Bloomberg audio studios podcasts radio

news

>> [music]

>> You're listening to the Bloomberg

balance of power podcast. Catch us live

weekdays at noon and 5:00 p.m. [music]

Eastern on Apple carplay and Android

auto with the Bloomberg business app.

Listen on demand wherever you get your

podcast or watch [music] us live on

YouTube.

>> Israel and Iran have stopped firing at

each other for now.

We'll see how long that holds it does

though [music]

seem that that is really the desire and

the outcome that President Trump has

pushed for as he's continually pushing

for a deal with Iran though the US is

still obviously maintaining its naval

blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. This

is all things that he discussed in a

meet the press interview recorded on

Friday aired yesterday. Listen to what

the president said.

>> We have the ultimate blockade.

I don't consider that a war. My red line

would be if I think I wasn't going to

make a deal or if I wasn't going to make

a deal fast enough.

So we're having very good negotiations

with the people that are leading the

country now. We'll either have something

done fairly quickly or we'll finish it

out militarily.

>> So for more we go to Bloomberg's Tyler

Kendall our Washington correspondent

live at the White House. So Tyler I I

guess it becomes a a question of fairly

quickly. The president was pressed on

the timeline and he continually pointed

back to wars of the past that lasted

years. So where are we now a few months

in?

>> Well Kelly at this point we got a lot of

fast moving developments and headlines

earlier this morning after what was

considered to be the largest flare-up in

fighting overnight since the ceasefire

was announced back in April. This White

House maintains that diplomacy is still

a viable option and that they are making

progress in the talks. We did hear from

Pakistan's foreign minister earlier

today urging all sides to come to the

table and negotiate. Pakistan of course

is a key mediator in this conflict. And

we did get some movement in the right

direction earlier today. As you

mentioned, President Trump out with a

flurry of posts on Truth Social urging

an end to the hostilities and that there

would be an imminent ceasefire between

Israel and Iran. Shortly after both

sides did confirm that they will stop

firing at each other at least for now

because the IRGC came out with a

statement saying that the ceasefire will

only hold if Israel stops its operation

against the Iranian backed militant

group Hezbollah in Lebanon. But then we

heard from Israeli media essentially

saying that Israel at this point doesn't

have plans to stop that specific front

in this war, which both Israel and the

US have said is a totally separate

operation. But Joe and Kelly, as you

both know, it does risk derailing the

US-Iran talks because Iran has now

maintained that a ceasefire needs to

extend to Lebanon. It is an interesting

development in all of this considering

that just last week the US did help to

broker a truce between Israel and

Lebanon, but ultimately those terms were

rejected by the Iranian backed militant

group Hezbollah.

>> All right, Tyler, thank you so much.

Live from the White House, Bloomberg's

Tyler Kendall. As we add the voice of

Heather Conley with the American

Enterprise Institute, former Deputy

Assistant Secretary of State for the

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

in the George W. Bush Administration.

Heather, it's great to have you back.

Thank you for joining us. I don't know

how long we can keep this back and forth

kind of whiplash.

>> and repeat.

>> It's been incredible to see it unfold

even within the pre-market hours this

morning to go from the depths

to now

stocks moving higher on hopes for peace.

The president's post on Truth Social

5:36 a.m. Israel and Iran must

immediately stop shooting in quotation

marks. He signed it President Donald J.

Trump. Is that why they stopped?

>> Well, no. I mean I I they

Iran needed to, I think, exert itself

here. As we As we've talked about the

negotiations now have been stuck for

weeks. And in some ways Iran needs to

help move that impasse. And Lebanon is

the perfect connectivity for them to do

it. So they don't want a sustained

conflict. They want to demonstrate that

they can continue to have ballistic

missiles hit the region, that their

demands need to be respected. And by

linking Lebanon with the conflict in

Iran, it places Israel in a terrible

predicament. And that predicament really

increases the tensions between the

United States and Israel, which is not

good for both countries. So they're

playing a very crafty game. And the

president, you know,

using social media say stop. These two

have vested interests in continuing.

That's the problem.

>> Well, and it's not [clears throat] just

on social media. The president also has

suggested in interviews, including one

over the weekend with the Financial

Times, that he's in charge here, not

Israel. And yet Israel still retaliated

against Iran. How willing do you think

Benjamin Netanyahu

is? How willing is he to go against the

wishes of President Trump?

>> So Prime Minister Netanyahu has a

terrible line to walk here.

He has to defend and protect Israel from

missiles that coming from Hezbollah,

from Iran, from the Houthis saw.

And as he does that, again, this is why

with when the Iranians linked Lebanon to

resolution of this conflict, they

weakened it.

And you know, I think he he will craft

this very careful line because he knows

he needs the United States. He needs

their support. But he must take action

to defend his country. Please also

remember there's a very important

election that's going to happen in

Israel in October. Public opinion has

you know, this is not going to be a good

election for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

And people want you know, want some

action here. Although the Israelis

understandably are very tired of this

conflict.

>> Well, enter the Houthis once again,

who you just invoked, essentially

announcing a ban of Israeli vessels in

the Red Sea. Is this the most likely

reason why hostilities resume? Would

this be a whole new shooting war between

Israel and the Houthis?

>> Well, it's going to be it's really the

card that hasn't been fully played. If

you think about Iran could have used

this lever with the Houthis very early

in the conflict. I think they held it

back. Houthis were certainly damaged in

the conflict in 2023-2024.

Um, but this is

>> though we left a lot behind that we did

not destroy.

>> and we weren't effective at eliminating

that conflict. So, this is really I

think for Iran, invoking the Houthis is

really a power play with the Gulf states

because if you've seen

the Emiratis, the Saudis have used

pipelines to try to get and divert the

energy to the Red Sea. If the Iranians

can bottle that up through the Houthis

and you still have this blockade, it

just puts more pressure on the region to

try to see to Iranian demands. So, these

are all interlinked. Let's see how much

I have to The Iranians have to be

careful as well. Egypt is part of this

negotiating team. This impacts Egypt

terribly economically. So, a lot of

careful balancing acts to come.

>> Well, and so when we consider the

Houthis or with Hezbollah in Lebanon as

well, how much control does Iran have in

the decision-making? Should we assume

that that link between they them and

proxies that they have funded, is that

ironclad where they can say, you know

what, leave the Red Sea for now, we'll

let you know when it goes, or could the

Houthis still decide to act kind of

independent of Tehran's wishes?

>> Kayla, it's a great question. I mean, I

we can't give, you know, too much credit

for the Iranians for full control over

this. And I think in fact the Houthis

were damaged somewhat and they also

don't want to have everything taken away

from them. So I think there is some

judicious use, but Iran does have

enormous sway

in support of Hezbollah and and Houthis.

And as we've seen over the last 48

hours, Iran's ballistic missile program

is still quite lethal. It can hit. So it

hasn't been degraded as much as we had

hoped after the initial conflict in

February.

>> Republican strategist Rick Davis

suggested in a conversation earlier

today that Iran is bracing for the long

haul. Do Americans need to start getting

that

into that mindset? I know the president

says we're on the verge of peace every

24 to 48 hours. This could be months.

This could be longer.

>> Yeah, Joe, but but the president does

such an excellent job of

verbalizing and the markets respond to

him. So I mean that is huge winning

for him. You're right. I mean the reason

that I think energy prices are remaining

in a reasonable China has pulled so I

mean they're not importing. They've

stopped. So there's so many different

mechanisms here.

Iran does have huge economic pressures

building on it. The attack on this

Indian tanker that just went through

Oman empty tanker. They need storage

before they shutter wells. They're under

pressure.

>> Uh-huh.

>> But they see that they now have leverage

over the United States in Lebanon to get

Israel to stop uh certainly in the

straight. And the Iranian elite, I hate

to say this, are enjoying using this

leverage

over the United States. So yes, they

think they have time and they want these

economic pressures to build in the

region and in the United States so that

we will seed to their demands. So I

think we'll be back at this conversation

quite a bit. We are very very stuck in

in this moment.

>> Well, and because we are stuck in this

moment and this moment is taking up so

much oxygen, a lot of us are paying less

attention to the conflict between Russia

and Ukraine, but Russia is feeling that

economically as well. Bloomberg reported

last week that the Russian Finance

Ministry told Vladimir Putin that this

is becoming unsustainable financially.

Could we see an end to that conflict,

some kind of negotiated outcome there

before we actually end up with a

negotiated outcome in the Middle East?

>> So, uh I I think these both are going to

be working on parallel tracks. The

senior Ukrainians believe that they can

continue to apply what what they call

long-term sanctions, which are their

drones that are just attacking um

Russian refinery capacity. There's

There's energy fuel shortages within

Russia because they're having They're

doing such an effective job that they

sense that there could be some movement.

Look, the Russian technocrats that have

been managing the Russian economy

brilliantly over the last 4 years to

manage all this, they've run out of

tricks. Uh and now the pressure is on

Vladimir Putin, but Putin, I don't think

will be dissuaded. He believes he can

still achieve these gains, and what he

said during the St. Petersburg

International Economic Forum, he's

saying that they're winning on the

battlefield, although the Ukrainians

have now claimed over 600 sq km. They're

They're gaining ground slowly. They're

hitting Russian supply lines. Uh it will

continue to be very dynamic, but I don't

see any give right now in Vladimir

Putin's view. He thinks he can still

keep marching forward uh at great cost,

unfortunately.

>> All right, Heather Conley, thanks for

being with us.

>> with you.

>> Non-resident senior fellow at the

American Enterprise Institute. Thank you

so much.

>> Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll

have much more coming up after this.

>> You're listening to the Bloomberg

Balance of Power podcast. [music]

Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5:00

p.m. Eastern.

>> On Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with

the Bloomberg Business app. [music]

>> You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa

from our flagship New York station. Just

say, "Alexa, play Bloomberg 1130."

>> [music]

>> A new working week here in Washington as

well after the Senate in the early hours

on Friday passed a $70 billion budget

reconciliation bill to fund ICE and CBP

for 3 years. We now look to the house

this week to get a sense as to whether

or not this will easily get across the

floor in the other chamber. And I'm

pleased to say joining us now is the

chair of the House Oversight Committee,

the Republican Congressman from

Kentucky, James Comer, here with us on

Bloomberg TV and radio. Mr. Chairman,

thank you for being with us. Welcome

back to Bloomberg. want to talk about

the investigation your committee just

released into fraud in Minnesota. But if

we could begin with reconciliation, what

is your understanding of when exactly

you will be voting on this package and

whether the votes will be there

attendance-wise and frankly

policy-dispute-wise?

>> I think policy-wise we're in good shape.

Attendance is always an issue when you

look

and and see that the Democrats usually

vote in block against anything that

President Trump wants. So,

it's imperative that the Republicans are

here because we usually use lose Massie

on these kinds of votes. But it's my

understanding that tomorrow

the leadership the whip office thinks

that enough members are going to be here

to where we can in fact pass what the

what the Senate passed last week on on

reconciliation. I don't think there are

very many

major policy

disagreements. So, we all can find fault

in in these in these bills. But you

know, when they're What I always say

about Congress, the biggest problem with

Congress is there are too many

congressmen. It's very difficult to get

218 votes in the house and then 60 votes

in the Senate. But I think we're I think

we will get 218 this week.

>> Now, the math is kind of sticky, Mr.

Chairman. Thanks again for joining us

today on Bloomberg. You mentioned Tom

Massie. There's also Brian Fitzpatrick

who's voicing concern still about this

anti-weaponization fund that the

president says he prefers. He said he'd

be disappointed if it did not see its

own creation. How many members does he

speak for or is the the congressman from

Pennsylvania on an island inside your

conference?

>> No, there's a lot of heartburn over that

weaponization fund. I don't think that

there are many Republicans that dispute

that the government has been weaponized.

I don't think there are many of us that

dispute that there are people who are

victims of weaponization that probably

deserve some type of compensation, but

there were just so many question marks

about how it was created,

where the funding came from,

who was going to determine

who received compensation and who

didn't. It was just not something that I

think was was rolled out very well. So,

I'm pretty confident that's not going to

be a part of any legislation moving

forward anytime soon.

>> Do you support the idea, congressman?

Or it depends on how it's made up?

>> Well, I would have have a lot of

questions. So, right now I'll I'll hold

off any support or anything like that. I

have a lot of questions, but you can

look at my interviews over the past 3

years. I don't think there's anyone that

has been more critical

of a weaponized government than I have.

There are instance after instance where

I've given interviews on national TV

complaining about the Department of

Justice or some other government agency,

usually in the Intelligence Community,

that has weaponized or abused their

office. So, I do believe that that's a

problem. It's just a matter of how you

create a fund. I think that needs to be

debated in Congress. I think it needs to

be transparent, and I think we need to

be crystal clear on who will be the

decision-makers on who receives any type

of compensation in the future.

>> Got it.

>> Well, and to your point on on your

concern about intelligence being

weaponized, Mr. Chairman, that's why you

have expressed

some criticism of FISA, specifically

section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act, warning that it can be

abused, that there potentially is

risk to civil liberties. That of course

is a live question this week as those

authorities are set to expire on Friday.

We are seeing in the Senate that being

held up by the president's tapping of

Bill Pulte as the acting director of

national intelligence. Knowing, Mr.

Chairman, he is someone that used

non-public mortgage data to go after

perceived enemies of the president. Are

you concerned that those abuses could

happen as he's helming DNI?

>> I think there there's always going to be

a concern that abuses can happen

throughout history regardless of which

party is in power. There have always

been instances where

no-name bureaucrats, we often call them

deep state bureaucrats,

abuse their power. So, yes, I'm always

concerned about that. I don't know

this particular nominee. That's

something the Senate decides, not the

House, so I don't really have a say in

that. So, you know, my I haven't put a

lot of thought into that. But at the end

of the day, I don't think that's a good

reason not to vote to extend FISA. I I

would prefer warrants. I believe that

that's something that that's very

important, warrants for Americans.

I know that's something that we fought

for in the House, but at the end of the

day, I do have confidence in Cash Patel

and John Ratcliffe and a lot of the guys

that are leading our intelligence

agencies right now to do the right

thing. And we've got a lot of bad actors

in the world, you know, whether you're

talking about people China, we're

talking about people from Iran.

There are hot spots all over Russia.

There are a lot of people that are, as

we speak, trying to do things to disrupt

our government, to disrupt our economy,

to create havoc. And I think the

intelligence

community should have all the tools at

their disposal to be able to identify

and protect Americans.

>> Sounds like you don't believe that it

will expire, Mr. Chairman. Correct me if

I'm wrong. I'm wondering what would

happen if it did.

>> Well, I I think we've already heard from

Marco Rubio, who I think is doing a

tremendous job as Secretary of State,

that this would uh create a lot of

problems

uh for our intelligence agencies that

are that are, you know, as we speak,

trying to monitor some of these bad

actors. So, I I hope that it doesn't,

but I know there's a lot of concern in

both parties about warrants for

Americans, as there should be. That's a

constitutional right. So, hopefully uh

we'll get these resolved, and hopefully

we can uh give our

uh intelligence agencies the tools they

need to protect America.

>> Mr. Chairman, Kayleigh mentioned the

work you're doing on the committee

around fraud in Minnesota, and we do

want to talk about this because you

dropped a a more than 200-page

uh investigation [clears throat] here in

which you alleged the Governor Tim Walz

and the Attorney General Keith Ellison

uh allowed fraud to occur. We saw you

pull them both before the committee back

in March, I believe it was uh early

March. What's

What's the end game here? Will this

investigation lead to a piece of

legislation?

>> Yeah, we're going to vote on a lot of

bills this week that are going to put

more guardrails on federal funds going

to states. I think that's one reason

you're going to see

uh

through J.D. Vance's task force on

fraud, through our work on the House

Oversight Committee, uh you're going to

see just

many, many people hopefully uh get

indicted and prosecuted for welfare

fraud in in lots of different areas,

Medicaid especially. Uh one reason is

because this is federal money that's

sent to the states.

And I think if the states

had if it was 100% state money, I think

they would stay on top of the fraud a

little bit better. But because it's

federal money,

uh they don't want to do anything to

disrupt the money. If you say, "Oh,

we've got all this fraud here." That

might trigger what we're seeing now in

Minnesota where President Trump put the

brakes on certain different uh

types of of Medicaid funding into

Minnesota until they get the fraud under

control. So, what our investigation did,

we had whistleblowers come in who were

predominantly Democrat career state

employees in Minnesota that have been

saying this fraud's been taking place

for years and they they had under oath

told us that they had warned Tim Walz

and Attorney General Keith Ellison and

they didn't want to do anything about

it. And I think that's criminal. I think

that's something that every hardworking

taxpayer in America is sick and tired of

sending money to Washington and their

harder and paycheck and then seeing it

lost to fraud and fraudsters. There's

always going to be fraud, but to know

about it, to have these state employees

blow the whistle and say there's fraud

happening here with this particular

program, whether it's the daycare,

whether it's the hospice program in in

California,

whether it's the Medicare the Medicaid

fraud in Minnesota.

>> Okay.

>> And for the leaders to not do anything,

that's what our investigation was

focused on and we had enough testimony

and enough evidence, emails,

depositions to determine that the

governor and attorney general knew about

it yet did nothing about it.

>> Well, and can you actually quantify it?

In the report, you write about an

estimated $300 million in federal child

nutrition funds and potentially $9

million in Medicaid related funds

pulling that estimate from the

Department of Justice. Were you able to

independently confirm

those figures or are these just

estimates?

>> The $300 million is confirmed and you

know, there were reports when the fraud

was being uncovered, media reports that

ranged anywhere from a billion to 18

billion, but

we are confident it's over a billion

dollars, which is you know, that's real

money in Kentucky. Uh I don't know that

it reached 18 billion because I don't

think that

would have been 100% of every dollar

that went to Medicaid and and a lot of

the money did reach the people that it

was intended to reach, but a lot of it

didn't. And that's where where we come

in. We want to make sure that every

penny uh that it is entitled to someone

who's truly disabled, who's someone

who's truly Medicaid eligible gets their

benefits. And and what we're seeing is

because Medicaid dollars are are being

wasted by such a large amount in all 50

states that a lot of programs that are

funded by Medicaid are being cut now.

And we believe that uh we could sustain

the current levels of Medicaid spending

in America if we eliminated fraud. And

we're trying The only way to eliminate

fraud

is to hold people accountable

for defrauding the government. And

that's what we're trying to do. And

we're seeing that in Minnesota. There

have been over three dozen people

arrested in Minnesota, and I think

that's just the tip of the iceberg.

>> Mr. Chairman, thanks for coming to talk

to us today. James Comer is chair of the

House Oversight Committee, congressman

from Kentucky. We thank you for the

time. As we assemble our political panel

now to weigh in on everything that we

just heard. We covered a range of

topics. Bloomberg Politics contributors

Jeannie Shaanzenao and Rick Davis are

with us now. Jeannie is our Democratic

analyst and Democracy Visiting Fellow at

Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center.

Rick is our Republican strategist and

partner at Stone Court Capital. I want

to go back to what we heard from the

chairman, Jeannie, about the

anti-weaponization fund. Fascinating. As

he made very clear that this was toxic.

Uh so he didn't use that word, but this

was a non-starter for a lot of members

not named Brian Fitzpatrick. What did

you make of that?

>> Yeah, I I if I heard him correctly, I

think he said there's a lot of

heartburn. And then when you asked him

if he would vote yeah, if he would vote

against it, he wouldn't rule it out. And

I think that is what is so astonishing

because on the one hand he said he had

there's lots of examples of

weaponization,

um, but they do not feel comfortable

with the way this was rolled out. So, I

thought that was fascinating that while

there's consternation or heartburn as he

said, they haven't ruled it out. And of

course, what we're talking about is a

president who basically sued himself one

and the taxpayers are paying for it on

top of a shield by the IRS. So, stunning

that it would, um, not raise even more

heartburn and be immediately codified as

a non-starter.

>> Huh.

>> Well, of course, the president

suggested, uh, in his Meet the Press

interview this weekend, uh, Rick, that

he still supports the idea, uh, of the

fund. Talked about people's lives who

have been ruined, that he knows that

Congress would have to act. He'd be

disappointed if they didn't do so. But

if the chair, uh, of the Oversight

Committee, James Comer, is suggesting

uh, unease around this, is that

basically telling you that this would

never actually get through Congress if

the president were to pursue that?

>> Yeah, I think that the

evidence was the the the way the

administration kind of bent over

backwards to try and turn off the heat

by saying they weren't prepared to do it

at this time. They didn't give it up,

but it it's only going to get harder and

harder, right? I mean, the

you have a two-vote margin in the in the

House and you've just heard a committee

chair, you know, talk about the fact

that he probably, uh, might vote against

it. Uh, you've probably got 25 other

guys who have a lot more reason to vote

against it than he does. And I think

they'd be lining up to do so. So, the

House is just a non-starter if the

administration tried to to implement

this cuz they would actively go out and

and have legislation to deny it. And and

and and then the Senate's presented with

a different issue, not let's include an

opposition to it in a clean bill, but

let's actually deal with this house bill

that now says we're going to ban it and

I think you'd see a lot of people coming

out of the woodwork in the Senate to

vote for that bill, do something

offensive rather than defensive. So So

but this Congress is all but done

and who knows what the makeup of it's

going to look like after the midterm

elections.

>> Do they have the votes for

reconciliation today, Rick, with this

anti-weaponization fund in mind and by

extension FISA? It's kind of the same

conversation. Is Bill Pulte going to

create enough heartburn to keep FISA

from being renewed?

>> Well, I was really impressed that the

chairman didn't seem to think there was

a problem getting FISA done except it

expires on Friday something and there's

no vote plan.

>> [laughter]

>> So

that's pretty cavalier for an important

piece of legislation like that that

actually has been kicked and kicked and

kicked down the road. My guess is they

may kick it down the road again in some

kind of a short-term fix. Don't have to

deal with any of the opposition. There's

a lot of it in the house conservative

caucus. You know, they want warrants for

this kind of thing. They They want to

attach other things to it. So my guess

is the most we can hope for right now is

just some kind of an extension that can

whip through the house and Senate.

On reconciliation, it's clean now, but

as you point out, I mean two votes and

you've already got people grumbling.

There are 16 house members who are

retiring from the House of

Representative and not seeking future

office. Every one of those could be a

vote against reconciliation.

>> Wow.

>> It's a lot of Yolo members. We talk

[laughter] about them in the Senate, but

as Rick points out, there's a lot in the

house. And just on this FISA issue,

Genie, even if we were to see a

short-term extension, it becomes a

question of what will unlock the

long-term nod from Democrats so long as

Bill Pulte is still in there as acting

director of national intelligence. Is it

going to take the administration

nominating someone

for the full-time position before any

Democrat is going to cast a vote to

extend FISA powers.

>> Yeah, I don't know about any Democrat. I

think we could see like a Fetterman

>> Okay, maybe not John Fetterman.

>> [laughter]

>> Exactly. But I do think for the most

part that that is absolutely the case at

this point that

Democrats feel and I think some

Republicans feel like the president is

keen on dismantling FISA. Why else would

he have nominated Bill Pulte and then

talked openly about the fact that we're

going to get rid of some of the deadwood

and so on and so forth. So for people

who are serious about protecting the

nation's intelligence community and who

feel that a time of war and when FIFA

coming in and all of these threats that

we need this

this FISA to be renewed and you know,

why he threw the monkey wrench of of

Bill Pulte in just says to people he's

not serious about this renewal and so I

do think they're going to wait and see

does he pull Pulte down or does he in

fact nominate somebody else who at least

has some experience in intelligence.

>> The president talked a lot about the

anti-weaponization fund in his interview

with Meet the Press

which then devolved into a back and

forth once again about election

integrity. The president restating

on a program that aired in June of 2026

that the 2020 election was rigged. He

went even further to say that the

primary in California just last week was

also rigged.

Then the back and forth with the host

Kristen Welker began until the president

literally pulled off the mic and walked

out. This is what happened on Meet the

Press.

>> Your elections are crooked and you're

crooked and Meet the Press is crooked

and so is ABC and CBS and CNN. Your

one-sided crooked networks. Let's call

it quits cuz I've had enough.

>> Thank you, darling. Have a good time.

>> let's please I traveled all the way to

Wisconsin.

>> I sat in the rain for an hour and a half

in the rain and I've given you enough

time. You ought to straighten out your

all in all in the rain and I've given

you enough time. You ought to straighten

out your press because you know what? A

country can never be great with a

dishonest press.

>> traveled all the way to Wisconsin for

this interview.

>> When the president said that last week's

California primary was rigged along with

2020, Welker said there was no evidence.

He said, "All I have to do is look." Uh

Rick, if we're still having this debate

this many years later and the president

is expressing anger on the level that he

did on a Sunday morning program, what

does that tell you about the way he's

looking at the midterm election cycle

and the primary campaign we're still in?

>> Yeah, first of all, I got to say the

idea that somehow you travel all the way

to Wisconsin is somehow a compelling

reason to continue the interview.

[laughter] It's like baffling to me.

Wouldn't she walk there? I mean, what is

that all about?

Um

so yeah, but look, I mean, we know the

president has had a lot of anxiety about

these elections and and and and he may

or may not have any ability to

articulate what he really thinks. There

are a lot of conservative Republicans

who don't like the way California

administers its elections. Same-day

registration, you know, there's

harvesting of ballots, there's all these

kinds of things. They can't count very

quickly.

Uh and you would think a country with

the or a state with the resources that

California has would actually be able to

implement its election process better

than this. That being said, it is an old

harp that he likes to play

and frankly, I think most of the voting

public have just already come to the

conclusion that he's wrong on this and

and they tune him out when he starts to

say these things.

>> Mhm.

>> Well, when it comes to California

specifically when uh Kristen Welker

pointed out to the president that

Republicans were doing well, the

president said effectively paraphrasing

him not as more of votes come in and

that is indeed the case in the LA

mayor's race. Genie Spencer Pratt looked

like he was going to advance to the

runoff. That is not to be. Now it's

going to be another Democrat going

against the incumbent Karen Bass. But

the fact that he came close, what does

that tell us about the politics of the

moment and specifically the populism of

the moment?

>> Yeah, no reprisal of the hills Kaylee

where it's over for Spencer Pratt.

You know, and by the way, I would say

Kristen Welker did sit in the rain. That

was very loud rain. So I give her props

on that with the president.

>> They had a roof.

>> They had a metal roof. Go figure.

You know, [laughter]

but but I do think it says that people

are very unhappy and the leadership out

there has been very frustrating. Now in

a state like California in a place like

LA, you'd have to do a lot more work

than Spencer Pratt was able to do in a

short period of time. But I think it is

just indicative of how unhappy people

are. And I would just say let's not

forget Donald Trump's very open about

his attacks on the press. He says his

strategy is to attack the press because

then when they say things people don't

believe them. And that is of course a

concern for anybody who cares about

democracy because the facts are clear

that there was no stealing of the 2020

election. So we should be very very

clear about that as much as he wants to

pull off his mic and run away from the

pounding rain.

>> All right, Jeanne Zaino and Rick Davis

are Bloomberg Politics contributors.

Thank you so much.

>> Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll

have much more coming up after this.

>> You're listening to the Bloomberg

Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live

weekdays at noon and 5:00 p.m. Eastern

[music] on Apple CarPlay and Android

Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.

Listen on demand wherever you get your

podcasts or watch [music] us live on

YouTube.

>> As we wait to hear from the House of

Representatives on what happens next to

the reconciliation bill, the Rules

Committee set to be behind closed doors

at this hour

to pick up the legislation passed by the

Senate and potentially get it to the

floor most likely by tomorrow where it

is expected to pass. This is funding for

ICE, Customs and Border Protection and

it's been held up a bit by a debate over

the president's anti-weaponization fund

that he told Meet the Press just

yesterday it was something that he would

be disappointed if it did not see the

light of day. Knowing there was a grand

debate in the Senate Kelly about all of

this and they didn't have the votes. It

came down to one vote in an amendment

which would have banned such a fund

using taxpayer money to make up I guess

pay damages for people who have been

purportedly weaponized by the

government. Didn't pass the Senate.

It is still a live issue however in the

House and a lot of Republicans don't

want this.

>> Yeah and you have some Republicans like

the Republican Congressman from

Pennsylvania Brian Fitzpatrick willing

to actually pursue

a codification

>> Right. of the idea that a weaponization

fund cannot be

put into law. The question of course is

going to become whether the kind of mass

support for it is there but the chair of

the House Oversight Committee James

Comer did suggest to us that there are a

lot of Republicans who have what did he

call it? Heartburn?

>> Heartburn on this one. Yeah.

>> About this? So

>> I wonder what Denver thinks about this.

We have a lot to discuss with Denver

Riggleman the former Republican

Congressman from Virginia who did

intelligence on the January 6th

Committee and Denver it's great to see

you. Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and

radio.

Of course I know that you've been

traveling literally the world raising

money for your company Rig Technology

which I'd love to hear more about, but

as far as this story is concerned,

uh as somebody who knows more about

January 6th than most, the idea, maybe

you can speak to the mentality that

somebody like Brian Fitzpatrick has in

publicly crossing the president, knowing

what happened that day, the idea of

paying people with taxpayer dollars who

attacked law enforcement, and in many

cases served jail time for it, does it

give you heartburn?

>> Oh, it's much more than heartburn. It's

great to be back. I missed you guys. Um

I think Brian is actually sane. I think

that's the issue that you have, you

know, with other Republicans that are

maybe for this weaponization fund, but

there's a few things I want to point

out. And obviously, you both can ask me

any questions. I will answer them.

First of all, the number 1.776 billion,

1776 being sort of the rallying cry for

QAnon during the stolen election

conspiracy theory. So, when you're

looking at the weaponization fund, I

think people have heartburn for two

reasons. I think

those two reasons are that most of that

money will go to Trump donors or

recidivist criminals. And that's really

what it comes down to is that this fund

is about codifying conspiracy theories.

So, when you look at I started this

warning. I feel like Cassandra. You

know, you're talking about August of

2020,

Tom Malinowski and I first submitted the

QAnon resolution about that violence

could happen based on these type of

conspiratorial, you know, this

conspiratorial thinking theories.

And this downstream effect now is you

have Donald Trump in the Welker

interview. Listening to that when you

replayed it, you know, it's sort of

stunning. It's much more than heartburn.

It's disgust.

Um and it's also this this impending

fear that the same things we warned

about in 2020 with violence in the

elections in 2026 and 2028 could come to

fruition

based on this radicalization path that

we're seeing. And I think we have to be

very specific and blunt about what we're

saying. It was it it was almost

disgusting to me to see people laugh it

off or to try to diminish or whitewash

what he's saying.

What he's saying is that the election

was stolen and it's going to be stolen

again if he loses. And people that

believe this become radicalized that

somehow they have to protect our

Constitution by listening to a madman

spout lies again. It's just It's just a

rehash and I think that's what scares

people and lastly,

I think that it's been

institutionalized. You have

institutional capture where there is no

checks or balances on Trump's craziest

thinking. And when you see people like

Bill Pulte,

um Tulsi Gabbard before him, you see the

weapon the real weaponization is what

scares me.

>> Well, on your point on Bill Pulte and I

ask you this as a former intelligence

officer, what's the greater risk that

you have an acting DNI who might be able

uh to use uh intelligence against

uh certain individuals who are perceived

by the president to be enemies of him

his or that because Pulte was tapped as

acting DNI, FISA section 702 doesn't get

extended and goes dark after Friday?

>> Uh gosh, those are fantastic questions.

As you know, I actually built FISA

packages. I you know,

>> [laughter]

>> I'm I'm happy to talk about this, but I

think there's a couple things here. When

you have somebody like Bill Pulte,

>> [gasps]

>> you already had again, I said I felt

like Cassandra. You already had a Trojan

horse uh in Tulsi Gabbard. Pul- Bill

Pulte continues that. You have somebody

that

um has only ever told anybody what

people want to hear. Intelligence

uh being ODNI is about truth, facts, and

data.

When you have somebody like Bill Pulte

who was a Twitter influencer and really

a nepo baby, uh you have somebody like

that that's in charge of 38 years old

with no experience and you have this act

of appointment for 210 days. What it is

it's an end run.

It's an end run around around the

Senate. The Senate has to identify and

choose somebody with significant

national security expertise.

It's almost as if

um our institutional credibility is a

form of sovereign capital. And once you

start giving away that capital and the

trust in those institutions, we have a

complete breakdown of not only our

financial system, but any any system of

trust with our allies. And I think

that's what scares me, right? Bill Pulte

is so woefully under-qualified. I mean,

that would be like I mean, honestly,

it'd be like asking me to dunk a

basketball, right? It's never going to

happen. So, that's that's the issue that

we have right now is that we have people

that are unqualified, sycophants, yes

men and yes women uh that are looking at

foreign interference in elections that's

going to be made up, and it just

continues with that $1.76 billion fund

is that Bill Pulte can now make up

foreign interference in elections that

could affect some of the executive

orders or things that Trump does in the

2026 and 2028 election.

>> Really remarkable. Uh institutional

credibility is a form of sovereign

capital. I'm going to have to think

about that.

Uh Congressman, were you surprised by

James Comer's response to the

anti-weaponization fund? He seemed less

concerned about FISA, but is clearly

turned off here. The president has found

the line.

It seems for many in his conference. It

was January 6th that did it, huh?

>> Well, they have to, right? If you're

Listen, it's so cynical.

Right? And it's almost like a form of

weaponized ignorance. When you talk

about institutional credibility, you

can't have it when facts and data point

to something specifically as truth, and

you have congressional representatives

uh they're so worried about re-election

or polling in their specific districts

that they're willing to give up the

truth and facts to the American people

for their own hide. So, they get in they

get invited to Mar-a-Lago, they get

invited to parties. It's so uh

you [clears throat] know, and and when

you look at Brian Fitzpatrick, right?

And you look at the bravery of these I'm

going to say this is ludicrous. It's

beyond ludicrous. It's the self-dealing

we've seen throughout the Trump

administration. And again, I think we

have to get to a point where adults are

back in the room. But again, our

institutional credibility is shot when

people like James Comer do what they do.

>> And finally, [clears throat] uh

Congressman, we just have a a minute

left here, but you obviously are now,

uh, running in Rig Technologies, an

artificial intelligence company. And I

wonder if you feel like this

administration is doing enough, uh, to

create guardrails around it cuz you're

focused on cyber specifically. How great

is that threat? Are we doing enough

about it?

>> Yeah, when you're looking at, uh, you

know, I think people need to look at

NSPM-11. I think that was just released

on June 5th. It was a great question, by

the way, and I've read NSPM-11. I think

what's interesting is there's some good

things there about, um, AI specifically

with China. Now, I would argue we don't

know that there's no guardrails for

China, but I can

I can actually argue that point that

that might be a good point. I think the

issue that I have, and it's a great

question, is that they're talking about

ideological bias, uh, in that and that

people can be fired for that. And I

think again, we we really have, uh, a

community or an administration that has

no guardrails themselves. I think that's

what scares me.

>> All right, we'll leave it there. Looking

forward to having you back soon. Denver

Riggleman, a former Congressman and now

CEO of Rig Technologies. Thank you for

being with us on Balance of Power. I'm

Kailey Lyons alongside Joe Mathieu here

on Bloomberg TV and [music] radio.

>> Thanks for listening to the Balance of

Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe

[music] if you haven't already at Apple,

Spotify, or wherever you get your

podcasts. And you can find us live every

weekday from Washington, D.C. [music] at

noon time Eastern at bloomberg.com.