's a framework before
Speaker 2: the two leaders sit down at the table, so you
Speaker 2: don't have any major surprises. The idea of having Vladimir
Speaker 2: Putin on American soil, presumably, and you can tell me
Speaker 2: if you know differently on an American military base. This
Speaker 2: is going to be somewhere in Alaska. I don't know
Speaker 2: what the facility will be. Has been compared with, for instance,
Speaker 2: yourself having served in Afghanistan, where you let an infantry
Speaker 2: patrol almost like George W. Bush hosting Osama bin Laden
Speaker 2: for peace talks. Am I going too far with this, Congressman?
Speaker 2: How do you see it?
Speaker 1: You're addressing what is Donald Trump's approach to most foreign
Speaker 1: policy issues, which is that he's all showhorse, no workhorse.
Speaker 4: He doesn't want to actually do.
Speaker 1: The hard work of mid level and high level negotiations
Speaker 1: between officials that would preface a principles level meeting between
Speaker 1: the presidents. He doesn't want to do that work. He
Speaker 1: wants a photo op. He wants to wind and dine
Speaker 1: in Vladimir Putin because he has always sought Vladimir Putin's approval.
Speaker 4: It's like this weird.
Speaker 1: Fanboy thing that he has, and nothing's going to come
Speaker 1: of it, and it's going to further a road America's
Speaker 1: geopolitical standing when we need to be spending that political capital.
Speaker 1: On appropriating Russian frozen assets and Brussels and taking that
Speaker 1: three hundred billion euros and sending it to Ukraine to
Speaker 1: strengthen their military industrial complex. On getting Ukraine to join
Speaker 1: the European Union's Lisbon Treaties collective Defense article, on authorizing
Speaker 1: Ukraine to use long range missiles to strike Russia. On
Speaker 1: tightening oil price caps on Russian exports. All of these
Speaker 1: things that are geopolitically achievable but intensive. Those are the
Speaker 1: hard work that Donald Trump is not doing that could
Speaker 1: have actually made a summit productive. Instead, it's going to
Speaker 1: be yet another sizzle without the stake.
Speaker 2: No, he did at one point of I think want
Speaker 2: to invite or suggested inviting the Taliban to Camp David.
Speaker 2: What should be the parameters then for this meeting. Should
Speaker 2: it be on a military base. Should these guys put
Speaker 2: two chairs out on the runway and talk this out?
Speaker 3: Because if it's nothing.
Speaker 2: More than a photo op, why should he enjoy the
Speaker 2: hospitality of the United States.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not a protocol officer. I'm not getting into
Speaker 1: the details on that because it doesn't matter because it's
Speaker 1: not going to actually achieve.
Speaker 4: The outcomes that we want.
Speaker 1: The outcome that I want from this poorly conceived summit.
Speaker 1: The only achievable outcome here would be an ultimatum about
Speaker 1: releasing the kidnap Ukrainian children as a beginning, not as
Speaker 1: a conclusion to negotiations.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's a good answer, Congressman. I'd like to ask you,
Speaker 2: as a former member of the House China Select Committee
Speaker 2: about some of the headlines we've been hearing about trade
Speaker 2: with China. The President has allowed another ninety days for
Speaker 2: talks to continue and has now made an arrangement with
Speaker 2: in Nvidia and AMD, two of the most important American companies,
Speaker 2: never mind important chip makers, to give fifteen percent of
Speaker 2: their sales of AI chips to China to the US government.
Speaker 2: It's been called unprecedented. I don't know if you see
Speaker 2: it that way. I don't know where the money is going.
Speaker 2: We haven't heard that either, But is that the cost
Speaker 2: of doing business?
Speaker 1: My one question is how many Trump meme coins does
Speaker 1: in Nvidia's senior leadership own, because that kind of deal
Speaker 1: is so grotesquely inappropriate and contrary one to the interest
Speaker 1: of Nvidia and two to American interests that I just
Speaker 1: have to question whether they're buying Trump coins on the side,
Speaker 1: because we know that the trump coin allows foreign policy
Speaker 1: excuse me, foreign officials and senior executives at corporations to
Speaker 1: buy influence with the president anonymously but securely, and I
Speaker 1: question whether they bought those Trump coins because this deal
Speaker 1: is hugely inappropriate. It basically makes the federal government a
Speaker 1: co partner in helping China leap progress on AI.
Speaker 3: WOW.
Speaker 2: You could also suggest that the government is now going
Speaker 2: to be invested in the chip industry. And you could
Speaker 2: also ask shareholders who bought stock in companies like in
Speaker 2: Vidia and AMD if they're comfortable with the government getting
Speaker 2: fifteen percent of the revenue that they may have factored
Speaker 2: into the stock price. Congressman, will there be oversight from
Speaker 2: Congress here?
Speaker 4: There should be.
Speaker 1: Republicans will say one thing in private and do nothing
Speaker 1: in public, as is their norm, because this, as I said,
Speaker 1: is one I think a violation of Nvidia's fiduciary responsibility
Speaker 1: to shareholders, but also grossly inappropriate for the American public.
Speaker 1: Why would we be helping to equip China to surpass
Speaker 1: us in AI We did the Chips Act, we made
Speaker 1: investments in the semiconductor industry which I voted for, which
Speaker 1: was bipartisan, precisely so that we would have the lead.
Speaker 1: And this deal makes me shudder to consider what a
Speaker 1: TikTok do you might look like, what an ultimate tariff
Speaker 1: deal might look like. And again, orbiting around these considerations
Speaker 1: is who is buying the Trump coin. This is the
Speaker 1: central issue of corruption of his first year in office,
Speaker 1: more than half of his net worth is tied up
Speaker 1: in this coin.
Speaker 4: We have no idea who owns it.
Speaker 1: The people who showed up at the White House for
Speaker 1: this crypto dinner, those are just the ones who want
Speaker 1: to be seen. The Kataris, the Turks, the Venezuelans, the Chinese.
Speaker 4: They probably didn't want to be seen. We don't know
Speaker 4: who's bought him.
Speaker 2: Okay, you've brought this up a couple times, and this
Speaker 2: is serious, Congressman, how do you find out?
Speaker 1: Well, Senator Warren and I have asked both the sec
Speaker 1: and the Treasury to investigate.
Speaker 4: They're not.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, this is going to have to be when Democrats
Speaker 1: take back control of the House and hopefully the Senate,
Speaker 1: and we can do subpoenas and investigations without having to
Speaker 1: be obstructed by the cowardice of Congressional Republicans because Congression
Speaker 1: Republicans have made clear that they're courtiers, they're not members
Speaker 1: of Congress, and they don't want to hold them to
Speaker 1: account for what is the most grotesque example of corruption
Speaker 1: that this president has yet exhibited. It and I understand
Speaker 1: how high of a bar that is, but I'm standing
Speaker 1: by it.
Speaker 2: Wow, So if Democrats take the House, prepare for an
Speaker 2: investigation into the Trump coin. I think is what we've learned. Congressman,
Speaker 2: we've got a minute left. Do you expect to deal
Speaker 2: with China? We've got another ninety days? Is that enough
Speaker 2: to do it?
Speaker 4: I doubt it in ninety days.
Speaker 1: Let me say one thing more to the point though,
Speaker 1: about this back and.
Speaker 4: Forth with China.
Speaker 1: What he has done is he has bundled in fentanyl, tariffs,
Speaker 1: TikTok into one giant, sort of performative set of negotiations.
Speaker 4: It's a mistake.
Speaker 1: There is bipartisan supporting Congress and legislation that I've helped
Speaker 1: draft with Republicans on getting much tougher on China for fentanyl.
Speaker 1: China exports about ninety eight percent of fentinal precursors. That
Speaker 1: issue needs to be addressed right now on its own merits,
Speaker 1: because it's unacceptable that China is directing state sponsored poisoning
Speaker 1: of the American public seventy thousand deaths every year from
Speaker 1: opiodor overdoses. Tackle that, don't tie it into TikTok and tarots.
Speaker 2: It was great to spend some time with you, Congressman,
Speaker 2: and I appreciate it. I hope your summer's going well.
Speaker 2: Jake Aukin class the Democrat from Massachusetts,