Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: We urge Russia to stop escalating the rhetoric with respect
Speaker 1: to nuclear weapons and do the right thing in The
Speaker 1: tone of the call was very constructive. This was not
Speaker 1: a call where President Biden was threatening the Mexican president
Speaker 1: in any way. Bloomberg Sound On Politics, Policy and perspective
Speaker 1: from DC's top name. Spin around the military long long
Speaker 1: time and I've known friends who didn't make it back. Um,
Speaker 1: it's just hard. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. Ukraine braces for the Russian onslaught in the
Speaker 1: east just as heavy artillery from the US arrives. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the fastest hour in politics and an important conversation
Speaker 1: ahead about the war with retired Navy Admiral James Devrita's
Speaker 1: former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe with US on this
Speaker 1: program his take on the David and Goliath fight that
Speaker 1: is unfolding. Later, we uncover one of the most underreported
Speaker 1: stories of the week, a bipartisan effort to reign in
Speaker 1: big tech. We'll talk about the anti trust bill that
Speaker 1: emerged this week in the Senate with Jenrie of Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Intelligence Our Panel today Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic analyst Genie
Speaker 1: Chanzano alongside Matt Gorman of Targeted Victory, former communications director
Speaker 1: the National Republican Congressional Committee. President Biden's thirty three billion
Speaker 1: dollar request for Ukraine this week would provide military support
Speaker 1: through September, so clearly the administration is girding for a
Speaker 1: much longer conflict, months longer. Remembering the Pentagon thought Ukraine
Speaker 1: could follow the Russians in a matter of days. But
Speaker 1: Ukraine's military has proven to be formidable and creative to
Speaker 1: the point where now the US sees Ukraine actually winning
Speaker 1: this war. That is where we begin with retired Navy
Speaker 1: Admiral James Stefrida's former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, one
Speaker 1: of the most experienced voices we can bring you here
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg. Admiral, it's great to have you and thanks
Speaker 1: for coming in. How has your view of this conflict
Speaker 1: evolved in the last week's watching Ukraine standards ground first
Speaker 1: and foremost, we have to give enormous credit to the
Speaker 1: fighting will of the Ukrainian ze, utterly personified by their
Speaker 1: fearless President Vlodomir Zelinsky. He's become an international hero and
Speaker 1: I have deep respect for him. And as someone who
Speaker 1: has been in war and been a student of war,
Speaker 1: leadership matters, spirit matters, will matters. Um Number two. The
Speaker 1: incompetence of the Russian Army is breathtaking lack of ability
Speaker 1: to conduct logistics, war crimes right and left, UM, a
Speaker 1: terrible battle plan that spread their forces too thinly, bad
Speaker 1: generalship in every level. And third and finally UM, the
Speaker 1: world increasingly sees this as a conflict where Ukraine must
Speaker 1: succeed if the oocracy is going to succeed, And therefore
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians are receiving the armaments they need. Were given
Speaker 1: them the tools, joke, they'll finish the job. Ukraine's use
Speaker 1: of technology, especially drones admiral, has proven deadly for Russia,
Speaker 1: the ultimate example being the sinking of Russia's flagship in
Speaker 1: the Black Sea UH Admiral Ukraine apparently swarmed the ship
Speaker 1: with drones to confuse its systems and then sank the
Speaker 1: boat with a missile strike. Are they are they proving
Speaker 1: that billion dollar weapons platforms are becoming irrelevant? Uh? Not
Speaker 1: quite yet. What they have proven is that if you
Speaker 1: deploy a billion dollar platform in a foolish way, if
Speaker 1: you are overconfident, if you underestimate your opponent, you can
Speaker 1: be defeated in the moment by real technology. Look, I
Speaker 1: went to Annapolis. The first thing they teach you is
Speaker 1: don't get your flagship blown up. What we mean by
Speaker 1: that is you don't take a worship, particularly your flagship,
Speaker 1: and put it within range of these kind of systems.
Speaker 1: That's the big advantage that chips have. So bottom line, Uh,
Speaker 1: this is but one example of how the Ukrainians are
Speaker 1: using the technology we're putting in their hands in order
Speaker 1: to decimate Russian forces. Not just let see, of course, Joe,
Speaker 1: but as sure as well, where hundreds and hundreds of
Speaker 1: Russian main battle tanks have been knocked out, each of
Speaker 1: them worth millions and millions of dollars, being taken out
Speaker 1: by a drone that costs a hundred thousand dollars. It's
Speaker 1: a remarkable, remarkable economic story. Your colleague and co author
Speaker 1: Elliott Ackerman was eloquent about that on Bloomberg recently, and
Speaker 1: it's something I had to ask you about. But of
Speaker 1: course we're heading for a different fight. They say in
Speaker 1: the don boss, assuming this actually turns into the fight
Speaker 1: that that Russia is promising here, our heavy artillery is
Speaker 1: just now apparently arriving in time for this, uh, this
Speaker 1: stage of the war, Admiral, Will the rest get there
Speaker 1: in time for Ukraine to make a difference? Yes, And
Speaker 1: I'll tell you why, because if you look at the
Speaker 1: failures of the Russian army thus far, you can't just
Speaker 1: wave a magic wand and assume that because they've concentrated
Speaker 1: their forces suddenly all their problems will go away. I
Speaker 1: would believe they will continue to have logistics challenges. They
Speaker 1: certainly are going to face a well equipped Ukrainian army,
Speaker 1: one that, as we know, can use technology very creatively.
Speaker 1: Number three, Um, it's a logistics race and we are
Speaker 1: going to win it, we being the US and the West,
Speaker 1: putting the weapons in the hands of the Ukrainians and
Speaker 1: for it. And maybe most importantly, even if the Russians
Speaker 1: could fix all the technology problems and all the logistics problems, Joe,
Speaker 1: you can't surge leadership onto a battlefield. It's pretty clear
Speaker 1: the Russian soldiers don't believe in this mission in the
Speaker 1: way the Ukrainian soldiers do. So I wouldn't bet against
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians. Could a lot happen, Could the Russians have
Speaker 1: some successes that they ramp up a larger attack. Sure,
Speaker 1: but I wouldn't bet against the Ukrainians. When this is
Speaker 1: all said done, Russia wants to cut off Ukraine from
Speaker 1: the Black Sea to connect the dots there along the
Speaker 1: southern coast. How dangerous would that be for Ukraine? If
Speaker 1: they complete that mission? It would be very dangerous. Again,
Speaker 1: we're on bloomberg economically, this would be a dagger pointed
Speaker 1: at the heart of the Ukrainian economy long term. They export,
Speaker 1: particularly their agrarian products, wheat, corn, potash, all of that
Speaker 1: through those Black Sea ports. If the Russians were stopped
Speaker 1: at Crimea and in the Russians somehow held onto Mariopal
Speaker 1: up to the Don bast but Ukraine held the remainder
Speaker 1: of the sea coast to the west of Crimea. I
Speaker 1: think that's survivable for the Ukrainian economy because Sa, the
Speaker 1: largest ports city of all, the real crown jewel of
Speaker 1: the northern Black Sea would remain in Ukrainian hands. That's
Speaker 1: really the fault line I mentioned your co author earlier.
Speaker 1: Admiral you both co wrote the book, a novel of
Speaker 1: the next World War in which a series of miscalculations
Speaker 1: lead to a global conflict. How likely is it that
Speaker 1: miscalculations by the US, or I guess more likely Russia
Speaker 1: uh spread this war beyond Ukraine's borders. Is that what
Speaker 1: keeps you up at night? It certainly keeps me up
Speaker 1: at night. But my assessment, Joe, is that this war
Speaker 1: will remain confined largely to Ukraine. A couple of reasons
Speaker 1: for that. One, Russia is not seeking to get into
Speaker 1: a full on conflict with the United States her NATO.
Speaker 1: We would militarily defeat them, and they know that. Number Two, Um,
Speaker 1: I think even the Russians would hit pause before they
Speaker 1: would use a nuclear weapon that crosses a line which
Speaker 1: would lead directly to the kind of war I mentioned
Speaker 1: one moment ago, and then third and finally, Putin still
Speaker 1: has enormous capability militarily, so I think it's unlikely he
Speaker 1: would use nuclear power nuclear weapons when he's still got
Speaker 1: significant conventional capability. Having said all that, Joe, war is
Speaker 1: the most unpredictable of human activities in US. We ought
Speaker 1: to worry about it. But the best way to approach.
Speaker 1: This is to continue to arm the Ukrainians. They will
Speaker 1: get this job done. Does your view on on Putin
Speaker 1: actually tapping the brakes when it comes to nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: suggest you believe Vladimir Putin is of sound mind. I
Speaker 1: think he is angry, frustrated, bitter and disturbed, but I
Speaker 1: don't think he's crazy. This is not mad King George
Speaker 1: with nuclear weapons. That's not where we are. We can
Speaker 1: push him back with our conventional power. He's rattling that
Speaker 1: nuclear sword at us. But we need to not be
Speaker 1: scared of our shadow here. We have to continue to
Speaker 1: do what we're doing, put the weapons in the hands
Speaker 1: of the Ukrainians. Well, with that said, what is Ukraine
Speaker 1: need that we have not already provided? And I ask
Speaker 1: you that through the lens of what we're discussing here
Speaker 1: on the southern coast, are there, for instance, UH naval
Speaker 1: assets that we could give them to help them hold Odessa?
Speaker 1: Very perceptive question. And the two things that I have
Speaker 1: consistently advocated for our large scale surface missiles that can
Speaker 1: reach out deep into the Black Sea and take out
Speaker 1: Russian naval assets. And the second thing is in the
Speaker 1: skies above Ukraine. We don't want to put up a
Speaker 1: NATO no fly zone. That's going to require direct confrontation
Speaker 1: with Russia, but we ought to be doing every we
Speaker 1: can to move mid twenty nine heavy jet and attack aircraft.
Speaker 1: The polls had them, a couple other NATO allies had them.
Speaker 1: We had to work to get those in the hands
Speaker 1: of the UK. That was my next question for you.
Speaker 1: With the MiGs have made a difference. I think the
Speaker 1: MiGs would absolutely make a difference. They wouldn't change the
Speaker 1: complete course of the war, but they would be highly additive.
Speaker 1: In the bottom line, we have given the Ukrainians absolutely
Speaker 1: everything they've asked for. The presidents now asking for thirty
Speaker 1: three billion dollars. That's all good. Um. These naval missiles
Speaker 1: and heavy aircraft, I think would be the the cherry
Speaker 1: on top of the Sunday that the administration has already built.
Speaker 1: Retired Navy Admiral James Debrita's the conversation that you will
Speaker 1: only hear on Bloomberg, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander
Speaker 1: Europe Admiral I've been looking forward to this and I
Speaker 1: do appreciate your insights today. Thanks Joe. Coming up, we
Speaker 1: assemble the panel for more on this with Bloomberg Politics
Speaker 1: contributor and Democratic analyst Genie Chanzano today alongside Matt Gorman
Speaker 1: of Targeted Victory, former calms director at the National Republican
Speaker 1: Congressional Committee. They're in next on the Fastest Hour in Politics.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew in New York. This is Bloomberg. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio. We've been briefed
Speaker 1: on the evolving war in Ukraine by retired Admiral James
Speaker 1: de Gritas. Now we turn it over to the panel
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Politics contributor and Democratic analyst Genie Chanzano alongside
Speaker 1: Matt Gorman of Targeted Victory, former communications director at the
Speaker 1: National Republican Congressional Committee. Thanks to both of you for
Speaker 1: being here. Genie. The conversation about technology in Ukraine is
Speaker 1: really something. As we consider this thirty three billion dollar
Speaker 1: request that the President has made the Congress. We hear
Speaker 1: a lot about the howitzers and the javelins and some
Speaker 1: of the well even the MiGs that the Ukrainians have
Speaker 1: been asking for, but the progress they've made in holding
Speaker 1: off the Russian military using more creative sort of David
Speaker 1: and Goliath. Uh, concepts like drones, like guerrilla tactics has
Speaker 1: been incredibly effective for them. So far, are we sending
Speaker 1: the right stuff? We seem to be. I mean, I
Speaker 1: was just thinking back, you know, if you we were
Speaker 1: you know, two months ago, could any of us have
Speaker 1: imagined that they would be have been successful successful rather
Speaker 1: at holding off the Russians as they have been. And
Speaker 1: certainly much of that is due to what they've done
Speaker 1: on the ground and how creative they have been, but
Speaker 1: also what the NATO allies have done in terms of
Speaker 1: giving this kind of assistance. And so you know, as
Speaker 1: we see this sort of change in terms of the
Speaker 1: war and we see the need for more heavy weapons,
Speaker 1: we are seeing sort of a shift, if you will.
Speaker 1: And and certainly, um, they have you know, done a
Speaker 1: remarkable job so far, I mean so much that you know,
Speaker 1: the United States can now talk about you know, making
Speaker 1: sure Russia can never do this again, rather than talking
Speaker 1: about keeping you know, uh, you know, sort of our
Speaker 1: more limited aims early on in the war. There's been
Speaker 1: a real shift mad in the conversation here to Genie's point,
Speaker 1: the Pentagon thought that Ukraine could fall within days. Now
Speaker 1: that weeks and weeks have passed. We're hearing people all
Speaker 1: the way up to the Secretary of Defense say, we
Speaker 1: think that Ukraine can win this, not just hold off
Speaker 1: Russia for a period of time, but actually beat the
Speaker 1: Russian military here based on what we've already seen so
Speaker 1: far and white what might come next, and with the
Speaker 1: battle for the Dune Bust though looming, and knowing that
Speaker 1: Russia is regrouping, could the tide shift again. It's certainly possible.
Speaker 1: And I think we as we all know, one thing
Speaker 1: Russia has liked to be is embarrassed, right, and they
Speaker 1: clearly have been embarrassed. As you said, we were talking
Speaker 1: about how it's going to beach the matter of days
Speaker 1: before Ukraine fell, and every every night it seemed like
Speaker 1: there was going to be a new advancement. And look,
Speaker 1: I think it also, uh, you know, laid bare the
Speaker 1: fact Russia's military had been hollowed out. They have lots
Speaker 1: of planes and ships, but they're old and they're not
Speaker 1: as effectual. Um. And the way I kind of always
Speaker 1: think of it was I almost think of it very
Speaker 1: similarly as you described it to what the Americans did
Speaker 1: against the British in the sevent hundreds where it was.
Speaker 1: It was a guerrilla war that they did and and
Speaker 1: and ended up winning obviously against a British that was
Speaker 1: old and was really a kind of out of date.
Speaker 1: And I think that's in a way the Ukrainians have
Speaker 1: done a similar type of strategy. Many parallels there, Genie.
Speaker 1: But the worry, of course, is that the tactics change
Speaker 1: in the east, that this becomes a tank battle. This
Speaker 1: is this is traditional battlefield warfare. No place is to hide.
Speaker 1: This is not city urban warfare. It's there, it's not
Speaker 1: forested the way the area surrounding Kiev is. I know
Speaker 1: we've been training or trying to train them on our
Speaker 1: howitzers and and try to work with our intelligence to
Speaker 1: give Ukraine and upper hand. But do you worry about
Speaker 1: the tide shifting here with Russia in an area that
Speaker 1: might be more favorable to their ability. I do, and
Speaker 1: I think we have to be concerned. Number One, this
Speaker 1: looks like this is going to be a long drawn
Speaker 1: out war that we are not going to be out
Speaker 1: of here. You look at the thirty three billion the
Speaker 1: president saying that's for five months at least, and most
Speaker 1: military experts say this will be longer Um. I also
Speaker 1: think with the change in the United States tone and message,
Speaker 1: there's a real concern that Russia starts to pit this
Speaker 1: against the United States more directly than Ukraine, and that
Speaker 1: is a big concern. They could use tactical, nuclear and
Speaker 1: other kinds of weapons, and as you mentioned, the change
Speaker 1: in the war as they moved to as a move
Speaker 1: sort of could really benefit Russia and play to their strengths. Um,
Speaker 1: we don't know at this point, but I think we
Speaker 1: have to be concerned. But I think that's why the
Speaker 1: presidents ask to Congress is so critical at this point.
Speaker 1: In terms of that ask, Matt Gorman, thirty three billion
Speaker 1: dollars that's already talked about, what will be attached to it? Uh,
Speaker 1: following your time in Washington politics here, what do you
Speaker 1: see Congress managing some COVID funding, some Title forty two,
Speaker 1: maybe border funding or does this need to be passed
Speaker 1: as a clean bill? I think you're certainly have going
Speaker 1: to have folks on both sides see an opportunity to
Speaker 1: essentially put their own priorities on I think both sides
Speaker 1: recognize and you can hidle about a dollar amount, but
Speaker 1: certainly both sides agree that there is a need for
Speaker 1: Ukraine Aid to pass, and that because it is a
Speaker 1: equivalent of a must must pass bill, focusing to try
Speaker 1: and get their priorities on it. And I think the
Speaker 1: balance is what we've seen with with certain must pass bill,
Speaker 1: whether they be dead ceilings or government UH funding bills,
Speaker 1: is once you open up the Christmas tree, so to speak,
Speaker 1: everybody gets to hang an ornament. And so I think
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a push whether it's Schumer, McConnell, and
Speaker 1: and Pelosi can agree to very much limit uh any amendments,
Speaker 1: any other priorities to get attached onto this. But being said,
Speaker 1: it's a matter of what the dollar about it is,
Speaker 1: and it's a matter of how many votes can they
Speaker 1: get for whatever dollar the band up settling. Sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: well it looks like ten billion for COVID down from
Speaker 1: the request of twenty two billion, Genie, does that get
Speaker 1: finally a home in this package desperately needed? I mean,
Speaker 1: the reality is both the thirty three and the ten
Speaker 1: billion for Ukraine and COVID are desperately needed. You know that.
Speaker 1: I am um skeptical that they can get through cleanly
Speaker 1: and quickly. Unfortunately in this Congress, so tight but they're
Speaker 1: both desperately needed and and and God willing they get
Speaker 1: through quickly, because you know, both for our purposes and
Speaker 1: for the sake of Ukraine, this is money that's got
Speaker 1: to get out the door. It's not the only thing
Speaker 1: that's cooking on Capitol Hill right now. And we're gonna
Speaker 1: spend a little more time with MATC. Gorman and Genie
Speaker 1: Chanzano after we get into this anti trust bill coming up,
Speaker 1: a bipartisan anti trust bill aimed at big tech. It's
Speaker 1: gaining momentum in the Senate. We'll talk about it with
Speaker 1: Jen Reid of Bloomberg Intelligence coming up next on Sound On.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. Glad to say we're
Speaker 1: joined in studio by Jen Ry of Bloomberg Intelligence, who
Speaker 1: specializes an antitrust litigation and has been writing a lot
Speaker 1: about this big tech antitrust law that probably didn't get
Speaker 1: as much reporting as it deserves over at the last week.
Speaker 1: Jenet's great to see you, thanks for coming in, Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me so Amy Klobish are on one side
Speaker 1: the Democrat Chuck grass Lee, long time figure in Washington,
Speaker 1: iconic Republican pushing this forward it's got a lot of
Speaker 1: support apparently on both sides of the aisle. We can
Speaker 1: call this bipartisan. Sure, yeah, absolutely. In fact, the co sponsors.
Speaker 1: It's even crazier because you have five Democrats and five
Speaker 1: Republicans and they really span you know, they're not just
Speaker 1: sort of the moderates, but they spanned to the right
Speaker 1: into the left. So this definitely has a strong backing,
Speaker 1: bipartisan backing. Let me ask you how it actually works.
Speaker 1: People have been talking around this. It's called the what
Speaker 1: Innovation and Choice joy. Yeah, it's a it's a name
Speaker 1: that you have no idea what this does. But we're
Speaker 1: talking about the fang companies. These are big tech. This
Speaker 1: is Apple, right, this is Facebook. What would it do? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So it has a number of measures, but really the basic,
Speaker 1: the basic thing this law is trying to do is
Speaker 1: to stop these platforms that are gatekeepers from using that
Speaker 1: gatekeeper power to advantage themselves or to disadvantage their rivals. Right,
Speaker 1: because they're competing with the companies that are on their platform.
Speaker 1: Apple is Amazon is It's really easy to understand that example,
Speaker 1: where it sells products in competition with others that sell
Speaker 1: on the Amazon platform. So there are a number of
Speaker 1: measures that would basically try to level the playing field,
Speaker 1: make them all play fair and not discriminate against their
Speaker 1: rivals and not self preference, not use that position to
Speaker 1: to preference themselves. They also have to promote their competitors
Speaker 1: products on those platforms. Well, it wouldn't be about promoting,
Speaker 1: it's more about being neutral. I mean, I think back
Speaker 1: sometimes to the early days of Google, and when you
Speaker 1: do a Google search. Before Google had a lot of
Speaker 1: verticals like travel and Google shopping and all that, and
Speaker 1: the best response based on their algorithm would come up.
Speaker 1: And and now what you have instead are a lot
Speaker 1: of ads. You have Google's response, you have the Google
Speaker 1: products that would satisfy your search that are coming up first.
Speaker 1: May not be the best. They may be the best,
Speaker 1: but it's not necessarily a neutral algorithm. And I think
Speaker 1: what this would require is more neutrality in that kind
Speaker 1: of an activity. It's fascinating that this is happening against
Speaker 1: the backdrop of this Elon Musk Twitter story, because that's
Speaker 1: got the attention of a lot of Democrats. For instance,
Speaker 1: um this particular bill of fascinating to hear a Republican
Speaker 1: come out against it in the name of former Senator
Speaker 1: and former Ambassador Scott Brown, who we talked to earlier
Speaker 1: this week. Uh. They have the Competition Coalition that is
Speaker 1: supposedly a light touch regulation advocacy group. Uh. And he
Speaker 1: was sending a message to his Republican colleagues, and look,
Speaker 1: Chuck Grasslely, I respect you, but you've essentially been misled
Speaker 1: that this is not about censorship, this is not about
Speaker 1: the issues that conservatives have with big tech, that this
Speaker 1: is actually an answer to what Democrats are worried about.
Speaker 1: Is he close to the truth? Well, I think he's
Speaker 1: right about that. And it could be that you know,
Speaker 1: a Chuck Grassley, for instance, isn't really being misled, understands
Speaker 1: what this is about, but would simply like to punish
Speaker 1: these companies. I mean, that could be part of what's
Speaker 1: behind it. There's no doubt that the Democrats and the Republicans,
Speaker 1: and there are exceptions, but generally speaking, generally are coming
Speaker 1: at this from two different angles. The Democrats simply don't
Speaker 1: like the power that these companies have amassed. They think
Speaker 1: antitrust enforcement has been lax, and they think they need
Speaker 1: to be curbed there, they need to be contained. The
Speaker 1: Republicans on the other hand, really see them as left
Speaker 1: leaning organizations that push left ideas and sensor conservative viewpoints,
Speaker 1: and they'd like that to stop, but they'd also like
Speaker 1: to punish that conduct. So this doesn't do anything about censorship,
Speaker 1: You are right, And I think part of that is
Speaker 1: part of the reason it might actually have trouble getting
Speaker 1: the sixty votes it needs on the Senate Floria to
Speaker 1: become law, because I'm not so sure you're going to
Speaker 1: get the Republicans you need because that's not what it does.
Speaker 1: And you also may have a few Democrats that are
Speaker 1: not behind this, because the California Democrats don't all necessarily
Speaker 1: like it, and some have expressed some concerns about the
Speaker 1: unintended consequence of harming companies in their own backyard. If
Speaker 1: this became law, it would impact the books, right, This
Speaker 1: would have a meaningful impact on earnings. Right. I think
Speaker 1: that it would. And I think it differs but aggressively
Speaker 1: their own products in the same style. I presume this
Speaker 1: comes out on the other end, right, absolutely, Now it's
Speaker 1: going to be different by company. I mean, obviously I
Speaker 1: think this law hits Apple, um um, Google alphabet, I
Speaker 1: should call it um and um Amazon more so than Facebook,
Speaker 1: let's say, because you know, Facebook isn't necessarily promoting its
Speaker 1: own products on its platform, so it's going to hit
Speaker 1: them all differently. And it depends on actually how it's
Speaker 1: administered by a judge, because you know, it's pretty vague
Speaker 1: and it actually has some defenses. And in my mind
Speaker 1: as a lawyer, what that means is it's just going
Speaker 1: to go to court. So they're going to engage in conduct.
Speaker 1: Someone will say it violates the FTC or DJ will
Speaker 1: say it violates the law, and they'll say, well, we
Speaker 1: have defenses, and it's going to be hashed out by
Speaker 1: a judge. So this builds a whole new layer of
Speaker 1: litigation around big tech. Came out of committee, right, What
Speaker 1: are the chances this gets to the floor soon? Well,
Speaker 1: I have to get it to the floor soon to
Speaker 1: get it done because of the August midterm elections, and
Speaker 1: I think if it doesn't get to the floor before that,
Speaker 1: it's probably August recess. The August recess. I'm sorry, Can
Speaker 1: they get it done in a midterm election here? Though
Speaker 1: you just that slip was actually an important one. I'm
Speaker 1: not really sure that they can't. I'm one of the skeptics. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm hearing a lot of people say, Oh, this is it,
Speaker 1: this is going to happen. It's bipartisan, it was voted
Speaker 1: out of the committee. I think sixteen six it's going
Speaker 1: to happen. I'm skeptical that it will Apple alone, Google alone,
Speaker 1: Any of them must have monster lobbying efforts underway now, right, Oh, absolutely,
Speaker 1: dumping cash to will that have an impact? I mean
Speaker 1: that's how you appeal off a couple lawmakers, right. I
Speaker 1: think it could have an impact because you have fence sitters,
Speaker 1: and when you have fence sitters, you have those politicians
Speaker 1: that aren't sure, maybe they don't even understand exactly what
Speaker 1: this does because they don't understand the tech behind it,
Speaker 1: and you have that kind of money to lobby, you
Speaker 1: may pull those fence sitters over to your side. So yes,
Speaker 1: I do think that that has an impact, particularly where
Speaker 1: it's so tight. You know, you need those sixty votes
Speaker 1: in the Senate, which means you must get all Democrats
Speaker 1: and some Republicans, very difficult. That group I mentioned, being
Speaker 1: run by Scott Brown, says that this is what China wants.
Speaker 1: This will actually help China compete more in the big
Speaker 1: tech space. Is that true? Well, I think it does
Speaker 1: because it forces these American companies to do business with
Speaker 1: any takers, right. It forces them to be neutral and
Speaker 1: to allow any entity that wants to do business on
Speaker 1: their platform to do that business promoting Chinese including that. Now,
Speaker 1: there are, as I said, there are defenses, and so
Speaker 1: they can take actions based on privacy security things like that,
Speaker 1: and so they could there could be denials of let's say,
Speaker 1: a Chinese entity on the on that basis, but it
Speaker 1: really does sort of force them to open up and
Speaker 1: work with any competitors out there. You do such great
Speaker 1: work at Bloomberg Intelligence. I'm a huge fan. I really
Speaker 1: appreciate your sharing your insights today. Jen Ry with us
Speaker 1: on the Fastest Hour in Politics. I'm Joe Matthew. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us on the Fastest Hour in Politics.
Speaker 1: As we reassemble the panel, Genie is with us. Jennie Chanzano,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributor, joined today by Matt Gorman of Targeted Victory,
Speaker 1: former communications director at the n r c C. Great
Speaker 1: to have both of you here as we moved to
Speaker 1: anti trust here. That conversation I just had with Jen
Speaker 1: Ri from Bloomberg Intelligence raised a lot of questions about
Speaker 1: this ever really even seeing the light of day. But Genie,
Speaker 1: this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. You've got Amy
Speaker 1: Klobsher and Chuck Grassley on the same issue. That's got
Speaker 1: to be worth some then, right, it should be, um,
Speaker 1: But the reality is in our country we have really
Speaker 1: not passed comprehensive regulation in the tech space, I mean ever,
Speaker 1: So the idea we've had a couple of narrow, too
Speaker 1: narrow tech bills, if you will, but nothing comprehensive for
Speaker 1: twenty five years. And so the idea that this would
Speaker 1: pass in a Senate fifty fifty in a house this close,
Speaker 1: I think is again an uphill battle. So I agree
Speaker 1: with Jen on that you know, we keep hearing uh.
Speaker 1: And I've said it myself here, Matt, that it's it's
Speaker 1: one of the few things that Republicans and Democrats can
Speaker 1: agree on. They've got trouble with big tech. The problem
Speaker 1: is they've got different trouble with big tech. Right, You've
Speaker 1: got censorship allegations concerns on one side. You've got uh,
Speaker 1: you know, too big to fail. On the other side,
Speaker 1: if that's the phrase that I should be reaching for here,
Speaker 1: Democrats think the size and scale is a problem with
Speaker 1: these companies. If the aim is the same but the
Speaker 1: more devation is different, can you still make legislation? Well,
Speaker 1: I tend to agree with Jen as well. You know,
Speaker 1: it is bipartist, but the key is it's not by
Speaker 1: camerll in that there is not as much House agreement
Speaker 1: on a bill UM. And so with I think Republicans
Speaker 1: poised to take the House, I wouldn't be surprised if
Speaker 1: you saw, um, you know, House Republicans say, you know,
Speaker 1: let's pump the brakes on this a bit because there
Speaker 1: will be a chance for us to make our own legislation. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, if it passes, it passes, it doesn't,
Speaker 1: it doesn't, but they want to be able to shape
Speaker 1: it in their own vision. So I think that is
Speaker 1: the sticking point here. And look, I think to your point,
Speaker 1: big tech is an issue. I think that's really been
Speaker 1: propelled up from both parties being really kind of anti
Speaker 1: big tech in different ways in the last five years.
Speaker 1: He didn't talk about this five years ago. It's been
Speaker 1: a shift. Well, I don't know genie if this is
Speaker 1: moving anywhere, but it might prompt a conversation that leads
Speaker 1: to several competing bills. I mean, if this one doesn't
Speaker 1: make the grade, is it possible, if there's so much
Speaker 1: motivation to do something here, that maybe once we get
Speaker 1: through the mid terms there's another crack at this. I
Speaker 1: think there's gonna be another crack at it. I would
Speaker 1: guess it's going to be likely, as you said, after
Speaker 1: the mid terms. Um. And you know, this is not
Speaker 1: unusual in the history of the United States. You look
Speaker 1: at regulation and railroads, for instance, took a long time.
Speaker 1: Part of the reason is, as you talked about, there's
Speaker 1: different motivations. You know, do do congress people want to
Speaker 1: protect consumers, absolutely, but there's also this question of you
Speaker 1: also want to encourage this really important sector of our economy,
Speaker 1: these tech companies, to grow, and those two things can
Speaker 1: often clash. And of course it's Washington, d C. So
Speaker 1: you've got a ton of lobbyists and you've got a
Speaker 1: Congress that doesn't do much these days. So all of
Speaker 1: those things spiral to make it a really difficult path forward.
Speaker 1: I think we'll get there at some point, but I
Speaker 1: don't think in a real tough mid term election here,
Speaker 1: we're going to see a bill like this get through.
Speaker 1: But you know, you give Klobish or you give you
Speaker 1: give the two of them grassly real credit for pushing
Speaker 1: it this far. Well, it has gotten out a committee.
Speaker 1: We'll see if it moves beyond this. The other one, though,
Speaker 1: that is uh is not moving very quickly. Is this
Speaker 1: China Competes bill. And I realize they actually managed to
Speaker 1: vote for a conference committee yesterday. That's a big move forward,
Speaker 1: I suppose. But this has been going on for a
Speaker 1: year now. Another example of Democrats and Republicans agreeing, right,
Speaker 1: we need to better compete with China, but they have
Speaker 1: different ideas of how to go about doing that. Matt,
Speaker 1: do you see this finally coming together the House and
Speaker 1: Senate versions cooked into something that can become a law.
Speaker 1: I hope so. And I think you know, normally when
Speaker 1: we talk about conference committee, it's an encouraging step, and
Speaker 1: it is in this case. But the problem is Congress
Speaker 1: committees are usually maybe a dozen people from from all
Speaker 1: the chambers combine this. This is roughly a hundred. This
Speaker 1: is there's so many stays here because there's different opponents.
Speaker 1: The bill, and everybody owns a different portion, so it's
Speaker 1: really like getting it through another legislative branch. Um. I
Speaker 1: certainly hope, so, you know, and I feel like with
Speaker 1: a lot of these sorts of things, it's not gonna happen,
Speaker 1: not gonna happen, not gonna happen. And then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden there's a lot of momentum, and it does.
Speaker 1: And I think when you have the votes, you vote,
Speaker 1: so I wouldn't be surprised if you hear it's the
Speaker 1: end is near, uh in a in a negative way
Speaker 1: for a while, and then all of a sudden, it
Speaker 1: just that's momentum. It shoots right through a hundred people,
Speaker 1: all with different priorities. Genie, Yes, this this has really
Speaker 1: taken some time. Could it actually happen before the mid terms?
Speaker 1: I want to say yes so badly, Joe. I mean,
Speaker 1: if not, this is gonna die on the vine, right.
Speaker 1: Gina Romando has said other countries are gonna woo these
Speaker 1: chip makers to go set up foundries there and they're
Speaker 1: not going to come to the US. That's all right,
Speaker 1: And you know the problem is not just a man
Speaker 1: or of what's in the bill, and and and the
Speaker 1: differences in the bill, which is difficult in it of itself,
Speaker 1: and the different ideas that legislators are bringing to it.
Speaker 1: There's also a matter of timing. When you look at
Speaker 1: the calendar of Congress before the mid term, they have
Speaker 1: limited time to get this stuff through. I mean, if
Speaker 1: we think that by say, you know, Memorial Day or
Speaker 1: July four, that everything turns towards the mid term, do
Speaker 1: we really think that in September Congress is going to
Speaker 1: come back and work together. And I agree this is
Speaker 1: critically important, but you know, and I would just add,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a bill that they can't even
Speaker 1: agree on the name of it, quite frankly, so I'm
Speaker 1: not so certain they're going to get the bill through.
Speaker 1: But that's another story. Well, that's a lot of capital
Speaker 1: blown on an idea that seemed like a pretty good
Speaker 1: one to everybody. Matt, what's the lesson here? I mean
Speaker 1: the lesson is, even among something we all agree on
Speaker 1: in principle, it's still really hard to get things done.
Speaker 1: We all agree that we can do me to take
Speaker 1: on China. We all agree that ship manufacturers and it's states. Uh.
Speaker 1: But as I said earlier in the show about how
Speaker 1: everybody starts hanging their own priorities on it. This bill
Speaker 1: went from fairly narrow. Everybody started getting their priorities on it.
Speaker 1: Everybody wanted the piece of pie, and it becomes pretty unwheeldy.
Speaker 1: So that's the really tough part about this, and that's
Speaker 1: why it's uh becoming tough tough to legislate in this environment.
Speaker 1: In our remaining moments with Genie and Matt, I want
Speaker 1: to ask you about the White House Correspondence dinner tomorrow. Nine.
Speaker 1: Dr Faucci is not going people all in one room.
Speaker 1: I'm doubting there are many masks. Joe Biden is still
Speaker 1: going though, and I realized they're messaging through his actions here, Genie,
Speaker 1: if you're encouraging people to get back on subways and
Speaker 1: go back to the office and start living your life again,
Speaker 1: the president needs to lead by example. Is this the
Speaker 1: example that he should be showing? You know, I don't
Speaker 1: think so. And I have to tell you. I know,
Speaker 1: I know it's not a popular view, but my you
Speaker 1: have a vice president with COVID, you have a president
Speaker 1: of his age. I granted that he is, you know,
Speaker 1: vaccinated four times apparently, but you know, I'm not so certain.
Speaker 1: If this was an important policy meeting something and critical
Speaker 1: for the American people, yes, by all means go, I'm
Speaker 1: not so sure the White House correspondence there is important
Speaker 1: enough that we risk it with the Vice president with COVID.
Speaker 1: Imagine if they both have COVID. That that concerns me.
Speaker 1: That's almost a national security issue, Matt, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you agree. I believe the White House, though, has
Speaker 1: a laid out protocol for how that would work. They
Speaker 1: say even if the President did test positive, he'd still
Speaker 1: be able to get his work done. But it's messaging here, right.
Speaker 1: We saw him walk into the House Chamber unmasked for
Speaker 1: the first time for the State of the Union. Is
Speaker 1: this the proper follow up to that? And if you
Speaker 1: remember they did that State of the Union right before,
Speaker 1: they recommended you don't need to wear masks inside. And
Speaker 1: it's funny how they tend to change the rules right
Speaker 1: around when it benefits them. And look, I'll be at
Speaker 1: some events surrounding. It won't be the dinner itself. And look,
Speaker 1: I don't mind the factory out wearing a mask. I
Speaker 1: don't mind that Joe Biden's going to be there. That's
Speaker 1: his you know, prerogative. But what I do mind is
Speaker 1: when they are then challenging the mass on airplanes rule,
Speaker 1: or when they're taking other steps that that seemed to
Speaker 1: be incongruous with how they act in other situations. That's
Speaker 1: what I have the issue with Mac Gorman, Genie Chanzano.
Speaker 1: I hope the speech is funny at least if he's
Speaker 1: going to such risk. Thanks to both of you for
Speaker 1: the insights. As always our panel on the Friday edition
Speaker 1: of Sound On, We'll see you back here on Monday.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg