Speaker 1: We begin live on Capitol Hill on a very busy
Speaker 1: day here once again in Washington, intentions escalating with Iran,
Speaker 1: a power struggle over control of Greenland, and of course,
Speaker 1: questions this week about the independence of the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1: We tackle it all now with a special guest. Republican
Speaker 1: Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina is with us. He
Speaker 1: serves on both the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee, and Senator is great to see you. Thanks
Speaker 1: for being back on Bloomberg TV and radio. You're the
Speaker 1: man of the hour, which is why we came up
Speaker 1: to Capitol Hill to talk to you. And I'm going
Speaker 1: to start with Iran on this parade of issues that
Speaker 1: we have to discuss here. The President saying earlier today
Speaker 1: that the violence has stopped, the killing has stopped, he said,
Speaker 1: and the executions have been canceled. Is any potential strike
Speaker 1: canceled as well?
Speaker 2: Look, if he's heard that from sources on the ground,
Speaker 2: I'd have to say the sources. But this is a
Speaker 2: murderous regime that never stops killing. It's just a matter
Speaker 2: of how many, not whether or not they're pursuing it.
Speaker 2: So I'm very skeptical that something overnight could have actually occurred.
Speaker 3: To have a to have.
Speaker 2: Gotten from thousands to zero just doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 1: Pretty remarkable. You had a speech on the floor of
Speaker 1: the Senate the other day in which you said that
Speaker 1: you are sick of stupid, made a headline on the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, and you were talking in that speech about
Speaker 1: the people around the president, not Donald Trump himself. Is
Speaker 1: he getting bad advice?
Speaker 2: I think the president is. I've enjoyed a good relationship
Speaker 2: with the President. It's probably different from other members. I'm
Speaker 2: very direct.
Speaker 3: Look.
Speaker 2: I spent twenty years in top tier management consulting. I
Speaker 2: spent twenty years in legislative politics. I like to think
Speaker 2: that I can help look around corners. I see advice
Speaker 2: here that's not taking care of the president's best interest.
Speaker 2: The Greenland position is a good example. We need people
Speaker 2: to make sure the president has a fully weighted set
Speaker 2: of criteria before he moves forward on some of these policies.
Speaker 3: I see no.
Speaker 2: Path where his aspiration for Greenland occurs unless it's a
Speaker 2: negotiation and something far short of what he has in mine.
Speaker 1: We talked to Senator Chris Koons at this time last evening,
Speaker 1: who I know is taking part in a bipartisan codell
Speaker 1: to Denmark with you and others. He was strident in
Speaker 1: his language, making it clear that NATO is at stake.
Speaker 3: Is that where we are no.
Speaker 2: I think we're going to get into a little bit
Speaker 2: of a hyperbolic language here. Chris is a friend of mine,
Speaker 2: he's a Democrat. I could see where he may take
Speaker 2: that position. But I've been the Republican leader of the
Speaker 2: Sennato Obserber Group since twenty eighteen. I'm going there to
Speaker 2: resure every reassure everyone that unlike what angered me last week,
Speaker 2: was one of the President's advisers making the statement that
Speaker 2: it was the position of the US government that Greenland.
Speaker 3: Would become a part of the United States.
Speaker 2: He doesn't have an election certificate, he is not a
Speaker 2: member of the Article one branch.
Speaker 3: I am.
Speaker 2: It can be his position, it can currently be the
Speaker 2: position of the President. But the people, the people in Denmark,
Speaker 2: the NATO countries, our allies, our partners, the people who
Speaker 2: have gone to war with us, fought side by side
Speaker 2: with us, lost life when they came to Afghanistan, and
Speaker 2: consistent with their Article five commitment.
Speaker 3: In NATO, I want to make them very.
Speaker 2: Aware of the fact that there is not support for
Speaker 2: this in Congress, regardless of what they may say in
Speaker 2: the White House. I think that an illegal taking of
Speaker 2: another territory from a sovereign nation and a member of
Speaker 2: NATO is just not good advice. And I'm going there
Speaker 2: to tell them there's at least one branch of government
Speaker 2: that stands with the NATO Alliance and still wanting to
Speaker 2: achieve the President's goals. Of course, we need to project
Speaker 2: power in the Arctic. Of course we need to counter
Speaker 2: with the first ever joint military exercises with China and
Speaker 2: Russia in the Arctic. Let's get there in a faster,
Speaker 2: more sustainable, less acrimonious way that strengthens the nation Alliance,
Speaker 2: not putting it into question.
Speaker 1: We've heard a lot of justifications for this idea. It
Speaker 1: was critical minerals, it was strategic importance, the fact that
Speaker 1: it was a neighbor. Today President says we need Greenland
Speaker 1: to build the Golden Dome. Would you be able to
Speaker 1: officials in Copenhagen that there will be no military action
Speaker 1: against Greenland.
Speaker 2: If there is military action against Greenland, I will be
Speaker 2: one of the first people to file and co sponsor
Speaker 2: war Powers resolution it will pass. That is what I'm
Speaker 2: trying to communicate to the President.
Speaker 3: We want to help him.
Speaker 2: I support the vast majorities of the President's policies have
Speaker 2: in the past well in the future, but we have
Speaker 2: to speak truth to power when the single most important
Speaker 2: alliance in the history of the democratic world is put
Speaker 2: into question, and it shouldn't be so.
Speaker 3: If you know, if I.
Speaker 2: Understand with the meeting with the foreign ministers that they
Speaker 2: came away frustrated and that Vice President Vance may have
Speaker 2: taken a different position, I just respectfully disagree. This is
Speaker 2: not the way you strengthen alliances that are vitally important
Speaker 2: for the safety and security of this world.
Speaker 1: Understood to be clear, the existing arrangement that we have
Speaker 1: with Denmark and with Greenland would allow.
Speaker 3: Us to positions. That's why that's what you.
Speaker 2: Know, as a fiscal conservative think about this. We don't
Speaker 2: have to pay whatever we have to pay or go
Speaker 2: to the expense of whatever it would take to take
Speaker 2: this country and then have a discount with all the
Speaker 2: loss of alliances. At our height, we had as many
Speaker 2: as seventeen military installations there.
Speaker 3: There's no question that.
Speaker 2: Denmark and that Greenland would like to have American technology
Speaker 2: to potentially fully realize the rarer minerals potential they have there.
Speaker 2: There's no doubt that the infrastructure that at one point
Speaker 2: allowed as many as seventeen military basis could be modernized
Speaker 2: and we could be there with an ally projecting power
Speaker 2: in a contested part of the world.
Speaker 3: That's what I mean.
Speaker 2: It would cost us less money, it would produce less
Speaker 2: tumult and give us the same sort of capability. What
Speaker 2: is not to like about that plan? The question I
Speaker 2: have is did anyone actually tell the president that all
Speaker 2: that was possible? And it was possible not because of
Speaker 2: some future planning, but it's been that way in the past.
Speaker 1: Right, Yes, all of that said, we've also got something
Speaker 1: cooking in Venezuela.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah.
Speaker 1: Should there be a war powers No?
Speaker 2: I see that's a I think that by voting for
Speaker 2: the war powers resolution that Senator came, it's a messaging exercise, right,
Speaker 2: how are they different? Let me well, I'll explain Number one,
Speaker 2: it's a messaging exercise. Does anybody really believe that this
Speaker 2: president wouldn't veto it?
Speaker 3: And it is subject to veto authority?
Speaker 2: Sure, there's also a question as to whether or not
Speaker 2: the House would even whether it would be successful in
Speaker 2: the House.
Speaker 3: So at the end of the day, it's a messaging exercise.
Speaker 1: That they have the war powers in the House, I know,
Speaker 1: but I thought it.
Speaker 2: Sends a message that I didn't support, that I would
Speaker 2: not be supporting what the President did in Venezuela. I
Speaker 2: am thrilled with the precision and the exquisite execution of
Speaker 2: what it took to get Maduro and his wife into
Speaker 2: custody and now, you know, have to defend themselves in
Speaker 2: a court of law. I don't want anyone to think
Speaker 2: that I'm the least bit concerned with the execution of that.
Speaker 2: I also know that there are no boots on the ground,
Speaker 2: and so to me, it's a war powers resolution flexing
Speaker 2: a message that I don't agree with in the same.
Speaker 3: Week that I'm happy with what they did.
Speaker 2: In the future, if boots go on the ground, of course,
Speaker 2: we're going to have to have a war powers resolution.
Speaker 1: That's the line for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, we're going to need all that because at
Speaker 2: some point, if we really want Venezuela to be successful,
Speaker 2: we've got to have a long term plan that goes
Speaker 2: far beyond this President, so they can achieve what their
Speaker 2: real potential is in Venezuela, and it's enormous.
Speaker 1: We're talking about a ten year build out there.
Speaker 3: For core I've worked.
Speaker 2: I worked in Venezuela around the turn of the century,
Speaker 2: and I've always said they were one of the most extraordinary,
Speaker 2: their natural resources, their geographic positioning, they could be the
Speaker 2: envy of the Western hemisphere if we help them, and
Speaker 2: I think that's what the President wants to do.
Speaker 1: Interesting, I have to ask you about what's going on
Speaker 1: with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 3: This has put you on the content riach week.
Speaker 1: Say it's only Wednesday, Senator, You've been on front pages
Speaker 1: all over the country as essentially the face of opposition
Speaker 1: to this idea, at least from the Republican side of
Speaker 1: the isle. President Trump says, you didn't know what was coming.
Speaker 1: The idea of J. Powell in an orange jumpsuit has
Speaker 1: upset a lot of people up here on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: Is that where this is going.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Look, I think I probably leaned in more heavily
Speaker 2: than other people, but everybody should look at the statements
Speaker 2: made by House and Senate members about their concern The
Speaker 2: President said he wasn't aware of it. I wasn't either
Speaker 2: when I when I saw something like that, I thought
Speaker 2: we had to move very quickly again to make sure
Speaker 2: that the markets. I think the markets could have reacted
Speaker 2: very differently this week if everybody thought that the independence
Speaker 2: of the FED was about.
Speaker 1: To be shredd like, it didn't take it that seriously.
Speaker 2: I think that the markets saw statements from members of
Speaker 2: Congress and others who are saying, look, you want to
Speaker 2: go through this process. It's remarkable to me that someone
Speaker 2: in the DOJ would move without the President's knowledge, but
Speaker 2: apparently they did. But look, if suddenly the threat of
Speaker 2: a lawsuit can take a chair out of play, how
Speaker 2: can anybody think that that's anything more than a de
Speaker 2: facto ending the independence of the FED?
Speaker 3: And we all know what that does to markets worldwide.
Speaker 1: You said that you would block President's efforts to name
Speaker 1: a new chair until this matter is resolved? How do
Speaker 1: we define no?
Speaker 2: Actually, to be clear, I will block any effort to
Speaker 2: name any member of the FED board until this matter
Speaker 2: is resolved.
Speaker 1: What we find resolved with charges withdrawn.
Speaker 2: Or it's either got to be fully adjudicated, or they
Speaker 2: don't move forward with an indictment, and they close the
Speaker 2: case and they explain reasons why it'll take as long
Speaker 2: as they've chosen to take that. I didn't put them here.
Speaker 2: They put them here. Yes, And I think that why
Speaker 2: because to me, to move on would almost validate that
Speaker 2: this is a way that you can actually get the
Speaker 2: FED under heel. I mean, that's why I'm not trying
Speaker 2: to be cantakers. Again, I support this president in this case.
Speaker 2: How can anybody logically say well, we'll move on from
Speaker 2: Chair Powell and not think that that becomes a device
Speaker 2: for influence over the board. So to me, it was
Speaker 2: just something that we had to do fairly quickly because
Speaker 2: I was mindful of how the markets could react, and
Speaker 2: I was very pleased to see a fair number of
Speaker 2: Republicans on both sides of capital.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as I mentioned, this is upset a number of
Speaker 1: people up here at the markets.
Speaker 3: MA anymore.
Speaker 2: Look at former Treasury secretaries, look at I mean, this
Speaker 2: is a Bob partisan.
Speaker 1: Concerned happy about it either.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to speak for him, but he didn't
Speaker 3: appear to.
Speaker 1: He did not appear to be. So would we end
Speaker 1: up in a world where J. Powell says, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm not going anywhere, and he's on the board till
Speaker 1: twenty eight.
Speaker 2: He could be, but you know, I think that everything
Speaker 2: that I've heard from Chair Powell is that he was
Speaker 2: stepping down from the chairman's role and he may or
Speaker 2: may not serve out his entire term. But with this
Speaker 2: sort of a flex from some person in the DCA district,
Speaker 2: I know how I would react to it. And we'll
Speaker 2: just have to see how mister Powell does after the
Speaker 2: underlying matters adjudicated.
Speaker 1: We just walked through three big buckets here.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you like the way you're being framed in the
Speaker 1: media as to check on Trump the Republican?
Speaker 3: No, I don't can say nothing.
Speaker 1: I don't you said, you've never had an argue with
Speaker 1: an argument with him, Presidently Trump.
Speaker 2: And I'm going to throw this phone over here because
Speaker 2: somebody's trying to call me, and I'm tired of I
Speaker 2: think you're tired. It's probably a friend of mine, because
Speaker 2: I do for you. I played tricks on them. I
Speaker 2: call him during you all's interviews. I did it with
Speaker 2: mckenry the other day. Thanks, So maybe it's getting me
Speaker 2: back then anyway, was so you know, look, I am
Speaker 2: trying to. When I decided to retire, I felt like
Speaker 2: I could be a much better advisor to the president
Speaker 2: and discern him many eate any any thought in the
Speaker 2: press that when I agree with him, which is the
Speaker 2: majority of the time, I'm only doing it because I'm
Speaker 2: afraid of my reelection prospects. To me, I felt like
Speaker 2: I could be a much better resource to the president
Speaker 2: to check against some of the amateurish policies that he
Speaker 2: is pursuing well by being completely independent, to call balls
Speaker 2: and strike. Since why we put in the statement what
Speaker 2: we did. I am here to make sure that this
Speaker 2: president has a strong legacy. There are people working for
Speaker 2: him who couldn't care less about the legacy. They care
Speaker 2: about the moment and the transaction. I care about how
Speaker 2: this president is remembered in history, because a successful Republican president,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, is a successful nation.
Speaker 1: So you think you're surrounded by the wrong people.
Speaker 2: I know, I haven't said that he's got some good
Speaker 2: people there. I'm going to go through a list because
Speaker 2: I've decided I've talked to him individually. Going through a list,
Speaker 2: I'm saying, the majority of you guys are good stuff,
Speaker 2: but some people are given the president.
Speaker 3: Advice is problematic, and it's my job.
Speaker 2: To speak truth and hopefully we'll maintain a good relationship
Speaker 2: that's entirely up to the president.
Speaker 1: Well, we appreciate your candid very much and I always
Speaker 1: enjoy the time. Yeah, you're spending some time with us
Speaker 1: to see if down Capitol Hill centator.
Speaker 3: Thank thank you, Joe.
Speaker 1: That's of course, Tom Tillis of North Carolina