Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Enrounoo with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Cogress woman, when more about the democrat from Wisconsin is
Speaker 2: with us right now? Congresswoman, it's great to see you
Speaker 2: before we move on to some other issues, Welcome back
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg Hearing. Wes Moore talk prompts a number of
Speaker 2: questions about this effort. We've had some lawmakers suggest that
Speaker 2: a funding bill, or at least a commitment to fund
Speaker 2: rebuilding that bridge, could be attached to a Ukraine funding
Speaker 2: bill that the House could act on soon. Would that
Speaker 2: be an appropriate vehicle to cover the cost of this
Speaker 2: bridge in Baltimore.
Speaker 3: I have to just tell you that I don't know.
Speaker 3: I have not heard that proposal. I do know that
Speaker 3: getting funding to Ukraine is a heavy lift all by itself,
Speaker 3: and so perhaps the thinking is that the extent to
Speaker 3: which we're able to do that heavy lift, maybe it
Speaker 3: could just live on to that. I hadn't heard that strategy.
Speaker 3: But I do think that the Baltimore Bridge really has
Speaker 3: an impact on not only local passenger traffic, but commerce,
Speaker 3: and so I know that it should be it is
Speaker 3: a very high priority.
Speaker 4: Well, Congresswoman, you just described Ukraine Aid as a very
Speaker 4: heavy lift. We heard yesterday from some members on the
Speaker 4: Republican side that that could be voted on next week,
Speaker 4: but we also saw yesterday a rule failing again on
Speaker 4: the House floor. How confident are you not just that
Speaker 4: this could be brought to the floor, but go anywhere
Speaker 4: at all.
Speaker 5: Please can't do it.
Speaker 3: Ask me for confidence, because I don't have the confidence
Speaker 3: about anything that can happen in the House of Representatives.
Speaker 5: The margins are very very narrow.
Speaker 3: I do know that there is a lot of support
Speaker 3: for Ukraine in both caucuses and especially among Democrats. We
Speaker 3: do have a very lively caucus I think, headed up
Speaker 3: by Marjorie Taylor Green that is against Ukraine Aid, and
Speaker 3: if it comes to the floor, it will pass. So
Speaker 3: if a Republican has told you that we could be
Speaker 3: voting on it in a few weeks, I am sure
Speaker 3: that they have assessed and evaluated the.
Speaker 5: Democratic support that may or may not be there.
Speaker 3: Now They may bring it up on suspension, in which
Speaker 3: case that they could bypass the Rules Committee and they
Speaker 3: won't have to rely on Democratic votes to pass their rule.
Speaker 3: Weis that came under a rule, so if it comes
Speaker 3: under suspension, they must have assessed.
Speaker 5: That the votes were two thirds of the House would.
Speaker 3: Vote for it for it to come under under suspension
Speaker 3: of the room.
Speaker 2: Speaking of that rule failing, we spoke with your colleague
Speaker 2: French Hill, the Republican from Arkansas, I was a champion
Speaker 2: of renewing FIZA. He spoke with us shortly after that
Speaker 2: happened here on Bloomberg's TV and radio and expressed his
Speaker 2: extreme disappointment.
Speaker 6: Here's what he told us. Congresswoman, we'll have you respond.
Speaker 6: Let's listen.
Speaker 7: It's very frustrating today. This bill was important, a renewing
Speaker 7: seven zero two authority which allows us to monitor communications
Speaker 7: from our adversaries outside of the United States, not American citizens.
Speaker 8: Not American citizens.
Speaker 7: It is non negotiable that has to be renewed before
Speaker 7: April nineteenth.
Speaker 2: Congresswoman, as a progressive Democrat, do you want to see
Speaker 2: FIST renewed in its current form? Should a warrant be
Speaker 2: required if an American is involved in data collection.
Speaker 3: Well, just let me say that the bill that came
Speaker 3: to the floor that would have been come had we
Speaker 3: passed the rule, did have some reforms in it, so
Speaker 3: we are at risk of not having those reforms in
Speaker 3: it to protect American citizens. I think the Republicans listened
Speaker 3: to Donald Trump, who had a bone to pick with FISA,
Speaker 3: since you know he and you know his comrades were
Speaker 3: engaged in in conversations inappropriately with Russia were caught up
Speaker 3: in the in the visa warrants. So I think that
Speaker 3: you know that he has personalized this and not looked
Speaker 3: at the broader the need to make sure that our
Speaker 3: country is protected by our adversaries overseas. There were reforms
Speaker 3: that that I agreed with, and perhaps we won't see
Speaker 3: those reforms if they have to come up with a
Speaker 3: near renewal.
Speaker 4: Well, Congresswoman. As you bring up former President Donald Trump,
Speaker 4: it's worth noting that the House Speaker, Mike Johnson will
Speaker 4: be alongside him tomorrow in a news conference at mar
Speaker 4: A Lago in Florida. Especially given all of the murmurs
Speaker 4: we have heard about potentially Democrats such as yourself stepping
Speaker 4: in to save the speaker should Marjorie Taylor Green actually
Speaker 4: move on a motion to vacate the chair, does his
Speaker 4: closeness with the former president change the calculation for Democrats?
Speaker 4: What do you think about whether you would ever cast
Speaker 4: a vote or just not vote at all to help
Speaker 4: save the speaker?
Speaker 3: Well, I can tell you does a person who's sick
Speaker 3: and tired of the impeachments and censorships and punishments. I
Speaker 3: can say that I'm very disappointed that he's going down
Speaker 3: there to kiss the ring on so called election integrity,
Speaker 3: which is another Trump groups for I gotta be elected.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna do January sixth all over again.
Speaker 3: I'm very disappointed that the Speaker shows the path of
Speaker 3: going down to kiss the ring as opposed to just
Speaker 3: working with the Democrats on avoiding the Marjorie Taylor Green
Speaker 3: initiative to expel him.
Speaker 5: She wants to expel him because.
Speaker 3: He cooperated with Democrats to keep the government from shutting down,
Speaker 3: and now if he were to bring the Ukraine Bill
Speaker 3: to the floor, she has threatened to do that. I
Speaker 3: hate to see the Grand Old Party now becoming the
Speaker 3: Party of Putin.
Speaker 2: Well, with that said, Mike Johnson isn't exactly the he's
Speaker 2: not exactly the normal kind of partygoer at mar A Lago. Congresswoman,
Speaker 2: what advice would you give the Speaker before he flies
Speaker 2: to Palm Beach.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, bipartisanship is the only game in town,
Speaker 3: and he should lean into it and go down in history,
Speaker 3: you know, as a speaker that's saved the one hundred
Speaker 3: and eighty the Congress from being the worst Congress in history.
Speaker 4: Well, and you mentioned, Congresswoman, the idea that he may
Speaker 4: be in hot water with his own party because he
Speaker 4: worked with yours to keep the government funding funded. If
Speaker 4: he were to work with Democrats in the House as
Speaker 4: well to make sure that Ukraine got funding, do you
Speaker 4: think it is likely that his speakership would remain intact
Speaker 4: due to democratic action. Have you heard anything from Hakim
Speaker 4: Jeffries about that idea.
Speaker 5: Well, the person to hear from is Mike Johnson.
Speaker 3: Instead of flying down to Florida, why doesn't he walk
Speaker 3: across the hall and talk to Hakim Jefferies.
Speaker 5: I just think that it's you know, it's less.
Speaker 3: Time consuming and less expensive, and it's more integrity saving
Speaker 3: to do that.
Speaker 2: Congress Woman, when more with a sum Bloomberg TV and Radio. Lastly, Congresswoman,
Speaker 2: I'm struck by a new poll from the d Triple C,
Speaker 2: of course, tasked with electing Democrats to the House. A
Speaker 2: poll of more than a thousand likely voters in more
Speaker 2: than sixty competitive House battleground districts. They found two issues
Speaker 2: were deal breakers, immigration and abortion. Thirty six percent of
Speaker 2: voters say they cannot support a candidate who disagreed with
Speaker 2: them on abortion, and I think we can agree that
Speaker 2: that's been helping Democrats. Thirty three percent as well said
Speaker 2: the same for immigration. With that in mind, do you
Speaker 2: support President Biden acting on his own through executive order
Speaker 2: to manage the flow of illegal immigrants crossing our southwestern border?
Speaker 3: You know, I just want to point something out. There
Speaker 3: was a lot going on January twentieth, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3: We had just two weeks earlier, had January sixth insurrection,
Speaker 3: So people don't remember that Day one of the Biden administration,
Speaker 3: he introduced immigration reform legislation. People don't remember.
Speaker 6: Should you do more?
Speaker 5: Just check the facts.
Speaker 3: And then the Republicans put forth a border bill that
Speaker 3: the border protection lobby supported, and Donald Trump told Republicans
Speaker 3: not to bring it forth because he wants to run
Speaker 3: on this broken immigration system.
Speaker 5: I want to remind people.
Speaker 3: I mean, so, the broken borders and immigration is a
Speaker 3: gift that keeps on giving to Donald Trump, who wants
Speaker 3: to run a gift President Biden on that. But I
Speaker 3: want people to know that President Biden, from day one
Speaker 3: of his administration has tried to fix immigration.
Speaker 4: All right, Congresswoman Gwen Moore at the Democrat from Wisconsin,
Speaker 4: thank you so much for joining us today on Balance
Speaker 4: of Power.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at Noone's You're An on Applecarplay and
Speaker 1: then Roudoo with a Bloomberg business ad. You can also
Speaker 1: listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 1: Just Say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: Live from Washington alongside Kaylee Lines. It's the fastest show
Speaker 2: in politics, with big questions about funding for Ukraine even
Speaker 2: as we see some very difficult headlines emerge from Ukraine. Kayleie,
Speaker 2: we were talking about this earlier, the missile barrage again
Speaker 2: against a Kiev that knocked out the biggest power plant
Speaker 2: in that area, and now an emergency meeting by the
Speaker 2: UN's Atomic Watchdog on what might happen to Zaparijia. You
Speaker 2: could go back a year and tell these same kinds
Speaker 2: of stories. Yet the concern about funding is a real one.
Speaker 2: As the Speaker of the House heads to mar A
Speaker 2: Lago this weekend, and we know how Donald Trump feels
Speaker 2: about that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's still a major question what action the US
Speaker 4: Congress may take, and frankly, how quickly an actual vote
Speaker 4: on providing additional military assistance Ukraine could actually transmit to
Speaker 4: Ukraine getting the assistance it needs to fend off missile
Speaker 4: attacks like the one we saw. And this is where
Speaker 4: we begin with General Mark kim At, the retired brigadier
Speaker 4: general in the US Army who was joining us here
Speaker 4: in our Washington d C studios. So, general, as we
Speaker 4: see once again Russia arguably weaponizing energy, we hear President
Speaker 4: vladimir's Alynsky during a visit to Lithuania saying that air
Speaker 4: defense is the biggest challenge that they have. How quickly
Speaker 4: could the US, even if it decided it wanted to
Speaker 4: help Ukraine in that regard.
Speaker 9: Well air defense capabilities, there is a significant amount in
Speaker 9: the inventory that could get over there pretty quickly. Where
Speaker 9: we are having problems is in manufacturing artillery rounds.
Speaker 6: That's where there's a shortage.
Speaker 9: They would draw down from existing stocks, perhaps take them
Speaker 9: from other theaters. But that's one of those systems that
Speaker 9: I think if we can get it over there. I
Speaker 9: haven't seen the list. I didn't see a large amount
Speaker 9: of air defense weapons on there in a few snippets
Speaker 9: that have been shared with me, but I think that's
Speaker 9: something that they could get over quite quickly.
Speaker 2: This is a Pentagon spending a lot of plates right now,
Speaker 2: and if you believe reporting, there is an imminent strike
Speaker 2: that we're preparing for either by Iran or Iranian proxies
Speaker 2: against Israel following the Israeli strike against the Iranian embassy
Speaker 2: in Damascus. To what extent can we model the possibilities here?
Speaker 2: What are they talking about today behind closed doors at
Speaker 2: the Pentagon?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think the options for the Iranians would be
Speaker 9: a direct strike on Israel from Iranian territorial units.
Speaker 6: I think that is significant.
Speaker 9: That would be significant, and that could very well draw
Speaker 9: the United States in, because President Biden has told Prime
Speaker 9: Minister Netnyahu.
Speaker 6: That he would help.
Speaker 9: But this would sound more like an instance where the
Speaker 9: Iranians would work through their proxies.
Speaker 6: If you go over the.
Speaker 9: Annual report given by the State Department on State Sponsors
Speaker 9: of Terrorism, the lines drawn in there about Iran and
Speaker 9: their terrorist activities are enormous. So it would be likely
Speaker 9: that perhaps not in the Middle East, but Iran could
Speaker 9: in fact go after an Iranian go after an Israeli
Speaker 9: embassy somewhere in South America that would take their fingerprints
Speaker 9: on it, off of it if they use a group
Speaker 9: like Hezbola, and there wouldn't.
Speaker 6: Be direct attribution.
Speaker 9: As you remember, Iran sent an agent into Washington, d C.
Speaker 9: To try to assassinate dua ambassador, so I would expect
Speaker 9: something like that to happen.
Speaker 4: Well, we heard the take from Senator Marco Rubi, or
Speaker 4: at least we could read it on x where he
Speaker 4: posted this morning, Iran wants to launch a large scale
Speaker 4: attack from their own territory against Israel respond instantly with
Speaker 4: an even more severe counterattack inside of Iran. What happens
Speaker 4: next is the most dangerous Middle East moment since nineteen
Speaker 4: seventy three.
Speaker 9: You think, I think it's exactly right if that was
Speaker 9: what the Iranians were to do. I laid that out
Speaker 9: as an option, but I think it's a very low
Speaker 9: probability to that having happening, because Ron has enough problems
Speaker 9: of its own right now, internal descent, huge amount of
Speaker 9: inflation shortages that would almost be apocalyptic, if not suicidal.
Speaker 2: So it comes through a proxy group, then most likely
Speaker 2: we've already got a carrier group in the region to
Speaker 2: deal with that. Is that how it ends, or would
Speaker 2: we have to send additional resources to manage an attack
Speaker 2: of that sort.
Speaker 9: Well, if a proxy group goes after an Israeli embassy
Speaker 9: in South America or in Western Asia, I don't think
Speaker 9: that that carrier is going to do a lot of good.
Speaker 6: How about if it stays in the region.
Speaker 9: However, if it stays in the region, I think it
Speaker 9: would depend on the severity the attack, whether it was
Speaker 9: against US assets in the region. As you remember, when
Speaker 9: we targeted Costumsulamani, the response from the Iranians was in
Speaker 9: fact an attack from Iranian territorial units, but it was
Speaker 9: a fairly soft attack on a U space that created
Speaker 9: a number of soldiers getting PTSD and their bells rung essentially,
Speaker 9: but it wasn't much more than that.
Speaker 4: Of course, against the backdrop to all of this is
Speaker 4: the ongoing war between Israel and Tamas, and a lot
Speaker 4: of questions around how the US policy in regard to
Speaker 4: that may be changing. As we hear from the Biden administration.
Speaker 4: If they don't see the changes they would like to
Speaker 4: see from Israel, US policy might change. There's been talk
Speaker 4: about conditioning aid. Can the US do anything like that?
Speaker 4: Knowing that this threat against Israel, not just from Hamas
Speaker 4: but from other Iranian proxies or iron itself, seems so
Speaker 4: real right now.
Speaker 9: I think there's a policy issue and there's a political issue.
Speaker 9: I won't go into the political issue because it would
Speaker 9: appear that President Biden is trying to walk the fine
Speaker 9: line between support for Israel and also support for these
Speaker 9: Lama communities here in the United States.
Speaker 6: But on a.
Speaker 9: Policy issue, we already have the laws. We have laws
Speaker 9: such as the Lehi Law, which prevents the Americans from
Speaker 9: giving equipment to foreign countries if they're verifiable human rights violations.
Speaker 9: So I would simply say that if the president uses
Speaker 9: the laws in the book, he has a tremendous way
Speaker 9: to hold up that support to Israel.
Speaker 6: I don't think he will.
Speaker 2: What will happen in Rafa if the idea I actually
Speaker 2: rolls in. We hear there's a date that's according to Benjaminttinya,
Speaker 2: who I know that the administration is trying to prevent
Speaker 2: this from happening, but surely they have plans as well.
Speaker 6: If they're executed, what does it look like?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 9: That's what confuses me, because it sounds like it would
Speaker 9: be what we saw in Gaza. I don't think it
Speaker 9: would be anything more than that, which was tragic in
Speaker 9: and of itself. The only difference, of course, would be
Speaker 9: somewhat of Hamas's last stand. But what I would note
Speaker 9: is if we go through with some of these programs
Speaker 9: to limit the amount of precision weapons given to Israel,
Speaker 9: well they're going to use much more, much less precise
Speaker 9: weapons and cause a whole lot more collateral damage and
Speaker 9: death of civilians. So I think we've got to accept
Speaker 9: that Prime Minister Netanya, who's going to do what he
Speaker 9: thinks is best for his country and candidly listen to
Speaker 9: the Americans when it is convenient and ignore it when
Speaker 9: it's not convenient to him.
Speaker 4: Well, and what we consistently hear from Netanya, who is
Speaker 4: that victory it can only be achieved if the remaining
Speaker 4: battalions are eliminated, and there's of course multiple Hamas battalions
Speaker 4: still in Rafa. But I guess I question what the
Speaker 4: idea of elimination really means if we're talking about taking
Speaker 4: out the actual Hamas fighters or their military capabilities. But
Speaker 4: can you defeat the Hamas ideology? And I just wonder
Speaker 4: if how victory can even realistically be achieved in the
Speaker 4: longer term sense.
Speaker 9: Well in the short term sense. What he can do
Speaker 9: in his legacy that he is trying to achieve is
Speaker 9: he does not want to be another Israeli Prime minister
Speaker 9: that stops the fight short and you all of a
Speaker 9: sudden have Sinoar going up and down the streets of
Speaker 9: Dohag declaring victory. He wants to end Hamas. He will
Speaker 9: never end the ideology. That's a long term problem. What
Speaker 9: he can do is forestall another attack that Hamas has
Speaker 9: promised will happen time and time and time again. That's
Speaker 9: why he wants to go after the infrastructure. That's why
Speaker 9: he wants to take out Hamas fighters.
Speaker 2: General Mark Kimmitt, great to see you back with us
Speaker 2: here at the table at Bloomberg.
Speaker 6: You're always welcome. We appreciate the insights, Kaylie.
Speaker 2: There are huge questions about what's going to happen next
Speaker 2: and whether that attack actually takes place at all.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Enrounoo
Speaker 1: with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube in.
Speaker 2: The Nation's capital, thanks for being with us on Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 2: on the satellite and on YouTube. With Congress in town,
Speaker 2: the President is here as well, but not a lot
Speaker 2: of news after that FISA bill was stopped in its
Speaker 2: tracks yesterday. Couldn't even get a rule passed in the House,
Speaker 2: making us wonder if anything can move in the House,
Speaker 2: including Ukraine funding, which some thought might happen in the
Speaker 2: next week.
Speaker 6: It is feeling a lot less like it at the moment.
Speaker 2: As Speaker Mike Johnson prepares to make a visit to
Speaker 2: mar A Lago in a couple of days, going to
Speaker 2: be holding a joint news conference apparently with Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: This could impact the agenda. We'll talk about that more ahead,
Speaker 2: because the news from Ukraine has been very concerning over
Speaker 2: the past twenty four hours. I think we can call
Speaker 2: it desperate, as a UN atomic watchdog now calls an
Speaker 2: emergency meeting in Vienna to talk about the increasing risk
Speaker 2: of a meltdown at the nuclear power plant in Zaparisia.
Speaker 2: And that follows Russian missile attacks knocking out the biggest
Speaker 2: power plant in the Kiev region yesterday, taking advantage of
Speaker 2: pockets in the air defense. And that's where we start
Speaker 2: here with Nick Watdams, Bloomberg's, of course, National Security team leader.
Speaker 2: He drives our coverage here from Washington and a regular
Speaker 2: on this broadcast. It's great to see you Nick, as
Speaker 2: we join together again to talk about some pretty tough news.
Speaker 2: I wonder, are we going to be hearing all of
Speaker 2: this being a cause of a lack of ammunition or
Speaker 2: would this have happened either way with Ukraine?
Speaker 10: Well, I mean, there is no question whether or not
Speaker 10: you draw a direct causal link. There is no question
Speaker 10: that Russia has been much more aggressive in the skies
Speaker 10: over Ukraine. You had that footage a day or two
Speaker 10: ago of Russian jets essentially flying unchallenged over Ukraine, something
Speaker 10: that would not have happened several months ago. And we
Speaker 10: know very clearly that Ukraine is running out of ammunition,
Speaker 10: and the US says, listen, there is no Plan B
Speaker 10: here if you do not get us the money. This
Speaker 10: is Ukraine has already rationing ammunition, It's running out of
Speaker 10: its air defenses. They need help, and we don't have
Speaker 10: any other options, so you got to act. It be
Speaker 10: very interesting to see what happens in mar A Lago,
Speaker 10: because you know, if Mike john Hinson does force this vote,
Speaker 10: the sort of common wisdom is that that's going to
Speaker 10: force his ouster. But we're also hearing, you know, Donald
Speaker 10: Trump likes Mike Johnson. He doesn't want to have another
Speaker 10: Republican leadership fight, so there may be some wiggle room there.
Speaker 10: We'll see.
Speaker 2: Very curious to hear what might emerge from that conversation.
Speaker 2: I wonder if either of them know we remember Vladimir
Speaker 2: Putin using the cold as a weapon in the winter season.
Speaker 2: He's using energy, I guess as a weapon in this case,
Speaker 2: actually targeting energy infrastructure, whether it's this plant that he
Speaker 2: knocked out in Kiev, the concerns about the nuke plant
Speaker 2: in Zaporisha.
Speaker 6: Where does this go? What's he trying to accomplish?
Speaker 11: Well?
Speaker 10: It's always difficult to tell how much of this is
Speaker 10: a deliberate strategy. I mean, obviously the goal right now
Speaker 10: is to inflict as much pain on Ukraine. It's military
Speaker 10: but also the civilians there as he possibly can. And
Speaker 10: it's both inflicting pain and also exacerbating the really low morale.
Speaker 10: I think that you're seeing among Ukrainian troops in a
Speaker 10: sense that they are not getting what they need from
Speaker 10: the West. I don't know if you'd say they feel
Speaker 10: abandoned by the US and European allies, but certainly a
Speaker 10: feeling that, you know, if Russia is allowed to do
Speaker 10: something like this unchallenged, well what does that say about
Speaker 10: the relationship. So I mean, as ever, Vladimir Putin delights
Speaker 10: in exploiting these rifts and points of tension between Ukraine
Speaker 10: and its allies. I think that's what he's doing here.
Speaker 2: All the while, we have quite a situation brewing in Israel.
Speaker 2: It's getting more complex for this administration, it seems like
Speaker 2: by the day, as we now anticipate what we're told
Speaker 2: as an eminent strike by Iran or by its proxies
Speaker 2: in retaliation against this Israeli strike in Damascus.
Speaker 6: Do we believe that something like this could.
Speaker 2: Be born originated from Iranian soil, or would this be
Speaker 2: from Yemen or someone else.
Speaker 10: You know, it's a great question because the thing that
Speaker 10: you really have not seen in this conflict so far
Speaker 10: is Israel and Iran going toe to toe against each
Speaker 10: other directly. It's all been playing out through proxies. So
Speaker 10: I mean, yes, you had Israel targeting Iranian generals, but
Speaker 10: they were based in Syria, so it was yes, they
Speaker 10: were going after Iranian forces, but there was that half
Speaker 10: step that they were actually in serious So you know,
Speaker 10: a direct strike from Iran on Israel or vice versa,
Speaker 10: frankly that was actually publicly acknowledged would be a huge escalation.
Speaker 10: So we're all, I mean, this is this occupying all
Speaker 10: of our time at the moment, trying to figure out
Speaker 10: what the contras of this strike would be.
Speaker 1: But what is clear.
Speaker 10: I mean, as President Joe Biden said yesterday, they are anticipating.
Speaker 10: They do have strong evidence that something is coming. The
Speaker 10: question is what and how escalatory it's going to be.
Speaker 6: That we are laser focused.
Speaker 2: On it, and we have a high ranking military official
Speaker 2: in Israel right now talking about how they respond to
Speaker 2: the response would that be coordinated with the US either way.
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 10: I mean it's a very interesting dynamic there because the
Speaker 10: US Defense Department has played a role in advising Israel
Speaker 10: on its responses both to Hamas but also in this
Speaker 10: proxy fight. But you know, it hasn't always been the
Speaker 10: case that Israel has taken that advice, and there has
Speaker 10: been some frustration in the Pentagon that hey, we're sending
Speaker 10: you these assets and you're not listening, You're not paying
Speaker 10: attention to us. So again you get back to that
Speaker 10: other really festering issue, which is the continued tension between
Speaker 10: US and Israel.
Speaker 6: Something tells me we'll talk again soon. Yeah, if it'll
Speaker 6: come back to help us out.
Speaker 2: Great to see you, Nick, as always, Nick Wadams, just
Speaker 2: doing great work as always on Bloomberg's National Security team
Speaker 2: here in Washington. They have a very important corner of
Speaker 2: our bureau, and we really do rely on them, certainly
Speaker 2: since I've been here at Bloomberg considering everything that has
Speaker 2: gone on around the world and is continuing to unfold here.
Speaker 6: We'll stay in touch with Nick for you here at home.
Speaker 2: The President actually talking about this today in a trilateral
Speaker 2: meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, of course, was
Speaker 2: in town yesterday, and you're adding the President of the
Speaker 2: Philippines today all of this with an Ion China. But
Speaker 2: as we heard from the Prime Minister Kishida, the Prime
Speaker 2: Minister of Japan before a joint session of Congress earlier,
Speaker 2: they are deeply invested in this situation in Ukraine with
Speaker 2: an Ion China as well.
Speaker 6: It's interesting how these stories overlap.
Speaker 2: The President speaking yesterday not only about this in the
Speaker 2: Rose Garden, but also taking a question about the border.
Speaker 2: Fascinating to hear him talk on Univision about his plans
Speaker 2: to take executive action here in lieu of a legislative solution.
Speaker 2: Remember that compromise went up in smoke following Senate passagees
Speaker 2: DOA in the House. So here we are again, quote,
Speaker 2: we're examining whether or not I have that power unquote.
Speaker 2: The President himself does not know if this will hold
Speaker 2: up in court, as he seeks to tighten the definition
Speaker 2: of asylum, and we wanted to get more into that
Speaker 2: today with somebody who has some experience in that field.
Speaker 2: Leon Fresco is with US former Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Speaker 2: at the Department of Justice, Office of Immigration litigation is
Speaker 2: now at Holland and Knight, Leon, Thank you for being
Speaker 2: with us.
Speaker 6: Is this going to be a protracted court battle? And
Speaker 6: if so, who wins?
Speaker 12: Well, absolutely it will be a protracted court battle because
Speaker 12: the premise of the entire reason that the Republicans have
Speaker 12: made this argument that there is an exclusion authority under
Speaker 12: what is known as INA Section two twelve F is
Speaker 12: because there's a ban and that travel ban is permitted,
Speaker 12: but the ban is on this word called entry, meaning
Speaker 12: if you're outside of the United States, you can be
Speaker 12: banned from entering the United States. So you can be
Speaker 12: banned from getting a visa, you can be banned when
Speaker 12: you're at the airport. But here's the problem. Once you've
Speaker 12: crossed illegally, there's hundreds of years of case law that
Speaker 12: says that that is an entry, which is why you
Speaker 12: can be charged criminally with illegal entry, and so then
Speaker 12: the bar doesn't actually apply to you because you've already entered.
Speaker 12: And at that point then the question is, well, you
Speaker 12: ban people from applying for asylum, and so the answer
Speaker 12: is yes, but that doesn't mean you can ban them
Speaker 12: from applying for something else, which is called withholding of removal,
Speaker 12: which is a statutory relief that is short of asylum,
Speaker 12: but that lets people stay. And so these bars, those
Speaker 12: are the two problems with them. Is one, will a
Speaker 12: court actually let you get away? Well, a court actually
Speaker 12: let you get away with not calling it an entry
Speaker 12: when someone has already entered and saying yes, we can
Speaker 12: kick them out because they haven't actually entered, that's one thing.
Speaker 12: And then could you actually ban them from applying for
Speaker 12: any sort of relief? And in both of those those
Speaker 12: are things tried by President Trump, and President Trump was
Speaker 12: unsuccessful on both of those grounds.
Speaker 6: In the pipes my god.
Speaker 2: Well, for those of us who are more confused than
Speaker 2: when we started, leon, let me ask you about the
Speaker 2: definition of asylum, because they tried to get to this
Speaker 2: in the Senate compromise. These are people who are fleeing
Speaker 2: obviously economic conditions as well as violent conditions, and the
Speaker 2: idea was to tighten this definition to include only those
Speaker 2: who were in physical harm. How do you think it
Speaker 2: should read? What would stand up in court?
Speaker 12: Well, the definition of asylum is what it is, which
Speaker 12: is that you fear persecution on the basis of your race, religion,
Speaker 12: national origin, social group, or political opinion. So basically on
Speaker 12: an inutable factor of you specifically, not on the basis
Speaker 12: of something that's happened happening economically in your country. The
Speaker 12: problem has been with the burden of proof you have
Speaker 12: to show to make your initial case that allows you
Speaker 12: to stay for many years, and people have thought that
Speaker 12: that initial burden, which is called credible fear, which is
Speaker 12: one where you basically have to show the best is
Speaker 12: a significant possibility that you could win, was too low,
Speaker 12: and so administrations have tried to rent that up administratively.
Speaker 12: But the problem is they can't change that because that
Speaker 12: standard is in the statutory law. So all they can
Speaker 12: do is basically issue memos that say, hey, remember what
Speaker 12: the standard is, which triggers sort of a subliminal readout
Speaker 12: to the agent, Hey, maybe you want to deny more cases.
Speaker 12: But when that happens, then lawsuits happened because people say, hey,
Speaker 12: what you're trying to do is actually change the standard
Speaker 12: from what it actually is, which is why the president
Speaker 12: was asking for a congressional change, so that that initial
Speaker 12: threshold standard could be raised to something more definitive, or
Speaker 12: you had to already present something more concrete than just
Speaker 12: articulating some magic words Hey, I'm against the government in
Speaker 12: my country, and so that's why I'm trying to come in,
Speaker 12: and that that would be more You know that you
Speaker 12: would need more than that. You would already need some
Speaker 12: documents or something to show that you actually could justify
Speaker 12: what you're saying in order for you to stay and
Speaker 12: make the second part of your case.
Speaker 2: Spending time with immigration attorney Leon Fresco at Holland and
Speaker 2: Night getting back to this idea of qualifying entry. Leon
Speaker 2: under section two twelve f of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
Speaker 2: which Donald Trump tried to leverage repeatedly, it says that
Speaker 2: the president has brought leeway to block entry of certain
Speaker 2: immigrants if it would be detrimental to US national interests.
Speaker 6: What qualifies as detrimental.
Speaker 12: So there in the Trump versus Hawaii case, the court
Speaker 12: actually gave President Trump. The Supreme Court and that was
Speaker 12: when they remember, we had the travel ban, which first
Speaker 12: started with during the election, the allegation that he would
Speaker 12: ban all quote unquote Muslims, and then it kind of
Speaker 12: shrunk it to a seven He kind of shrunk into
Speaker 12: a seven country ban, and it was more security oriented
Speaker 12: than Muslim orient that there was about whether those countries
Speaker 12: had specific security thresholds in place. But in any case,
Speaker 12: the Supreme Court gave broad authority to presidents to be
Speaker 12: able to say that that was not reviewable that issue.
Speaker 12: They only had to say that there was this there
Speaker 12: was this reason, and as long as a reason was articulated,
Speaker 12: then it wasn't reviewable. So the reason itself was not
Speaker 12: relevant as long as it was articulated. And so there
Speaker 12: that's a huge standard. But again, the problem isn't bad.
Speaker 12: The problem is that the people coming across illegally are
Speaker 12: already entering, which is what makes them liable for illegal entry.
Speaker 12: So then you can't ban their entry because they've already entered.
Speaker 12: The entries that can be banned are people who are outside,
Speaker 12: or who are at the board of Entries, or who
Speaker 12: are at the airport, but not the people who crossed illegally.
Speaker 2: Leon, you're reminding me why I'm not a lawyer President Biden's,
Speaker 2: he says, we're examining whether or not I have that power.
Speaker 2: What's his legal team telling him? What should they be
Speaker 2: telling him today?
Speaker 12: Well, I think he's getting two kinds of advice. One
Speaker 12: kind of advice is, look, just do it. Have the
Speaker 12: court say it's illegal, and say, you see, I did
Speaker 12: everything I could. You Republicans told me everything, told me
Speaker 12: I had this power. I clearly didn't. Let's get back
Speaker 12: to the drawing board and let's negotiate something. And then
Speaker 12: the other lawyers are telling him you can't do it,
Speaker 12: and you shouldn't do it because we don't pass laws
Speaker 12: here that are going to get enjoined by the court.
Speaker 12: We swore an ope not to do that. And he's
Speaker 12: just got to decide which advice he wants to take
Speaker 12: in that situation.
Speaker 6: Do you think he's got an angel on one shoulder
Speaker 6: and a devil on the other?
Speaker 5: Correct?
Speaker 12: And this is always the fifty to fifty burden of
Speaker 12: any president in this situation is do you do it now?
Speaker 12: You're always gonna have to have a credible argument because
Speaker 12: you don't want the lawyers going to court to get
Speaker 12: in trouble or get this barred that they've made a
Speaker 12: ridiculous argument. So you're gonna have to do something that's
Speaker 12: at least credible enough to pass the threshold of the
Speaker 12: lawyers being sanctioned. But the point is, if you think
Speaker 12: you're gonna win, then that's really what you should move forward.
Speaker 12: But he might do it not thinking he's gonna win,
Speaker 12: just so he can prove everybody that they were wrong.
Speaker 12: I hear, because he'd ever had that power in the
Speaker 12: first place.
Speaker 2: Hey, Leon, thanks for coming to talk to us today,
Speaker 2: Leon Fresco, Hollanden Knight, as we try to figure out
Speaker 2: President Biden's next move on this one or what the
Speaker 2: courts might say. Much more ahead on Balance of Power.
Speaker 2: This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple CarPlay and
Speaker 1: then Ronoo with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also
Speaker 1: listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station.
Speaker 1: Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: Certainly after yesterday's route and as we try to rebuild
Speaker 2: things at least to some extent today, we want to
Speaker 2: make sure you know what's happening in the markets. With
Speaker 2: one day PPI, the next here we are do they
Speaker 2: cancel each other out?
Speaker 6: Remember how upset.
Speaker 2: Everyone was around this time yesterday We had the end
Speaker 2: of the world situation. We're never cutting rates again as
Speaker 2: long as we're alive. And then twenty four hours later,
Speaker 2: PPI and everyone starts turning in the other direction. Almost
Speaker 2: a little bit of relief here on a very different
Speaker 2: reading when it comes to wholesale inflation and the Fed's
Speaker 2: preferred reading here, of course, the core Personal consumption Expenditures
Speaker 2: Price Index, which I woke up thinking about this morning.
Speaker 2: I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington, joined at the table by
Speaker 2: Lindsay Owens of the Groundwork Collaborative.
Speaker 6: She's with us at the table today.
Speaker 2: Great to see you in studio here at Bloomberg. Thanks
Speaker 2: for joining us. We last spoke around jobs Day. As
Speaker 2: you reminded me, We've had two big data points since then. Yesterday,
Speaker 2: as I said, people thought, okay, this is a problem
Speaker 2: three months as a trend. Then you see something that
Speaker 2: many people consider a leading indicator with the PPI data
Speaker 2: this morning, and we feel a little bit better about things.
Speaker 6: Where are you?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 8: I mean, look, Job's Day was great. Last week.
Speaker 11: We saw continued strength in the labor market. That's building
Speaker 11: on continued strength in the economy overall. Right, we've had
Speaker 11: great GDP numbers. I think folks sort of fell back
Speaker 11: down to earth this week with the inflation numbers coming
Speaker 11: in hotter than expected. Yesterday worrying that maybe inflation is
Speaker 11: a bit stickier than we'd hoped, the sort of disinflation
Speaker 11: story of twenty twenty three, you know, maybe eroding a bit.
Speaker 11: But then you know, today's PPI numbers, I think give
Speaker 11: us a little bit of hope. You know, they tell
Speaker 11: us that the Fed's preferred gauge PCE is maybe softening
Speaker 11: a touch, and you know, perhaps we'll still get those
Speaker 11: rate cuts that we're hoping for from the Fed later
Speaker 11: this year. I think for me, the question is, you know,
Speaker 11: why would the Fed continue this high interst rate environment
Speaker 11: for longer given what we saw under the hood yesterday
Speaker 11: in those CPI numbers. Well, housing is really what's continuing
Speaker 11: to drive CPI. And as you know, we don't get
Speaker 11: relief in the housing market with higher interest rates. We
Speaker 11: get higher mortgage rates putting pressure on rental prices. Right,
Speaker 11: Folks aren't moving out of houses, and folks aren't leaving
Speaker 11: the rental market to jump in and start buying. So
Speaker 11: you know, the Fed's interest rate tool is not very
Speaker 11: well matched for housing inflation. If anything, it may be
Speaker 11: exacerbating housing inflation. And so that's the real sort of
Speaker 11: paradox and predicament I think we're in here, is how
Speaker 11: do we get out of this?
Speaker 2: Sure without a building boom, Sure you're trying to take
Speaker 2: another lever, But if you're Jay Powell, you're saying, look,
Speaker 2: i mean we're not anywhere near two percent right now,
Speaker 2: and the last thing I want to do is start cutting.
Speaker 6: And have to start racing again. And I'm sure you
Speaker 6: empathize with that. Yeah, I mean, he has history shows
Speaker 6: the danger there.
Speaker 11: He has one tool in his toolbox, right, he has
Speaker 11: interest rates, and so that's what he's looking at. Is
Speaker 11: he going to stay the course? Is he going to
Speaker 11: be higher for longer? Is he going to sort of
Speaker 11: continue with his promise to begin cutting this year? I mean,
Speaker 11: my guess is the language that we'll see from the
Speaker 11: FED won't change very much. It'll still talk about an
Speaker 11: outlook of cuts beginning this year. But I think this
Speaker 11: does maybe call into question how quickly they move to
Speaker 11: the first cut, maybe puts June.
Speaker 8: A little bit in the rear view mirror.
Speaker 11: But I'm still I'm still optimistic that you know, that
Speaker 11: really could see movements sooner this year in June, maybe
Speaker 11: not June, but you know, still optimistic.
Speaker 2: Because the worry is, oh, now there was a sudden
Speaker 2: we're in political season. He's not going to want to
Speaker 2: do anything in the fall. Does that apply at this point?
Speaker 2: Whenevery other norm has been thrown out the window? Does
Speaker 2: history matter? If j Palell thinks he needs to cut
Speaker 2: rates in September, he's going to.
Speaker 11: Do it, right, Yeah, I mean, look, federal reserved tres
Speaker 11: have cut rates during election years before. There is no
Speaker 11: law or rule that says you can't cut an interest
Speaker 11: rate during an election year.
Speaker 2: You know what people would say though, that it's political. Well,
Speaker 2: he's auditioning for the job again. He's trying to of
Speaker 2: course political that's that's that would be the refrain, and
Speaker 2: that's what he's trying to avoid.
Speaker 8: Yeah, he's trying to avoid politics.
Speaker 11: Look, I think you know, in that case, I would
Speaker 11: argue actually that you know, cutting rates earlier with more
Speaker 11: gap between now and November is less political than sort
Speaker 11: of moving to recuts in the fall.
Speaker 8: Right on the eve of the election.
Speaker 2: Did the President help Yesterday? He actually went there. We
Speaker 2: can't get anybody to talk about the fedting. God knows,
Speaker 2: we've tried.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Heather Bouchet, who's going to join us later today, Jared Bernstein.
Speaker 2: They're trained to say we're not going there. As opposed
Speaker 2: to the last administration. The president was tweeting at j
Speaker 2: Powell every day. But yesterday Joe Biden, in front of
Speaker 2: a rose garden full of reporters, says, there's going to
Speaker 2: be a ray cut this year. You might have to
Speaker 2: wait a month, he said, talking almost like somebody who
Speaker 2: would come on Bloomberg. Did he cross the line or
Speaker 2: did it at least change an unspoken policy.
Speaker 6: At this White House?
Speaker 11: Yeah? I mean, look, just like there's no rule against
Speaker 11: the Federal Reserve chair cutting interest rates the election year,
Speaker 11: there's a rule against the president talking about the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 8: I think this kind of.
Speaker 2: But they reinforced that independence when they came into office.
Speaker 8: They do.
Speaker 11: I mean, but it's really custom, it's not law. These
Speaker 11: are norms, you know, not hard and fast rules. And
Speaker 11: I actually think it's a disservice. And so ways, the
Speaker 11: American people should be hearing from the President about his
Speaker 11: plans to bring down inflation, and they should be hearing
Speaker 11: from the President whether or not he thinks interest rates
Speaker 11: are helping or hurting. And I think in this case, again,
Speaker 11: you know where we see housing driving a huge percentage
Speaker 11: of continued inflation, and the interest rate environment is not
Speaker 11: our front here.
Speaker 2: I suspect he's going to lean into this more as
Speaker 2: we get closer to the election. We'll see what happens
Speaker 2: to the economy. You wonder how much his political fortunes
Speaker 2: lie in a soft landing, if we can call I
Speaker 2: don't know if we're even beyond calling it that at
Speaker 2: this point. Some people think we're already in one.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 11: Look, I think obviously the economy is going to be
Speaker 11: a huge part of the story in November, and I
Speaker 11: don't think a high interest rate environment helps President Biden.
Speaker 11: I mean, punishingly high borrowing costs for families. They notice those,
Speaker 11: and they're frustrated by those, and they'd like to see
Speaker 11: those go down. So the President is surely aware of that. Obviously,
Speaker 11: continued high prices are a problem too. I think he's
Speaker 11: done a great, great job, and you know, he did
Speaker 11: this yesterday as well, at pointing out that there's a
Speaker 11: place where we could see inflation come down considerably, where
Speaker 11: we could get a lot of pricing back.
Speaker 8: And that's in the markup channel.
Speaker 11: You know, continued high actually, you know right before the
Speaker 11: you know, the easter break, we saw corporate profits come
Speaker 11: in at their all time record high, not a post
Speaker 11: pandemic record high, a true all time record high.
Speaker 8: And markups are up as well.
Speaker 11: And you know, the President has said repeatedly that he
Speaker 11: thinks markups are a place where we could see softening
Speaker 11: and prices, And you know, just yesterday he mentioned that
Speaker 11: he'd like to see those sort of record high grocery
Speaker 11: margins he passed back to consumers in terms of, you know,
Speaker 11: in the form of lower food prices.
Speaker 2: Well, why did you mention that, because actually one of
Speaker 2: the positive refrains from the CPI was food wasn't as
Speaker 2: bad as its How worried are you about grocery prices?
Speaker 2: There's a real political side to this because just like
Speaker 2: gas prices, people see it every day.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 11: Look, I mean here's the here's the rub for the consumer.
Speaker 11: Disinflation doesn't mean lower prices, right. The fact that prices
Speaker 11: stop accelerating doesn't mean that you go to a grocery
Speaker 11: store and you know the price of eggs doesn't take
Speaker 11: your breath away, right, So the sticker shock, I don't think,
Speaker 11: you know, really gets alleviated by today's numbers. But of course,
Speaker 11: you know it's a positive sign that we don't have
Speaker 11: continued to inflation in food.
Speaker 6: Uh huh.
Speaker 2: The other is energy, and we're looking at gas prices rising.
Speaker 2: Of course, there's a seasonal pattern here, and the last
Speaker 2: thing the president wants to hear about is four dollars
Speaker 2: a gallon.
Speaker 6: But that could happen. That is in some forecasts.
Speaker 8: Absolutely.
Speaker 11: I mean, we've got a seasonal pattern on gas prices
Speaker 11: and energy prices.
Speaker 8: We've also got geopolitical.
Speaker 11: Factors now and looming that are going to affect energy prices.
Speaker 11: And again I would just point out this is yet
Speaker 11: another area where the feed is not going to be
Speaker 11: much helped, and so we are really in a little
Speaker 11: bit of a predicament here where the primary tool we're
Speaker 11: using to bring down prices is probably not going to
Speaker 11: give us a lot of relief.
Speaker 2: Well, so when you sit down at the ground, we're
Speaker 2: collaborative and consisted, consider where we're going to be in
Speaker 2: six months.
Speaker 6: What's your vision here?
Speaker 2: Is it a no landing, is it a hot landing
Speaker 2: like I heard this morning on Bloomberg Surveil.
Speaker 6: What does it feel like in the fall?
Speaker 11: Yeah, Look, we're really optimistic about the continued likelihood of
Speaker 11: a soft landing.
Speaker 8: You know, we've been saying for years that it.
Speaker 11: Is possible to have both a strong labor market and
Speaker 11: low prices, that we didn't have to choose between those that,
Speaker 11: you know, the path forward for bringing down prices wasn't
Speaker 11: eviscerating the labor market making us all too poor to
Speaker 11: buy stuff, yeah, and bringing down prices that way. And
Speaker 11: I do think, you know, overall, you know, this couple
Speaker 11: of months hasn't been great on the inflation front, but overall,
Speaker 11: what we've seen now is twenty six full months of
Speaker 11: unemployment below four percent and inflation coming down off its
Speaker 11: peak for you know, a year and a half now,
Speaker 11: and so obviously, you know, we're not getting that straight
Speaker 11: line on inflation that we'd like to see. But I
Speaker 11: think overall the pattern is a strong labor market and
Speaker 11: continued disinflation. And that's the story of a soft landing,
Speaker 11: and that's the story of a strong economy that we're
Speaker 11: hoping to see.
Speaker 6: So you're actually projecting that that will happen. We're hoping
Speaker 6: for it that's not already happened.
Speaker 8: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's great to see you. Thanks for coming in
Speaker 2: to talk to us in studio. As always, Lindsay Owens groundwork,
Speaker 2: collaborative and a really interesting take on the economy that
Speaker 2: we wanted to bring to you. Lindsay spent time as
Speaker 2: an economic advisor to Senator Elizabeth Warren, to Congresswoman at
Speaker 2: Primela Jaia Paul, and part of the equation here in Washington.
Speaker 2: When we think about the interest rate cycle the impact
Speaker 2: that it's having politically on this administration, Lindsay is.
Speaker 6: A voice that we turn to. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 6: the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 2: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 2: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 2: at Bloomberg dot com.