Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: We've got a lot to discuss.
Speaker 3: President Trump extending trade talks with China for another sixty
Speaker 3: days so as both countries continue to wine out key differences.
Speaker 3: Joining us now to discuss that and a whole lot more.
Speaker 3: The seventy nine Secretary of the Treasury sculp Lesson, miss
Speaker 3: the Secretary, good morning, good to see it.
Speaker 2: Warning Johan, you're a cover model. Now you're famous.
Speaker 3: Can we get that front cover up for Business Week
Speaker 3: this month? Mister Secretary? I remember when you were just
Speaker 3: scult beston and we could go for breakfast together, the
Speaker 3: three of us, and no.
Speaker 2: One would bother you. What happened?
Speaker 4: I don't know, but I hope it's not the curse
Speaker 4: of the cover.
Speaker 1: There the top. Historically the being on the cover is
Speaker 1: a curse.
Speaker 3: Well, this secreity market is not curse that keeps grinding
Speaker 3: out all time highs. There is some confidence that we're
Speaker 3: setlling some issues on the trade front. There's one issue
Speaker 3: that came up this week that we'd love to hear
Speaker 3: from you about, and that's in video. Where did this
Speaker 3: agreement come from? You've been quite innovative industriction on tray issues.
Speaker 3: Where did this come from? Who came up with it?
Speaker 4: The president?
Speaker 1: The president, as I tell everyone, the President is one
Speaker 1: of the most open minded people I know. He does
Speaker 1: everything at first principles. Why do we do things this way?
Speaker 1: Why shouldn't we do it the other way? And you know,
Speaker 1: I think that this is a very unique solution allows
Speaker 1: Nvidia to expand into China. It can make in Nvidia
Speaker 1: chips the bellweather for Chinese technology, and then the US
Speaker 1: taxpayer gets a share of that.
Speaker 3: Key words unique, Is it unique to Invidia, an empty
Speaker 3: or is this a model for other companies?
Speaker 1: I think we could see it in other industries over time.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, right now this is unique. But
Speaker 1: now that we have the model and the beta test,
Speaker 1: why not expand it.
Speaker 5: What do you say to people who think we're putting
Speaker 5: a price on national security concerns by basically selling export licenses.
Speaker 1: There are no national security concerns here. We would not
Speaker 1: sell any of the advanced chips, so the H twenties.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether you'd say there are four or
Speaker 1: five six levels down the chip stack. What we do
Speaker 1: not want here, Ane Marie, is for Huawei to have
Speaker 1: a digital Belton Road so we do not want the
Speaker 1: standard to become Chinese across the world or even in China.
Speaker 5: We have exclusive reporting that Beijing is now sending out
Speaker 5: letters to firms saying, actually, shrug off those H twenty
Speaker 5: and use our domestic champions. Is this something you might
Speaker 5: discuss with your counterpart.
Speaker 1: Sure, we can discuss that, But it also tells me
Speaker 1: that they are worried about the Nvidia chips becoming the
Speaker 1: standard in China. Look, Nvidia is an incredible product. A
Speaker 1: lot of the technology in China is they're piggybacking. And
Speaker 1: I'll use piggybacking as a kind word for acquiring our technology.
Speaker 4: Do you mean stealing your words? And yes, that's what
Speaker 4: I mean.
Speaker 1: And the in Vidio Jensen Wong just days years.
Speaker 4: Ahead of them.
Speaker 5: Criticism came from the Wall Street Journal editorial board though
Speaker 5: about this new unique policy. They say it's a step
Speaker 5: toward government control of private business.
Speaker 4: Are you concerned some of these.
Speaker 5: Polies are starting to look like the country you're actually
Speaker 5: trying to de risk from central planning basically out of
Speaker 5: the old No, no.
Speaker 1: No, not not at all, because where we got was
Speaker 1: with this unfettered trade. We did not have secure trade
Speaker 1: or fair trade, and so now we are trying to
Speaker 1: make it secure, so you don't want to We're not
Speaker 1: sending out the highest level chips, and you know, we
Speaker 1: don't want to sell everything to everybody, so that there
Speaker 1: is a need for intervention. And you know, the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal just let let her rip. Kind of a
Speaker 1: bunch of grumpy old men over there. I was with
Speaker 1: them yesterday.
Speaker 2: This is going to raise some revenue. What do you
Speaker 2: plan to do with it?
Speaker 4: Paid on the debt.
Speaker 3: It's all going to go to play down the debt.
Speaker 3: Because we have heard some stories about the money going
Speaker 3: back to consumers, going back to citizens of the United
Speaker 3: States taxpayers.
Speaker 1: Well, President Trump's talked about that, and look at the
Speaker 1: bottom fifty percent of wage journers in the One Big
Speaker 1: Beautiful Bill are getting a lot of money back. No
Speaker 1: tax on tips, no tax over time, no tax on
Speaker 1: Social Security. Auto loans are going to be tax deductible.
Speaker 1: So I think if we could make a substantial debt
Speaker 1: in the debt repayment, then we could talk about a
Speaker 1: program like that.
Speaker 3: Could you share with us the kind of numbers you're
Speaker 3: thinking about at the moment, just in terms of revenue
Speaker 3: raising and not just the Nvidia deal. I'm talking about
Speaker 3: the tarifs on top of that. What are we raising
Speaker 3: at the moment month on months, Well, Johnson.
Speaker 1: I've been saying that we could hit three hundred billion
Speaker 1: this year, and I think that number is going to
Speaker 1: be low. I think I'm gonna I always like to
Speaker 1: come in low and then surprise on the upside. But
Speaker 1: I think in the next days or weeks I may
Speaker 1: have to move that number up substantially.
Speaker 3: You've heard the debate playing out on Wall Street now
Speaker 3: for a number of months. Who's going to pay the teriffs?
Speaker 3: By definition, the important will pay the tariff. The more
Speaker 3: important question here is who absorbs the costs, whether it's
Speaker 3: the foreign supplier, whether it's the domestic company here in
Speaker 3: the United States, or the end consumer. We've got some
Speaker 3: data yesterday. You've seen it. We've all looked at it.
Speaker 3: Limited tariff pass through relative to what was expected. Because
Speaker 3: of that, a lot of people are suggesting that maybe
Speaker 3: companies are absorbing costs in a way we didn't anticipate.
Speaker 3: Perhaps the pass through will be more muted in the future.
Speaker 3: Are you comfortable with where things are now or do
Speaker 3: you think things might rebalance in the months to come.
Speaker 1: Jonathan, I think your framing there is exactly right, exactly right,
Speaker 1: because that obviously the tariff itself is paid at the port,
Speaker 1: but what if the producer in the other country has
Speaker 1: lowered their price, they're ten fifteen to twenty percent, so
Speaker 1: that there is no race change with the tariff. And
Speaker 1: obviously our largest trade deficit is with China, and China
Speaker 1: does not have the same profit objective that other Western
Speaker 1: democracies do, so that is an employment agency, and my
Speaker 1: view has been that they would continue to eat the teriffs.
Speaker 1: They are doing that, so I think what we've seen
Speaker 1: is likely to continue happening. I also think there are
Speaker 1: probably a lot of corporate margins that got very fat
Speaker 1: during COVID and now we're seeing a return to normal
Speaker 1: pre COVID margins.
Speaker 3: You see this as some kind of redistribution between corporate America,
Speaker 3: maybe the consumer main Street and Wall Street.
Speaker 1: I think disadministration is all about Main Street, but Wall
Speaker 1: Street's at a new high, so it's its false equivalency.
Speaker 1: It's not either or I tell everyone, I call it
Speaker 1: parallel prosperity. Wall Street's done great, Main Street can now
Speaker 1: do great Wall Street.
Speaker 3: I do even better if the Federal serve cuts interest rates.
Speaker 3: The President was pretty clear yesterday put out this comment
Speaker 3: Jerome too late, Pale must now lower the interest rate.
Speaker 3: Is it reasonable to give them a bit more time
Speaker 3: to draw conclusions about what's happening care Well.
Speaker 1: I think what we could see is that, let's first
Speaker 1: of all, what if the BLS data had been the
Speaker 1: higher quality and we'd had those numbers, Jonathan, So if
Speaker 1: we'd seen those numbers in May in June, I suspect
Speaker 1: we could have had rate cuts in June and July.
Speaker 4: So that tells me that there's a very.
Speaker 1: Good chance of a fifty basis point rate cut. And
Speaker 1: I think President Trump is very good at giving these nicknames.
Speaker 1: And I think the reason that the Jay Powell gets
Speaker 1: a nickname too late is because he wants to go
Speaker 1: into a series of rate hikes. He's not willing. He's
Speaker 1: not Alan Greenspan, who was very forward thinking.
Speaker 4: They try to be more data driven.
Speaker 1: Which I think a mistake because I think we are
Speaker 1: going back into an economy like we had in the nineties,
Speaker 1: so you know, it's just very old fashioned thinking. But
Speaker 1: I do think we could go into a series of
Speaker 1: rate cuts here starting with a fifty basis point rate
Speaker 1: cut in September.
Speaker 5: A fifty basis rate cut in September, does that signal
Speaker 5: that the economy, though, is not doing well.
Speaker 1: That signals that there's an adjustment and that the rates
Speaker 1: are too constrictive.
Speaker 4: If you look at any model that the you.
Speaker 1: We should probably be one hundred and fifty one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy five basis points lower. So I think the
Speaker 1: committee needs to step back. I think probably one of
Speaker 1: the most politicized governors just went off the board and
Speaker 1: that she was very, very political, I believe, and I.
Speaker 3: Think that that what does she do that gave you
Speaker 3: that impression? I'd love to know? Sorry, I mentioned you're
Speaker 3: referring to Governor Coogler. What does she do that gave me?
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of insight baseball, and look,
Speaker 1: Governor Couglor, you read what she was saying with Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris was running that we needed rape cuts, we needed this,
Speaker 1: we got to phone the runway. And then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden it was hard to know whether we know TDS.
Speaker 4: Was it Trump that the.
Speaker 1: Dimension syndrome or Trump derangement syndrome or tariff derangement syndrome.
Speaker 3: You get the opportunity to remake the Federal Reserve. The
Speaker 3: president gets the opportunity to remodel reshape the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 3: And I'm not talking about the remodeling that maybe the
Speaker 3: current chairman's going through. We'll talk about that another time.
Speaker 3: I want to talk about the complexion and character of
Speaker 3: the committee, the changes that you're making at the moment.
Speaker 3: Stephen Maron, let's start with Stephen. How quickly can you
Speaker 3: get more and confirmed?
Speaker 1: We'll see. The President has great sway with Leader thim.
Speaker 1: Leader has been a great partner during the tax deal,
Speaker 1: and I I think that he would like to see Steven,
Speaker 1: who I've known for a long time, get on there
Speaker 1: as soon as possible. So I'm hopeful about the September meeting.
Speaker 1: And Jonathan, the President's concerned about the building and those
Speaker 1: massive costs overrun, which just tell you that there is
Speaker 1: no accountability at that organization. There's no oversight in terms
Speaker 1: of the spending. But the President and I are both
Speaker 1: concerned about the foundations of the FED, the foundations of
Speaker 1: the FED, and how did this happen and why did
Speaker 1: it happen, and how did the leadership let it happen.
Speaker 5: When it comes to Director Myron, do you expect him
Speaker 5: to stay on past the January term that expires from
Speaker 5: Coogler seat.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't expect that.
Speaker 5: So, who are some names you're thinking of the Cooglar seat?
Speaker 5: Because everyone has been focused on who is going to
Speaker 5: fill the chairmanship role? Who are you thinking to fill
Speaker 5: that extra seat?
Speaker 1: Well, e Marie, I'm going to We're working on the
Speaker 1: big list right now. I think they're going to be
Speaker 1: a couple more names revealed today.
Speaker 4: They're going to be private sector names.
Speaker 1: So we had a series or a list of.
Speaker 4: Current FED members.
Speaker 1: We're going to have some private sector, very well respected,
Speaker 1: very well respected people, and then we will get to
Speaker 1: the second seat.
Speaker 5: Can you give us some names, a little bit of
Speaker 5: a tease, maybe people that have been on this program.
Speaker 1: Well, I just did tease telling you there'll be some
Speaker 1: private sector names.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: When it comes to the FED chair though, can you
Speaker 5: give us a sense of how many names you're actually
Speaker 5: thinking about.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm going to interview I'm going to cast a
Speaker 1: wide net ten to eleven people, and then there'll be
Speaker 1: a group of us who are meeting with them and
Speaker 1: we want to talk about monetary policy. We want to
Speaker 1: talk about regulatory policy, which is very very important because
Speaker 1: the FED step I think bigfoot of the other regulators.
Speaker 1: The Fed's one of three regulators, Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC,
Speaker 1: and I think that they need to understand that they
Speaker 1: are one of three, and then the third is the
Speaker 1: institution itself, which I think is what President Trump has
Speaker 1: been focused on quite a bit too.
Speaker 5: After you do this process, how many names are going
Speaker 5: to give to the President and when does he start
Speaker 5: those in person interviews?
Speaker 4: We don't have a timeline.
Speaker 1: By putting Stephen Myern in that gives us more time,
Speaker 1: and again, I want to cast a wide net. The
Speaker 1: President's very open minded. Before he chose j Powell, Janet
Speaker 1: Yellen was interviewed, John Taylor was interviewed. Two of them
Speaker 1: couldn't have been more different, so they were under consideration.
Speaker 3: I give you credit for coming up with a really
Speaker 3: credible list to replace the Federal Reserve Chair Jake pab
Speaker 3: without it down. I think most people that come on
Speaker 3: this program agree with that. What I want to talk
Speaker 3: about is the BLS NOW because there's some controversy around
Speaker 3: this pick. I'm sure you've heard some of the concerns each.
Speaker 3: Anthony had said the following early this week before getting
Speaker 3: the pick from the President. Until this issue with ros
Speaker 3: is corrected, he said, quote, the bil I should suspend
Speaker 3: issuing the monthly jobs report. They keep publishing the more accurate,
Speaker 3: though less timely, quarterly data.
Speaker 2: We'd love your thoughts on this. Is that something you support,
Speaker 2: not at all?
Speaker 4: And look what somebody says when.
Speaker 1: There are are private citizens is very very different. You know,
Speaker 1: I called for a shadow fedshair and you know now
Speaker 1: that I'm in the seat, I don't think we need
Speaker 1: to do that. And I was there when EJ was interviewed,
Speaker 1: and he is incredibly qualified. And I think the most
Speaker 1: important thing here is that we get back to the
Speaker 1: integrity of the numbers, because it just became okay, just
Speaker 1: like so many things in our government, for it to
Speaker 1: get sloppy.
Speaker 4: And EJ is precise.
Speaker 1: He has a doctorate in economics. I think President Trump
Speaker 1: put a lot of thought into this. He was very
Speaker 1: thorough in his questioning of him. What we want is
Speaker 1: good data, because you can't make good decisions without good data.
Speaker 1: As I just said, is very likely that the FED
Speaker 1: would have been doing something else. In June in July
Speaker 1: if they had had this data.
Speaker 3: Well, let's talk about the data we've got and the
Speaker 3: process we have and how we might improve that process.
Speaker 3: As you know that data is prone to big revisions
Speaker 3: in your career on Wall Street, we've all been dealing
Speaker 3: with this for a long long time because of the
Speaker 3: process and the lack of time, and the response is
Speaker 3: it is constantly reviewed month and month. As you get
Speaker 3: more responses from Corporate America. How can we improve that
Speaker 3: process so this data is less prone to these big revisions.
Speaker 1: Well, I've been in government now for seven months and
Speaker 1: I can tell you that if we take the irs,
Speaker 1: which I'm now the head of, they've been working on
Speaker 1: a tech upgrade since nineteen ninety. Nineteen ninety we brought
Speaker 1: in a young person to fix that. The tech upgrade
Speaker 1: has been underway for longer than he is old. So
Speaker 1: he wasn't born when the tech upgrade started. So you know,
Speaker 1: I just think like this idea that we're accepting this
Speaker 1: mediocrity and government, Why don't we bring things into the
Speaker 1: twenty first century?
Speaker 4: Why don't we bring it into the digital age.
Speaker 1: Because I don't know about political bias one way or
Speaker 1: the other, but what I can tell you is that
Speaker 1: the sample response size kept getting smaller and smaller, and
Speaker 1: then they filled in the cells. And anytime you get
Speaker 1: judgment versus data, then things become qualitative and not quantitative.
Speaker 1: And I think EJ is going to do a great
Speaker 1: job of bringing back quantitative standards. I think he like
Speaker 1: these attacks in the press. I think they're all wrong
Speaker 1: with him.
Speaker 5: It's not in the press, it's even within conservative economic
Speaker 5: circles that don't think that he is credible to run
Speaker 5: the commission. Is the Trump administration open to putting more
Speaker 5: resources than to BLS, maybe lifting.
Speaker 1: Hiring free, you know, and Marie, that's more of a
Speaker 1: democratic idea that you know, we need more. It's always money.
Speaker 1: It's always money. It's where it's New York City schools,
Speaker 1: Chicago schools, DC schools, you get terrible outcomes. I think
Speaker 1: that he's going to sit back, look at the process
Speaker 1: and how can we use technology to do this better?
Speaker 1: You know, I got the Treasury and it was shocking.
Speaker 1: We processed one point five billion payments a year, and
Speaker 1: five hundred million of them, one third of them did
Speaker 1: not have what's known as a task Treasury accounting symbol
Speaker 1: on them. And people were just hitting sin sin sin,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't a gigantic leap, just to try to
Speaker 1: get people to do their jobs.
Speaker 3: This has big implications for how people view credible economic data,
Speaker 3: but also the markets as well. So let's talk about
Speaker 3: financial markets. In the bomb market, you've always been a
Speaker 3: ten year man. The spread between the two year and
Speaker 3: the ten year, I think has been really stable over
Speaker 3: the last several months, where we start to see some
Speaker 3: leakages between tens out to thirty. That thirty year bond
Speaker 3: as a tracy second chary, I remember you refering to
Speaker 3: yourself as the nation's top bond salesman. What's the usefulness
Speaker 3: of issuing a thirty year bond when it feels like
Speaker 3: at the moment we're outsourcing borrowing cost to what happens
Speaker 3: in Japan, what might happen in the UK, what happens
Speaker 3: in Europe. What's the value of issuing that.
Speaker 1: That's a great question, Jonathan, And look, we are committed
Speaker 1: to keeping inflation expectations low, and this is a global phenomenon,
Speaker 1: whether it's the ten or the thirty that the US
Speaker 1: tenure is one of the few ten years where the
Speaker 1: yield is down on the year.
Speaker 4: So that tells me.
Speaker 1: That there's credibility from Treasury, credibility from FED, that the
Speaker 1: inflation expectations are well anchored. But there's definitely leakage from
Speaker 1: the Japanese have an inflation problem that I've spoken to
Speaker 1: Governor u Wada.
Speaker 4: My opinion not his.
Speaker 1: They're behind the curve, so they're going to be hiking
Speaker 1: and they need to get there problem under control. In Germany,
Speaker 1: we saw a substantial spike in German rates in the past.
Speaker 4: Week also, so you know our thirty year.
Speaker 1: Is getting dragged along with that, we've been refilling the
Speaker 1: treasury general account, which during the debt ceiling standoff got
Speaker 1: run down, and we're doing that with short term bills.
Speaker 3: Do you see more reason then to pair back on
Speaker 3: thirty ier issuants? With all this in mind, and this
Speaker 3: is a change again for you now and to see
Speaker 3: as you look at these developments and rethink things, how
Speaker 3: are your thoughts on that matter evolving?
Speaker 1: Yeah, they are evolving, and we'll see where things go.
Speaker 1: I do think as we bring down this big deficit
Speaker 1: that we inherited, I think that the US, that the
Speaker 1: entire US curve can have a parallel shift down relative
Speaker 1: to the rest of the world.
Speaker 3: Do you think you can work with the Federal Reserve
Speaker 3: on this matter? So if we take the weighted average
Speaker 3: maturity of FED hooldings at the moment, I believe that's
Speaker 3: right at about nine years. The issuance of the average
Speaker 3: maturity about standing bills notes baws that's closer to six.
Speaker 3: Do you need to narrow that gap a little bit?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Look, I don't think.
Speaker 1: The FED needs to get back into the large scale
Speaker 1: asset purchase business, and they know we've had very good demand,
Speaker 1: especially in the belly of the curb, which is where
Speaker 1: asset managers seem most interested.
Speaker 5: Now when it comes to other things you're working on
Speaker 5: in Washington, DC, there's still this stock band legislation that
Speaker 5: has been circulating around Congress. Is a president prepared to
Speaker 5: sign that bill?
Speaker 1: I don't think we have the perfect bill yet, but
Speaker 1: I am going to start pushing for it's single stock
Speaker 1: trading ban because it is the credibility of the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate that you look at some of these
Speaker 1: eye popping returns, whether it's Representative Pelosi, Senator Widen, every
Speaker 1: hedge fund would be jealous of them, and the American
Speaker 1: people deserve better than this. People shouldn't come to Washington
Speaker 1: to get rich, they should come to serve the American people.
Speaker 1: And it brings down trust in the system because I
Speaker 1: can tell you that if any private citizen traded this way,
Speaker 1: the sec would be knocking.
Speaker 4: On their door.
Speaker 5: Do you think it needs to extend they'll beyond single stocks.
Speaker 5: These individuals can still have ets and other products.
Speaker 1: Well, what I used to do my old firm was
Speaker 1: you could buy ETFs. They had to be widely held ETFs,
Speaker 1: so they couldn't be of a small size and there
Speaker 1: was a long holding period. The House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: they're supposed to be working for the American people, their constituents.
Speaker 4: They're supposed to be.
Speaker 1: Making law, and they shouldn't be trading every day. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to name names, but there was one person
Speaker 1: in Congress who had twelve or thirteen hundred trays two
Speaker 1: years ago and my hedge and didn't have that many
Speaker 1: trade Do you think it.
Speaker 5: Needs to also extend to the executive branch and include
Speaker 5: the president and the vice president.
Speaker 1: I think that they would be fine on the single
Speaker 1: stock and the holding period.
Speaker 3: Maybe titus with the secretary. Do you not think they're
Speaker 3: just great tritus.
Speaker 4: It is a statistical anomaly, you know.
Speaker 1: Warren Warren Buffett wrote an essay once and he talked
Speaker 1: about the zoo and Graham and Doddville, and if all
Speaker 1: the orangutangs in that zoo kept typing the Bible, then
Speaker 1: there's something going on in that zoo. There is something
Speaker 1: going on on Capitol Hill in terms of information leakage
Speaker 1: that is statistically, they are not not sound.
Speaker 3: Do you think those restrictions should extend to the executive branch? Sorry,
Speaker 3: do you think those restrictions should extend to the White House?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean they already, they already extend the Treasury.
Speaker 2: Is the President about this? Is he comfortable?
Speaker 1: Well, the President's come out and favor of this, and
Speaker 1: King Jefferies is in favor of too. And I can
Speaker 1: tell you if I were Congress and I were looking
Speaker 1: at my ratings with the American people, I would be
Speaker 1: pushing this because again, it's an extractive class. You should
Speaker 1: not come to DC expecting to line your pocket.
Speaker 4: You should come to d C to do the people's business.
Speaker 2: We couldn't agree more.
Speaker 3: And it's been greatly disappointing to see that there's tighter
Speaker 3: restrictions on how journalists trade than over some members of
Speaker 3: Congress in Washington.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean again.
Speaker 1: Is one of the things that I think we can
Speaker 1: do to get trust back into the system.
Speaker 3: Just wanted to finish on the President's visits to Alaska
Speaker 3: going into the weekend. Emory is going to be that
Speaker 3: what do you think we can accomplish this weekend?
Speaker 1: I think the President has been thinking about this a
Speaker 1: long time. He believes, as do I that this war
Speaker 1: never would have started if he had been president, and
Speaker 1: he is committed to ending the bloodshed, but not in
Speaker 1: any calls, not in any I think everyone has been
Speaker 1: frustrated with President Putin. We expected that he would come
Speaker 1: to the table in a more fulsome way. It looks
Speaker 1: like he may be ready to negotiate. And we put
Speaker 1: secondary tariffs on an Indian on the Indians for buying
Speaker 1: Russian oil, and I could see if things don't go well,
Speaker 1: then sanctions or secondary tariffs could go up.
Speaker 5: What about China, They're the main purchasers of Russian crude.
Speaker 1: Again, I'm not going to get ahead of the president,
Speaker 1: but the president is the best at creating leverage for
Speaker 1: himself and he will make it clear to President Putin
Speaker 1: that all options are on the table.
Speaker 5: So sanctions can go up, or they can also be loosened.
Speaker 4: Sanctions can go up, they can be loosened.
Speaker 1: They can have a definitive life, they can go on indefinitely. Know,
Speaker 1: there's this rush shadow fleet of ships around the world
Speaker 1: that I think we could crack down in them. But
Speaker 1: the a Marie and Jonathan is the one message I
Speaker 1: would leave you with. It's the President Trump is meeting
Speaker 1: with President Putin, and the Europeans are in the wings,
Speaker 1: carping about how he should do it, what he should
Speaker 1: do it. But the Europeans need to join us in
Speaker 1: these sanctions. They need to the Europeans need to be
Speaker 1: willing to put on these secondary sanctions. I was at
Speaker 1: the G seven meeting in Canada with President Trump, and
Speaker 1: the Europeans kept talking about Senator Graham's bill to do
Speaker 1: the secondary tariffs. And I looked at all the leaders
Speaker 1: around the table and I said, is everyone at this
Speaker 1: table willing to put a two h secondary tariff on China?
Speaker 4: And you know what, everybody wanted to see what kind
Speaker 4: of shoes they were wearing.
Speaker 3: I imagine the Germans went very quiet and that's been
Speaker 3: a problem for a long time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's put up her show enough time. The president
Speaker 1: is creating his own leverage. We need the Europeans to
Speaker 1: come in and help create more leverage.
Speaker 3: Mister secretary, I appreciate your time. Good to see if
Speaker 3: you're enjoying this. I get the fill that you're enjoying this.
Speaker 3: It's good to see you. You seem happy.
Speaker 4: I think things are going well.
Speaker 3: The Treasury Secretary scope beston, mister Benson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We appreciate it so