WEBVTT - Bloomberg Surveillance TV: February 11th, 2026 0:00:02.360 --> 0:00:06.720 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. 0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:15.400 This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along 0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.680 with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordernt. Join us each day 0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:22.280 for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics 0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:24.880 from our global headquarters in New York City. We are 0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:27.680 live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine 0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.280 am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or 0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:33.919 anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg 0:00:34.000 --> 0:00:37.200 Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. So here's the laces 0:00:37.200 --> 0:00:40.480 this morning. How's lawmakers set to vote on the fate 0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:43.560 of President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada. A trio of 0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:46.559 Republicans joining Democrats calling for the vote, joining us now 0:00:46.600 --> 0:00:49.680 to extend the conversation. Scott Lindscombe at the Cana Institute, Scott, 0:00:49.720 --> 0:00:51.960 Welcome to the program. Interest in Exchange with the President. 0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:54.200 In an interview broadcast in the United States in the 0:00:54.280 --> 0:00:56.960 last forty eight hours or so, Scott, the President was 0:00:56.960 --> 0:00:59.520 asked about tariff and he brought up the example of Switzerland, 0:01:00.040 --> 0:01:01.680 said that he didn't like the way he was spoken to. 0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:04.000 So we ratchet up the tariff just a little bit 0:01:04.000 --> 0:01:07.680 more does not undermine the official justification for these tariffs. 0:01:08.600 --> 0:01:09.680 Well, it certainly does. 0:01:10.560 --> 0:01:14.640 This is supposed to be about a national emergency that 0:01:15.240 --> 0:01:19.720 requires it's an event that's so abrupt and so urgent 0:01:20.240 --> 0:01:24.240 that the president needs to invoke powers that are typically 0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:28.520 reserved to Congress and that the president typically isn't allowed 0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:32.600 to access. So if the whole basis for these tariffs 0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:39.600 is not the trade deficit or fentanyl coming across the border, 0:01:39.640 --> 0:01:44.280 and instead is the Swiss representative's voice, then the president 0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:47.639 shouldn't really have the ability to invoke these tariff powers 0:01:47.680 --> 0:01:47.960 at all. 0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:50.240 Scott, this is definitely going to be something that I'm 0:01:50.240 --> 0:01:52.320 sure the Supreme Court is paying attention to, at least 0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:54.920 the lawyers who are arguing for it. I am curious 0:01:54.920 --> 0:01:57.120 about what Tyler was just talking about, which is that 0:01:57.160 --> 0:02:00.720 you are getting some pushback now from Republicans around some 0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:04.840 of this tariff policy, in particular tied to affordability concerns 0:02:04.840 --> 0:02:07.200 and how this is playing through to their voters. How 0:02:07.240 --> 0:02:08.600 much more of that do you expect? 0:02:09.840 --> 0:02:11.920 I mean, I expect a lot of it this year. 0:02:12.520 --> 0:02:16.560 In poll after poll after poll, the President's tariffs just 0:02:16.680 --> 0:02:22.600 aren't popular, and voters have tied them to continued concerns 0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:28.799 about affordability. You know, economists don't want deflation, but voters do. 0:02:29.120 --> 0:02:33.280 And the fact is that while inflation is slowed, prices 0:02:33.320 --> 0:02:37.280 definitely haven't gone down, and particularly for key staples at 0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:40.679 the grocery store, like beef. And so you're going to, 0:02:40.720 --> 0:02:44.720 I think, see continued connection of the tariffs to the 0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:47.720 affordability issues, and you're going to see Democrats, I think, 0:02:47.840 --> 0:02:51.400 use that as a lever including through symbolic votes like 0:02:51.440 --> 0:02:54.359 the one we're going to get I think today, if 0:02:54.400 --> 0:02:54.960 not tomorrow. 0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:57.359 This is the reason why people haven't been paying attention 0:02:57.360 --> 0:02:59.560 to symbolic votes is because they are symbolic, and that's 0:02:59.560 --> 0:03:01.600 the reason why the Democrats have kind of been a 0:03:01.600 --> 0:03:04.320 little impotent on this. The interesting aspect is that there 0:03:04.320 --> 0:03:06.680 are a number of Republicans that are starting to join forces. 0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:09.600 And I do wonder how much heading into and after 0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:12.200 the midterms you start to get a real check coming 0:03:12.200 --> 0:03:15.960 from some Republican constituents based on what they're hearing from voters. 0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:18.240 Do you see that as crumping some of the tariff 0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:20.000 plans that have currently been laid out. 0:03:21.560 --> 0:03:25.320 Yeah, you know, quite Frankly, I don't think that the 0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:29.080 Congress is going to have the ability to do too 0:03:29.200 --> 0:03:33.320 much to stop these emergency tariffs under the International Emergency 0:03:33.320 --> 0:03:36.440 Economic Powers Act, simply because they're going to need veto 0:03:36.520 --> 0:03:40.640 proof majorities to get past Trump. So even after the midterms, 0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:45.280 I think it'd be really difficult for Congress to really 0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:47.960 pass any sort of tariff reform, whether it's to the 0:03:47.960 --> 0:03:50.800 emergency tariffs or to the national security tariffs under section 0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:52.400 two the two. I mean, I'd love to see it, 0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:57.320 but the reality is, these institutional checks are pretty weak 0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:00.280 because of the veto proof majority. 0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:01.840 And that's why I think one of the. 0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:05.600 Reasons why the Supreme Court's decision, whenever we get it, 0:04:05.640 --> 0:04:08.440 is so important here because that would be a legitimate 0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:11.400 check on those emergency tariffs if the court really does 0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:13.240 say the president's not allowed to use them. 0:04:13.320 --> 0:04:15.960 Scott, We've seen lots of justifications for the terifts that 0:04:16.000 --> 0:04:19.480 were introduced a year ago, raising revenue, national security, bringing 0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:22.960 manufacturing home, getting your own back when someone upsets you 0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:25.240 on the phone, all of those things. The number one 0:04:25.240 --> 0:04:28.359 issue for me, Scott, is getting China to rebalance, and 0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:31.640 the Treasury Secretary had come out repeatedly and articulated quite 0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:33.440 perfectly as to why we need to do that, and 0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:36.719 not just ask the Europeans as well. Now, Scott, I 0:04:36.720 --> 0:04:38.560 think it begs the question now, after the evidence of 0:04:38.600 --> 0:04:41.560 the last twelve months, what we can actually do about that, 0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:44.480 because that trade surplus from China has never been wired 0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:46.240 to despite the tariffs introduced last year. 0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:50.320 Yeah, it really shows the limitations of unilateral tariffs to 0:04:50.400 --> 0:04:53.960 do a lot to change foreign government behavior, particularly when 0:04:54.000 --> 0:04:56.880 it comes to a massive economy like China that's dealing 0:04:57.000 --> 0:05:01.760 with really systemic issues that simply can't be fixed by 0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:05.040 subsidizing a factory or removing a subsidy or something like that. 0:05:05.160 --> 0:05:10.240 So the fact is that you need a lot more 0:05:10.360 --> 0:05:17.080 than simply applying attacks on some imported goods to fundamentally 0:05:17.279 --> 0:05:21.640 change a China's economic model, and quite frankly, you might 0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:25.120 not be able to do it at all. Unilateral policies 0:05:25.480 --> 0:05:29.080 coming from a single government tend to produce backlash in 0:05:29.120 --> 0:05:31.680 the target country. You've seen some of that in China 0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:35.520 as well, where they're actually doubling down on nationalization and 0:05:35.560 --> 0:05:39.159 self sufficiency efforts. And then the last thing, of course, 0:05:39.240 --> 0:05:42.839 is that Trump's tariffs haven't just targeted China. When you're 0:05:42.880 --> 0:05:48.280 also targeting China competitors like India, Vietnam, Malaysia, even Mexico 0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:52.600 and Canada, it makes it even harder to induce those 0:05:52.680 --> 0:05:55.440 types of changes. And I think again that's why we've 0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:58.640 seen record exports out of China simply getting moved to 0:05:58.760 --> 0:06:02.320 third countries that don't have Trump tariffs attached. 0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:15.680 Stay with US mult Bloomberg Savannah's coming up off to this. 0:06:15.680 --> 0:06:18.200 This is actually a comment from a Bloomberg user which 0:06:18.200 --> 0:06:20.440 I think is a really interesting one, which is annual 0:06:20.440 --> 0:06:24.080 benchmark revisions, updated birth death model, and new seasonal factors. 0:06:24.279 --> 0:06:27.360 It's apples to oranges comparisons. What data are we actually 0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:30.000 looking at? I mean, look, ultimately, the market is taking 0:06:30.000 --> 0:06:32.120 this at face value, and I am too, because ultimately 0:06:32.160 --> 0:06:35.159 it's a good sign to see that there is job creation, 0:06:35.279 --> 0:06:38.040 particularly in the private sector. On the flip side, how 0:06:38.080 --> 0:06:41.599 do you get some sort of longer trajectory look based 0:06:41.600 --> 0:06:43.960 in all of the revisions that seasonal everything that's been 0:06:44.000 --> 0:06:44.360 going on. 0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:46.360 Good luck, Mike Keay Beddy joins US now, Michael cape 0:06:46.360 --> 0:06:48.279 at MULK and Stanley Mike, good to see you. Welcome 0:06:48.279 --> 0:06:49.000 to the program. 0:06:49.080 --> 0:06:50.040 It's all clear now, is it? 0:06:50.240 --> 0:06:52.280 If I was calling you as a client, my first 0:06:52.320 --> 0:06:54.960 question would be how much confidence can I have in this? 0:06:55.160 --> 0:06:56.200 Is this the real deal? 0:06:56.839 --> 0:06:58.560 I think it's largely the real deal. 0:06:58.600 --> 0:07:02.320 Everything that you mentioned is completely fair, benchmark revisions, new 0:07:02.320 --> 0:07:07.799 birth death adjustments, there's favorable seasonal factors in this report. 0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:10.640 But does it wipe away one hundred and seventy thousand 0:07:10.680 --> 0:07:11.440 private payrolls? 0:07:11.480 --> 0:07:12.000 Probably not. 0:07:12.200 --> 0:07:14.520 I mean we were at ninety thousand n private payrolls 0:07:14.520 --> 0:07:18.080 and I felt optimistic, right, So if truth is ninety, 0:07:18.360 --> 0:07:19.720 I'm super happy with that number. 0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:19.960 Right. 0:07:20.000 --> 0:07:22.520 So at one seventy, I think it's hard to bring 0:07:22.640 --> 0:07:23.280 all of that. 0:07:23.280 --> 0:07:24.640 Back and look through it. 0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:27.800 So, and to your point, it does fit a lot 0:07:27.840 --> 0:07:31.000 of other data points in the economy. Durable goods have 0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:34.400 been strong, Ism has picked up, Manufacturing output. 0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:35.960 Has been on an upward trend. 0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:41.200 So seeing some complementary hiring alongside that is a welcome 0:07:41.200 --> 0:07:42.280 sign for the economy. 0:07:42.320 --> 0:07:44.760 Do you think focusing on December retail sales like we 0:07:44.800 --> 0:07:46.200 will guess today is a waste of time? Are you 0:07:46.240 --> 0:07:48.400 explained to bounce back? Should we just see that as 0:07:48.400 --> 0:07:48.880 a headfake? 0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:53.440 I think we will see some bounce back, but not entirely. 0:07:53.480 --> 0:07:55.720 There is softness in that report. But just remember, even 0:07:55.760 --> 0:07:58.880 in what i'll call normal times, retail sales is very volatile. 0:07:58.920 --> 0:08:02.200 It gets revised frequently, So the signal out of retail 0:08:02.240 --> 0:08:05.160 sales I think is always kind of maybe second order. 0:08:05.200 --> 0:08:08.560 I think the market puts more weight on it than 0:08:08.560 --> 0:08:13.240 it otherwise should. But look, even with that number, consumption 0:08:13.360 --> 0:08:15.320 is likely to come in at around two point three 0:08:15.360 --> 0:08:18.200 percent in the fourth quarter, still a solid number with 0:08:18.280 --> 0:08:19.920 a week December retail sales. 0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:21.880 Are these good jobs that are being created? Do we 0:08:21.920 --> 0:08:24.360 have a sense of the quality of them? 0:08:24.800 --> 0:08:28.720 Well, I haven't seen the mix, but I think you know, 0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:31.680 the average hourly earnings number at point four suggests that 0:08:31.800 --> 0:08:34.920 you know they are quality jobs on that front. That's 0:08:34.960 --> 0:08:38.920 an average number across all the sectors. So I think 0:08:38.960 --> 0:08:41.840 any job is better than no job, So I certainly 0:08:41.880 --> 0:08:42.839 think there's quality in it. 0:08:42.920 --> 0:08:45.000 Yes, I guess I'm looking at for example, one hundred 0:08:45.000 --> 0:08:47.800 and twenty four thousand created in health and social assistance, 0:08:48.040 --> 0:08:50.040 private education one hundred thirty seven. I mean some of 0:08:49.880 --> 0:08:52.800 the main winners have really come from a couple of 0:08:52.800 --> 0:08:55.559 secers that are sort of independent of the cycle. Is 0:08:55.600 --> 0:08:57.439 that we're getting older, and that we're paying a lot 0:08:57.440 --> 0:08:59.120 of money for our kids to go to college. I mean, 0:08:59.280 --> 0:09:01.880 how much can we glean strength from these numbers and 0:09:01.880 --> 0:09:03.160 a sense of sustainability. 0:09:03.320 --> 0:09:06.079 Well, the narrowness of job gains has always been the question. 0:09:06.160 --> 0:09:09.040 The narrowness of growth in the economy has always been 0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:12.839 an issue. It's spending by upper income consumers, it's ai 0:09:12.920 --> 0:09:17.160 related business spending. Our thesis is that you will see 0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:20.120 some broadening out in twenty twenty six. So, as you 0:09:20.160 --> 0:09:24.240 mentioned the rebounded small caps, we do think that if 0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:27.120 you get a stabilization in the labor market, inflation does 0:09:27.160 --> 0:09:31.000 come down, it can support purchasing power of other parts 0:09:31.000 --> 0:09:34.480 of the economy, and the economy can broaden out. So 0:09:34.559 --> 0:09:39.280 the narrowness of the recovery and the ongoing expansion is 0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:40.240 an issue. 0:09:40.320 --> 0:09:42.280 We think it will broaden out. We'll see if it happens. 0:09:42.400 --> 0:09:44.560 Right now, you're seeing the market price out or push 0:09:44.679 --> 0:09:48.000 back some of the expected rate cuts to July from 0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:50.719 June previously, in the sense that maybe this is not 0:09:50.760 --> 0:09:52.640 an economy that needs rate cuts. There are a number 0:09:52.679 --> 0:09:55.120 of people at the Federal Reserve who believe you should 0:09:55.200 --> 0:09:58.480 keep running this economy hot because otherwise people could lose 0:09:58.480 --> 0:10:00.560 their jobs. And the whole we're structuring takes place with 0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:03.040 artificial intelligence, and if you don't do that, you'll get 0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:04.600 scarring that lasts a long time. 0:10:05.080 --> 0:10:06.000 Where do you fall on that? 0:10:06.120 --> 0:10:08.080 Do you think that that's a legitimate argument that you 0:10:08.080 --> 0:10:11.720 should proactively cut rates at a time of structural change. 0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:13.480 I think they've done some of that. 0:10:14.080 --> 0:10:17.120 I think it's easy to see that they've done that 0:10:17.200 --> 0:10:18.959 over the last two years. The question is kind of 0:10:19.400 --> 0:10:22.560 where does that process end. I think the June July 0:10:22.720 --> 0:10:25.400 period for the next rate cut is about right, and 0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:29.080 this data today says rate cuts, if and when they come, 0:10:29.120 --> 0:10:32.560 will be based on inflation. So when does the committee 0:10:32.600 --> 0:10:35.679 get evidence that inflation is decelerating, that tariffs are a 0:10:35.720 --> 0:10:40.040 transitory upward push on inflation. Sometime around the middle of 0:10:40.040 --> 0:10:42.600 the year is probably where that evidence comes through. But 0:10:42.679 --> 0:10:45.280 to your question, I think they have done some cutting 0:10:45.320 --> 0:10:49.079 preemptively to support the labor market and prevent some downside risk. 0:10:49.160 --> 0:10:50.680 We'll see ultimately if that was enough. 0:10:50.800 --> 0:10:53.200 I noticed that was your focus coming into the new year, 0:10:53.559 --> 0:10:56.080 looking at the dual mandate, that you thought the inflation 0:10:56.160 --> 0:10:57.880 sign of things, price stability was going to be more 0:10:57.880 --> 0:10:59.520 instructive for the future of FED policy. 0:10:59.559 --> 0:11:00.000 Is that right? 0:11:00.400 --> 0:11:02.719 That's right, and this number I think confirms that right. 0:11:02.760 --> 0:11:05.480 So they had to do some They decided to FED 0:11:06.000 --> 0:11:09.600 to do some risk management rate cuts to support downside 0:11:09.640 --> 0:11:11.839 or prevent downside risk to the labor market. They put 0:11:11.840 --> 0:11:14.920 in seventy five basis points of cuts. The data suggests 0:11:14.920 --> 0:11:18.000 that things are stabilizing, So if and when the FED 0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:21.200 cuts further, it will be you know where inflation is 0:11:21.200 --> 0:11:22.800 coming out of the first quarter, we think it'll be 0:11:22.800 --> 0:11:25.280 about three percent year on year. We think it'll settle 0:11:25.320 --> 0:11:26.800 down to about two and a half by the end 0:11:26.840 --> 0:11:29.600 of the year. Somewhere in there is room for a 0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:30.560 few more rate cuts. 0:11:30.640 --> 0:11:33.079 The two and a half we cut around two and 0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:33.680 a half. 0:11:33.440 --> 0:11:35.800 Now, well we're thinking three. 0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:39.880 Stay with us. More Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this. 0:11:49.320 --> 0:11:52.359 Let's turn to energy and critical minerals. The Trump administration 0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:55.240 so to announce some major shift in climate rules, rolling 0:11:55.320 --> 0:11:59.000 back and Obama era policy regulating fossil fuels. On that 0:11:59.040 --> 0:12:01.360 and more, the US and Serier Sancretary Dunkbergham joins us. 0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:03.160 Now for more, missus Secretary, you have been a busy 0:12:03.200 --> 0:12:05.120 man over the last week. I just want to start 0:12:05.120 --> 0:12:06.760 with Project Vote and then we'll get to the EPI 0:12:06.760 --> 0:12:09.640 and what's going to happen with regulations around fossil fuels 0:12:09.640 --> 0:12:12.640 and such. MISSUS Secretary, What is Project Vote and how 0:12:12.679 --> 0:12:14.800 should I be thinking about this in comparison to say 0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:16.280 the SPI. 0:12:16.360 --> 0:12:19.640 Well, it's absolutely a comparison. The Strategic Patrolling Reserve has 0:12:19.679 --> 0:12:24.240 created a great buffer on price shocks for American consumers 0:12:24.760 --> 0:12:29.079 for decades and decades we had no equivalent on critical minerals. 0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:31.600 There are sixty minerals on the Critical Minerals list. 0:12:31.679 --> 0:12:34.679 Some of those are rare earth elements. China, as you 0:12:34.720 --> 0:12:35.880 know Jonathan. 0:12:35.480 --> 0:12:38.840 Controls about eighty five to one hundred percent of the 0:12:38.920 --> 0:12:43.360 processing and refining on about twenty of those, enough to 0:12:43.360 --> 0:12:48.600 put a stranglehold on global industry, whether it's tech high tech, 0:12:48.640 --> 0:12:52.840 whether it's defense, whether it's consumer and so with the 0:12:52.880 --> 0:12:55.520 threats last year put out by China on export controls, 0:12:55.559 --> 0:13:00.880 the US leapt into action. We're broadly bringing mining back 0:13:00.920 --> 0:13:04.280 in America. But this idea of creating a strategic Critical 0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:09.520 Minerals Reserve across sixty different elements, driven by the private sector, 0:13:09.559 --> 0:13:14.360 great leadership by across the board of multiple Cabinet secretaries 0:13:14.400 --> 0:13:17.360 in the Trump administration, working with the up XM Bank, 0:13:17.480 --> 0:13:20.640 working with the private sector about ten billion and alone 0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:23.360 about two billion in equity capital going in. 0:13:23.920 --> 0:13:25.760 This is going to be private sector. 0:13:25.440 --> 0:13:29.960 Funded, market driven, and those critical minerals will be stored 0:13:30.080 --> 0:13:35.480 at locations that are economically smart and economically efficient. 0:13:35.559 --> 0:13:38.000 Around the country. But the idea is that we will. 0:13:38.520 --> 0:13:40.640 In addition to that, last week, there was also at 0:13:40.640 --> 0:13:44.440 the State Department a historic meeting. Over fifty countries came 0:13:44.480 --> 0:13:47.439 to the US, all of them some of them already 0:13:47.440 --> 0:13:51.080 signed on others many others interested joining a club of 0:13:51.160 --> 0:13:54.679 nations with free trade on critical minerals with price floors. 0:13:54.720 --> 0:13:58.080 The key on price floors is that would block China 0:13:58.160 --> 0:14:01.600 from illegal dumping to kill the vice across anyone particularly 0:14:01.720 --> 0:14:05.000 critical mineral, and that's going to allow the assurance for 0:14:05.120 --> 0:14:08.920 capital to start flowing back into mining and refining of 0:14:08.960 --> 0:14:12.959 these minerals in the US and in our allies. So tremendous, 0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:18.400 tremendous interest from the leaders of ministers from around the 0:14:18.440 --> 0:14:20.960 country that were there at the event hosted the State 0:14:21.000 --> 0:14:25.240 Department last week. So anyway, great progress going to make 0:14:25.240 --> 0:14:27.760 sure that US is secure relative to our position on 0:14:27.800 --> 0:14:28.800 critical minerals. 0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:31.160 And MISSUS Secretary, you certainly alluded to it. China's got 0:14:31.200 --> 0:14:33.840 a stranglehold over critical minerals, and America needs to do 0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:36.600 something about it, and overwhelmingly this agreement on this program 0:14:36.680 --> 0:14:39.640 often almost weekly to do something about it. What is 0:14:39.720 --> 0:14:42.240 less understood is why they have that stranglehold. You talked 0:14:42.280 --> 0:14:46.160 about pricing and dumping. What about regulations this is typically 0:14:46.240 --> 0:14:50.000 quite a dirty process. Is that held back production domestically 0:14:50.040 --> 0:14:51.440 as well? 0:14:51.600 --> 0:14:51.880 Well? 0:14:52.000 --> 0:14:55.320 There's been an attack on American energy in this country, 0:14:55.360 --> 0:14:57.480 but even longer than that, there's been an attack on 0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:01.640 mining in our country. And just like President Trump's drill, 0:15:01.680 --> 0:15:02.720 baby drill, we've got. 0:15:02.640 --> 0:15:04.280 To get back to mind, baby mine. 0:15:04.920 --> 0:15:08.640 The US graduated thirty six thousand lawyers last year and 0:15:08.720 --> 0:15:13.000 about three hundred people with mining and metallurgical degrees. China, 0:15:13.040 --> 0:15:18.120 of course, is not doing it cleaner than any I mean, 0:15:18.160 --> 0:15:21.240 whether they're tearing up the Congo or Indonesia, child labor, 0:15:22.120 --> 0:15:25.840 illegal cartels, criminal organizations. 0:15:25.160 --> 0:15:26.560 All of these things that are going on. 0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:29.640 It's a dirty industry potentially for the environment, but there's 0:15:29.680 --> 0:15:33.240 a lot of corruption around that. In part because countries 0:15:33.360 --> 0:15:36.400 like America are like those in Europe that have rules 0:15:36.440 --> 0:15:39.680 that have epas that can do things cleaner, better, safer, smarter, 0:15:40.160 --> 0:15:42.040 both in terms of the environment, in terms of the 0:15:42.120 --> 0:15:45.560 labor force. Basically got out of this business, and we've 0:15:45.560 --> 0:15:47.240 got to get the free world's got to get back 0:15:47.240 --> 0:15:50.360 into the mining business and show that with innovation that 0:15:50.400 --> 0:15:51.720 we can do it, and we can do it in 0:15:51.720 --> 0:15:54.760 a way that protects the environment, protects the workers, and 0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:58.360 also then protects the economies of these countries. And so 0:15:58.480 --> 0:16:02.040 this is a strategic important for the United States to 0:16:02.040 --> 0:16:05.720 get back in and be part of that is the 0:16:05.760 --> 0:16:09.520 permitting process. We've put a stranglehold on permitting. But for 0:16:09.760 --> 0:16:13.800 President Trump, we're breaking the logjam on permitting. Big announcements 0:16:13.840 --> 0:16:16.120 coming around the engagement finding and this is going to 0:16:16.120 --> 0:16:19.880 be a huge, huge step forward in terms of getting 0:16:19.920 --> 0:16:23.080 projects done and keeping plants open in America. 0:16:23.160 --> 0:16:26.320 Mister Secretary, there's a question around refinding things like lithia 0:16:26.440 --> 0:16:29.480 that are crucial for a lot of the high tech 0:16:29.520 --> 0:16:32.000 aspects that go into our economy. There's a question about 0:16:32.000 --> 0:16:34.760 copper really necessary for the build out of some of 0:16:34.760 --> 0:16:37.640 the hyperscalers in particular. On the other side, there are 0:16:37.640 --> 0:16:40.360 things like coal and there's a real question of some 0:16:40.400 --> 0:16:44.720 of the rollbacks the EPA rules, like lowering emission standards 0:16:44.720 --> 0:16:47.840 as well as potentially increasing the use of coal. Why 0:16:47.880 --> 0:16:51.160 are those necessary to get some of the national security 0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:52.360 goals that you're talking about. 0:16:53.720 --> 0:16:58.040 Well, we'll be making some more announcements on beautiful clean 0:16:58.120 --> 0:17:00.400 coal today, as President Trump likes to call it, and 0:17:00.440 --> 0:17:03.000 should call it, because there's a coal plant running in 0:17:03.000 --> 0:17:06.240 America today. It has survived an onslaught for twenty years. 0:17:07.080 --> 0:17:10.800 But they've taken everything, virtually everything out of the Knox, 0:17:10.840 --> 0:17:15.320 the socks, that anything that would be considered an issue 0:17:15.359 --> 0:17:18.520 relative the environment, and what's left. The attack on coal 0:17:18.880 --> 0:17:22.000 as a baseload power has been largely around CO two emissions, 0:17:22.040 --> 0:17:25.399 and with the reversal of the endangement finding that says 0:17:25.440 --> 0:17:29.720 that this was massive overreach by the Obama EPA, that 0:17:30.560 --> 0:17:32.480 we are going to go back to a thing where 0:17:32.480 --> 0:17:36.200 we can have consumer choice that's lower prices. And of course, 0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:38.560 with the big storms we had in the Northeast last week, 0:17:38.600 --> 0:17:42.960 I mean check back on Secretary Rights press conference last Friday, 0:17:42.960 --> 0:17:46.760 but we would have had millions and millions of people 0:17:46.760 --> 0:17:49.840 in this country without power if coal hadn't stepped up. 0:17:49.880 --> 0:17:52.720 Coal was the hero of keeping the lights and the 0:17:52.720 --> 0:17:55.720 heat on in America, and all of the money that 0:17:55.760 --> 0:17:58.240 has been spent in the northeastern part of this country 0:17:58.280 --> 0:18:01.320 on renewables. There is times those storms where we had 0:18:01.400 --> 0:18:03.600 less than two percent of the power coming from wind 0:18:03.640 --> 0:18:06.679 and solar. There was more coming from burning wooden trash 0:18:06.760 --> 0:18:10.639 than there was coming from wind and solar, and coal 0:18:10.680 --> 0:18:12.720 in some parts of the country was providing twenty five 0:18:12.760 --> 0:18:17.040 percent of the electricity, So we need The Biden plan 0:18:17.200 --> 0:18:21.360 of energy transition was actually energy subtraction. It wasn't addition, 0:18:21.480 --> 0:18:24.480 It wasn't transition, it was subtraction. They were shutting down 0:18:24.560 --> 0:18:29.440 baseload and then replacing it with intermittent, unreliable, foreign sourced 0:18:30.240 --> 0:18:33.920 forms of energy that required us to build out all 0:18:34.040 --> 0:18:36.800 kinds of additional infrastructure on top of the infrastructure we 0:18:36.840 --> 0:18:39.560 already had. That's what drove up prices. And now we're 0:18:39.600 --> 0:18:42.560 facing this AI arms race with China. We need more power, 0:18:42.600 --> 0:18:45.600 We need energy audition. The way to have energy addition 0:18:45.760 --> 0:18:48.480 is to stop stop getting rid of the stuff that 0:18:48.800 --> 0:18:51.840 already works, and of course that includes our fossil fuel 0:18:51.840 --> 0:18:54.919 baseload and the PGM market. Seventy percent of the power 0:18:55.040 --> 0:18:58.280 was coming from hydrocarbons. 0:18:58.359 --> 0:18:59.240 During those storms. 0:18:59.280 --> 0:19:01.480 I mean, America and the world is dependent on it 0:19:01.520 --> 0:19:03.639 is going to be for in long future. 0:19:03.720 --> 0:19:06.240 Innovation is what we need to help solve any. 0:19:06.040 --> 0:19:08.760 Concerns that people might have about future climate change. 0:19:08.880 --> 0:19:10.640 Mister Secretary, A lot of people could get on board 0:19:10.640 --> 0:19:12.160 with that. The problem is that a lot of people 0:19:12.200 --> 0:19:14.080 have pointed out that it feels like there are certain 0:19:14.240 --> 0:19:16.960 energy sources that have gotten subtracted in this administration, as well, 0:19:17.040 --> 0:19:20.920 wind being among them. It's not necessarily that we want 0:19:20.960 --> 0:19:24.040 all energy sources, but picking winners and losers. How do 0:19:24.040 --> 0:19:24.639 you counter that? 0:19:25.960 --> 0:19:29.119 Well, it's easy because we're not picking winners and losers. 0:19:29.160 --> 0:19:37.880 We're picking reliable, affordable, nationally secure sources that can provide 0:19:37.960 --> 0:19:41.120 what Americans need, what we need for low prices for consumers, 0:19:41.160 --> 0:19:43.080 what we need for industry, and what we need for AI. 0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:48.760 What we're not subsidizing any longer is intermittent, weather dependent 0:19:48.920 --> 0:19:52.840 foreign source, which, in the case of offshore wind, hits 0:19:52.880 --> 0:19:55.080 all three of those, but it's also the highest cost, 0:19:55.160 --> 0:19:58.240 it's not affordable, and it's also opposed. 0:19:57.800 --> 0:19:59.160 By our marine fisheries. 0:19:59.160 --> 0:20:01.840 I was meeting with a group of third and fourth 0:20:01.920 --> 0:20:05.640 generation fishermen in New England last Friday. 0:20:06.080 --> 0:20:07.600 It's blowing up their business. 0:20:07.600 --> 0:20:09.480 These are the farmers of the sea that put food 0:20:09.520 --> 0:20:12.040 on our table. You meet with the marine mammal groups 0:20:12.080 --> 0:20:15.679 that save the whale groups. They're opposed to offshore national security. 0:20:15.800 --> 0:20:22.040 Now there's a classified reports out that the radar interference 0:20:22.119 --> 0:20:25.199 and above the water in the sonar interference below the 0:20:25.200 --> 0:20:29.520 water of these massive offshore products represent real national security risks. 0:20:29.560 --> 0:20:30.879 These are not made up things. 0:20:31.720 --> 0:20:34.280 These are things that have to be considered, particularly related 0:20:34.280 --> 0:20:37.840 to offshore. But with the Working Families tax cut bill 0:20:37.920 --> 0:20:42.400