Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts,

radio, news.

You're listening to the Bloomberg

Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live

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

on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with

the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on

demand wherever you get your podcasts or

watch us live on YouTube.

There's quite the intersection between

what's happening on Wall Street or how

Wall Street is reading what's happening

uh in Washington as President Trump is

trying uh to continue his tariff regime

just using different authorities that

involve a lot of numbers after the

Supreme Court of course dealt him a

major blow on Friday ruling the tariffs

he had placed under the Emergency

Economic Powers Actipa uh

unconstitutional or illegal. So now

we're on to section 122 potentially

section 232 section 301. Those later two

though, Joe, of course, require

investigation, whereas the section 122

tariffs are set to go into effect.

>> As if the alphabet soup in Washington

were not enough. I'm I'm getting a

popsicle headache. If you are, you're

not alone. Uh it is 122 for now, but

he's got 150 days there if you want to

add more numbers, which is why many are

thinking that 301 is going to be uh the

longer term solution here. But that

involves an investigation. It's going to

take some time, Kaylee. And the markets

don't love waiting in conditions like

these. So, let's start our coverage

before we talk to Michael McKe with Jeff

Mason, Bloomberg White House

correspondent. He's on the north lawn

right now, which reminds me to tell you

uh that Mayor Mandani of New York will

be holding a news briefing about 15

minutes from now on the storm cleanup.

We didn't get nearly as much as New York

here in the nation's capital, which is

allows us to talk to Jeff outdoors

today. Um, it's great to see you, Jeff.

I don't know if if we should assume that

this is going to be the case for the

next 150 days or how long this 301

investigation is going to take, but

what's the White House preparing for?

Well, I think they're I think you're

right to say that they're basically

wanting to have something in place to

make up for what they lost on Friday,

which was the the broader executive

authority that President Trump has uh

taken for himself on trade and and on

tariffs since the beginning of his

administration that the Supreme Court uh

struck down. So, they haven't said

specifically what the what the plan is

other than what he told everyone in the

White House uh press corps at the press

conference on on Friday, which is that

they basically have the plan B, and

those are all of these other authorities

that you were just referencing. I don't

think he's going to walk away from that

uh in less than 150 days. What I think

they're going to do is try to have

something in place that's more permanent

by the time that that deadline passes.

issued under

>> Well, I guess it becomes a question of

can they do so? Jeeoff, we've seen

section 232 uh investigations open

before and concluded and tariffs gone

into place as a result. How how much can

this process be escalated fasttracked if

they're trying to make sure that the

revenue gap uh does not does not

actually grow?

>> Yeah, it's a great question. I I don't

really know the answer, but what I do

know that that there's political will to

do it as fast as they possibly can. But

of course, having been uh having lost

this case at the Supreme Court on

Friday, they have to do it legally. They

have to follow the statutes and the laws

and the regulations that require the

investigations that you were just

referencing. So, you know, I'm I'm the

wrong guy to say how long each of those

investigations are required to take, but

for sure this is a president who will be

putting a lot of pressure on his trade

team to do them as fast as legally

possible uh so that he can maintain that

revenue stream that you mentioned.

>> All right, Jeff Mason, never the wrong

guy. We appreciate your reporting from

the White House North Lawn, of course, a

correspondent for us here at Bloomberg.

Thank you so much. And as we consider uh

the political uh calculations the

president and the administration are

making around tariffs, clearly their

decisions will have economic

consequences as well. And I'm imagining

that's featuring uh pretty heavily in

the discussion at the location where we

find Bloomberg's Michael McKe. He is

joining us live from here in Washington.

But at the National Association of

Business Economics conference, NAB, uh,

which, uh, Mike, I am sure, uh, the the

market driving, uh, forces we're looking

at today. Both this tariff conversation

as well as artificial intelligence are

also a lot of what you're hearing about.

>> There's a lot of talk about both here,

uh, Kaylee, but, uh, it's it's really,

uh, the e labor market that has caught

most people's attention for the moment

because the folks here that they're

paying attention to are central bankers.

Governor Chris Waller of the Federal

Reserve this morning saying that he's

not sure the strong January payroll

numbers are a trend and he wants to see

the February payroll numbers before

deciding whether he would advocate for

another cut at the March meeting. His

view on the tariffs is they don't change

much under this 15% section 122 uh

method that the president is using now.

And there's no real certainty about what

the president's going to be able to do

with the various other sections he might

imply. But to Waller, it it doesn't

matter because even if they provide some

more inflation, he still says it's going

to be a oneoff kind of thing. Prices go

up once and then stop rising. So he's

going to look through it. He's not

particularly worried about it yet. We're

also hearing right now from Christine

Lagarde who said that basically Europe

is kind of behind the US on AI but has

enormous potential out there and uh

Europe is trying its best to get its act

together and to move forward and keep up

with the US. So uh AI and trade and

tariffs and the labor market the big

concerns here right now.

Well, that seems to be plenty to go

around here, Michael McKe. And if the

the real worry is not about tariffs, at

least when it comes to Mr. Waller, I'm

I'm wondering, you know, how we

rationalize this reaction in the

marketplace and news today, for

instance, from the European Union that

they're going to put the trade deal that

they struck with the United States on

ice until they learn more. Doesn't that

further cloud the picture?

>> Oh, absolutely. It clouds the picture.

It makes it more uncertain. Waller and

uh uh Christine Lagard both acknowledged

that. But the problem is there's no

sense on when there will be clarity

because we don't know how long these

investigations will take. We don't know

what the administration is going to come

up with at the end of that. So it just

leaves everybody sort of up in the air

and just continuing on the way they have

been now. And it probably means we don't

see huge price increases right yet, but

we could down the road. So that's

something to keep track of. And then of

course is the question of what will AI

do to the labor market down the road.

There have been some sessions on that as

well. And again, nobody knows. This is a

very uncertain time for economists as

well as politicians.

>> Uncharted is a word we like to use when

we talk to Michael McKe. It's great to

have you back, sir. We thank you and

good to have you in town at the NA

conference. Bloomberg international

economics and policy correspondent. As

we add the voice now of Lori Wallak, the

director of the Rethink Trade Program at

American Economic Liberties Project with

our eyes on tariffs and what might come

next. Lori, it's good to have you with

us here on Bloomberg TV and Radio 122

301. Do you even care when we're talking

about tariffs at 10 or 15%.

The president is looking to reestablish

that same rate of tariffs that he had

under AIPA and there is a smorgus board

of different congressional delegations

of tariff authority that I suspect

they're going to sequence into place to

try and achieve that outcome.

Mhm.

>> Well, so when we consider uh what

outcome President Trump would like to

get spec specifically what he would like

to elicit from our our trading partners

in the form of deals, the president took

to True Social earlier this morning to

say any country that wants to quote play

games with the ridiculous Supreme Court

decision, especially those that have

ripped off the USA for years and even

decades, will be met with a much higher

tariff and worse than which they just

recently agreed to. I think he probably

is alluding to the EU here, uh Lori. But

when we consider how high those tariffs

can go, is there a limit under these

other authorities? Because of course

with AIPA, he just kind of slapped

whatever rate he felt uh appropriate.

Can he do so using other legal grounds?

There are other legal grounds that

actually allow quite high tariffs. So

the unexplored

like instrument is a law called section

338 of the trade act of 1930. It hasn't

been used since World War II. No one

knows how it would go if it were

challenged in court, which certainly it

would be, but that would take many

months. That allows up to 50%

for an unlimited amount of time on a

presidential basically selfinding of a

fact of discrimination against the

interests of the United States. So, that

one's very loose. The other the other

provision section 232 which is an you

have to have a a report finding a

national security basis for raising

tariffs and section 301 which requires

an investigation. You need to find

basically unfair practices against the

United States of a particular country.

Those mechanisms have more pro

procedures on the front end but they

don't have limits on the back end as

with respect to how high the tariffs can

go. And all of those have an unlimited

time. So section 122 is maximum 15% for

a balance of payments problem for only 5

months. The other ones, the three of

them, 301 and 232 have gone through the

courts and have been declared fine. 338

more of a mystery, but lots of other

delegated authorities for a president to

use tariffs.

And for those other three approaches,

how long would these investigations

last? Might they outlast the midterms?

>> Section 338, again, not used for since

before I was born, are uh is a process

that can be very speedy. Um I guess the

outlying question as far as how long it

could stay in place is if it got

challenged in court, how long it would

take before you'd have a ruling that

would take it down if it were ruled

against. As far as sections 232 and

sections 301,

um it's probably unhelpful to say, but

it kind of depends. It depends how many

countries, how many issues, and also the

quality of the investigation. There have

not been cases challenging the qualities

of the investigations. A very good

section 301 investigation can be done in

four or 5 months. Um, typically they

take longer. It just depends how many

people they're going to put on it. I

think that, you know, as far as the

midterms, the big X factor is as far as

section 122,

the 150 days runs out on July 24th and

then it goes to Congress to try and

extend it. And that could really make an

interesting political problem because um

members of Congress would have to go on

the record right then about whether they

want to extend that authority or not.

Well, and we've already heard from the

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer,

who has suggested Democrats will not

vote for an extension that probably

makes it a deadon rival proposition in

the Senate. Uh, when we consider the 60

vote threshold on section 122, you

mentioned how that will run out in July.

Is there a time between now and July for

that to be challenged in the court of

law, when we consider the authority he's

using or or the justification for using

that authority? Are we in a balance of

payments crisis right now? Could that

not end up in court? So, I recommend

folks should look at the actual

proclamation they issued. They actually

have thought it through and they make a

case that is not wrong. It is a case

that maybe could get challenged. Almost

certainly, to answer the direct

question, almost certainly a lawsuit's

going to get filed. But in the 5 months,

it seems extremely unlikely that will

work its way through the courts to a

point where there would be a final

order. So, yes, a challenge, but no, not

probably a decision. As far as the

merits of the case, it's not the pe the

people who are saying, "This is

ridiculous." They're basically looking

back at the time period when that

statute was written and we were just

coming off of a goldbased currency. And

those conditions obviously were not

literally in a balance of payments

crisis in the sense of checks are going

to bounce. But in the sense of what a

balance of payments crisis is with

respect to our overall current account

balance and other factors, you can make

the case which they do in this

proclamation and economists watching

everyone look and come back to us trade

lawyers and say what you think. But

yeah, I think that it will get

challenged. I also think though that

they've got other potential laws to put

in place that they could do in that

period of time. The much bigger X factor

honestly is the refunds.

>> Well, I'm glad you just brought that up

cuz as we wait to hear from the mayor of

New York, he's going to be holding a

news conference any moment now uh on uh

the storm cleanup. Lori, uh there are

huge questions about refunds. No one's

got any answers and we know a lot of

lawsuits have already been filed and

were filed in advance of the Supreme

Court ruling. We heard earlier today

from the chairman of the Ways and Means

Committee in the House. Uh was speaking

with us here on uh Bloomberg TV and

radio with his thoughts on the prospect

of paying back all this money. Listen,

in regards to the tariffs, I think it's

very certain there's probably not going

to be any refunds. I don't see a pathway

in Congress that there's going to be

refunds. And so you're going to look at

over the course of President Trump's

administration, he's going to continue

to use those tariff revenues to bring

down the deficit.

>> What do you think about Congressman

Jason Smith there, Lori? And if you're a

Costco, for instance, and you already

filed suit, does that put you at the

front of the line potentially?

So I suspect there are a lot of people

in boardrooms who have a very different

take than Chairman Smith about that

question. And honestly as a trade lawyer

I would say the question is not an if.

It's actually a how question. Um there

there are there's a history of tariffs

being refunded and there different

mechanisms. The thing that's

particularly thorny with this situation

as compared to the usual situation which

is say a preference program like the

generalized system of preferences

doesn't get renewed and so you have to

pay in for an extra year when it should

have been renewed and you wouldn't have

had to pay then that money comes back.

In this instance, the terrorists were so

broad on so many goods affecting so many

countries that actually there's a big

question where there's a gap between who

is booked at customs for the entity that

paid a tariff and who actually paid. So

as a practical matter, it's going to be

extremely difficult to figure out a fair

way to do it. So Costco is so big that

in some circumstances, I bet their

procurement people would fess up to the

fact they probably made their foreign

suppliers

cover a lot of the tariff by either

giving them a lower price on the good or

by literally paying a payment to have to

cover that expense as a condition for

continuing to source from that

particular tariff entity overseas. So

the big companies that have dominant

market positions and basically monopoly

power could avoid paying some of them

then not saying Costco did passed on

expenses to consumers. So even though

they didn't pay, they raised their

prices. And then you've got companies

that raise prices that didn't get

charged tariffs at all. So you've got a

big question of how the consumer is made

whole.

>> Yeah.

>> How you don't end up with windfall

profits from companies that didn't pay

but are booked as paying. And then

there's always the question for small

businesses. What is a system that

hopefully is even less complicated than

like paycheck protection so they don't

have to go to court?

Well, Lori, when we consider these

questions around refunds, I would point

to what a former uh senator from Ohio,

hoping to be a senator from Ohio, again,

Sherid Brown, the Democrat, is out on ex

uh posting about today. He says he's

calling for a $136

refund for every Ohio household, saying

that the reckless tariffs ruled illegal

by the Supreme Court cost Ohioans $6.5

billion. That's not really how this will

work, though, right? you aren't going to

see direct checks to households like

that,

>> you know, given the complexity I was

just describing, that's as fair a way of

doing it honestly

>> really

>> than anything that's going to come out

one way or another, there's going to be

an unfairness and given how many people

have been hit it by rising prices, some

of it again price gouging using the

cover of tariffs. I mean, the beef

situation is a classic. 80% of the beef

we eat in the US is grown and processed

here. So only 20% of imports and of that

half of it has always been dutyree

because it comes from Mexico and Canada

which from day one under the Trump

tariffs have had a duty-free exception.

So we've seen the prices of beef go

through the ceiling has nothing to do

with tariffs. Yet it's been claimed by

the grocery stores, the meat packers, oh

we can't help you. it's tariffs we have

to pass through the price. So if you had

for instance the Costos and those guys

who had the wherewithal to sue getting

back the money but actually a lot of

consumers have been the ones who in the

end paid and some of the big retailers

didn't pay at all because they had the

leverage to make someone else carry it

for them. How is that fairer than

Senator Brown's idea of giving everyone

a check?

>> Wow. Uh Lori, it's fascinating and

refreshing to speak with someone who

knows as much about this as you do

because there are a lot of armchair

experts in Washington right now when it

comes to tariffs. The president said on

Friday when he met the press after the

ruling going forward, we will be able to

take in more money and there will no

longer be doubt. Is the first part of

that true? he will be able to take in

more money from fill in the blank

whether it's consumer importer or a

foreign country with the new tariff

regime than the old one.

Um I think it is hypothetically possible

although seems somewhat improbable. So,

as a legal matter, if they used all of

the authorities that they have, at least

like in the year period, the the short

term, they might be able to bring in the

150 billion that is more or less what I

think the most clean estimates are of

the revenue they've brought in to date

since liberation day. And I think, you

know, with the with the laws that they

have, they could do that. They could

approximate the same kind of tariff

levels that they were able to do under

AIPA. Whether or not that's what they're

going to do is a different question.

>> All right, Lori, great stuff. We

appreciate your expertise. Lori Wallik,

director of the Rethink Trade Program at

the American Economic Liberties Project.

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. p.m.

Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android

Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.

You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa

from our flagship New York station. Just

say, "Alexa, play Bloomberg 11:30."

>> We've put the band back together.

Charlie's back from the Great Unknown.

He was up in Alaska. We thought we'd

lost him. We've got the panel back. Rick

Davis is with us this week. They'll be

coming up a little bit later. And Cliff

Young's going to be with us in a moment,

too. Kayle's here. Everything's going to

be fine. The news might not be fine, but

we are going to be fine as we talk about

the news, and there's a lot of it ahead

of the State of the Union address

tomorrow night, remembering the

president's attempts to

address the issue of affordability in a

series of speeches, right? He went

through Pennsylvania. He went to

Detroit. He went to North Carolina. Of

course, even last week, went to Georgia

to seize on the issue that not only

brought him here to the dance, but

threatens the Republican majority on

Capitol Hill. Listen, we inherited a

mess with high prices and high

inflation, and we've turned it around,

and we've made it great. They caused the

affordability problem, and we've solved

it. What word have you not heard over

the last two weeks? Affordability.

because I've won I've won affordability.

>> I've won affordability.

So, as we fast forward to tomorrow

night, what will he say if he seizes on

the classic line? You know, he's going

to talk for 45 minutes, an hour, maybe

it's longer than that. We'll all be

we'll be up there flipping through the

page. Think he's halfway through. We'll

see how much time he even spends on the

script. Maybe he wants to riff tomorrow

night. We do the weave. But at some

point, with this being an actual state

of the union as opposed to the joint

session we saw last year, the state of

our union is

affordable.

Cliff Young has been investigating this

whole idea in his research at Ipsos and

he is with us now in Washington DC. US

public affairs chair at Ipsos,

professor, Texas A&M University's Bush

School of Government and Public Service.

It's always great to see you.

>> Great to be here. um 60%

do not approve of the job he's doing as

he gears up for the speech. Does he need

to speak to them tomorrow night?

>> Well, he's on shaky ground, right? If if

you flip that and you look at approval

ratings, we have him at 39%. The overall

market's about 41. Overall, it's come

down about three or four points in the

last few months. Um there's a lot of

stuff going on. There's lots of friction

in the system. Um immigration,

immigration enforcement, but

affordability as well. Uh but I think he

has a tricky task in this state of the

union. Um the most important issue

affordability is his weakest point. Um

he polls uh in the range of about 30%

when it comes to affordability and cost

of living. Um so it is a challenge for

him going into it.

>> Does it make it worse when he says that

he solved it that he won?

>> Yeah, I think that's he's talking to his

base perhaps. Um that's the big

question. Uh will he talk to his base

exclusively? Will he talk to the

population in general? Didn't Joe Biden

teach us that you can't tell people how

they feel very successfully?

>> Yeah, he's committing the same sort of

problems of the last administration.

Remember Biden things are going well

when we would do focus groups and people

would start screaming um at the TV

screen when they would hear that. It's

the same sort of thing. You got to be

very careful not to create dissonance.

That creates dissonance. When you talk

to the average American today, they are

having problems still making ends meet.

It's about cost levels. It's not about

inflation. um it takes inflation and

inflationary effect is gnarly and it

takes a lot of time to work itself out

and to date that has not been the case

in United States.

>> Really interesting. Now you talk about

the base and you've used that word a

couple of times. You're one of the few

researchers here who is actually polling

non-Maga.

When we talk about the base, we mean

MAGA, right? So if you broaden this to

Republicans that include non-MAGA

voters, how different are the numbers?

>> Yeah. Yeah, a few months ago, we started

dividing that out, separating it out. Uh

when you look just at Republicans, it

looks like a monolith, usually a

supermajority in favor of whatever issue

uh you're talking about. But when you

peel away that onion a bit and you

separate MAGA from non-MAGA, um you're

finding fairly large differences. The

MAGA base is still there. Um they still

support Trump on many issues, including

terrorists, for instance, which we just

pulled on. um in in in the 70 to 80 plus

range. But when you when you look at

non-MAGA Republicans, those Republicans

that are really important uh on election

day, going to be really important for

the midterms, they're below 50% on most

of the the signature issues uh at hand

um with the Trump administration.

>> Really interesting. And it makes you

wonder then what kind of a jailbreak we

could see by by more traditional

non-MAGA Republicans in Congress. I know

this may be uh a dwindling number of

members,

but there was a thought on Friday that

the Supreme Court may have saved

Republicans from losing the midterms and

the president simply bearing back down.

Could he find the line here based on

those numbers with non-MAGA members of

Congress?

>> Yeah, I think he's he would have to

seriously change course, right? I think

a lot of the the MAGA members tend to be

moderate, tend to believe in kind of

consensus based solutions are not in

favor of the tariffs. Only about 45 or

so percent of non-MAG Republicans are in

favor of the job that Trump is doing on

tariffs. They're more traditional

Republicans ultimately. But you're very

right and I often emphasize those points

indeed. It looks like it will be a blue

year when it comes to the House, maybe

the Senate, but especially the House

this year. But more importantly, I

believe, is the profile of Republicans.

I think we could see a more moderate

class coming in, not just at the the

national level, the federal level, but

at the state levels as well.

>> Interesting. Um, you talk about who is

equipped, best equipped to handle major

issues. Um, Trump, Democrats, neither.

It's like the same number on all three.

This is the ultimate division here,

isn't it?

>> Yeah. We live in a divided country

today. Um, um, 50/50, I guess. 1/3.

Yeah, it suggests the importance of the

independent as a swing voter. Now, they

don't vote in the same numbers during

the midterms, but they are also

important indeed. They really explain um

uh uh Trump's decline in in his numbers

over the last year. Uh he's really lost

the support of those uh

independent-minded libertarians and sort

of moderate conservatives.

>> So, that number that neither number

you're looking at is an independent

voter block. Yeah, there's somewhere

there's somewhere they they haven't sort

of uh put put their hat in one one ring

or the other. Um they're probably from

political perspective, they're somewhere

in the middle.

>> Well, it's interesting. It's not

Republican Democrats and neither. It's

Trump Democrats and neither, which is

how you smoke them out here, right?

>> Exactly. Because that that that mega

mega base will be with Trump until the

end. They are there no matter what. It's

really not just about the independents,

but it's it's about those moderate

Republicans and who they vote for or

more importantly whether they vote on

election day.

>> Does the State of the Union matter for

people outside of the beltway when it

comes to deciding what issue or what

politician or what policy they like?

>> No, it's noise and it's very far away.

>> Okay.

>> No. However, the State of the Union is

very important.

>> Uh because we're going to be able to go

into the mind, get into the mind to say.

>> Yeah. understand Trump and the

administration where they are, how they

see things, whether they're aligned or

not with what people think. So, I do

think it's an important benchmark, but

only for us and not the population in

general.

>> Paul Sweeney said earlier he's not even

watching this thing tomorrow. I don't

know. I was I don't know if he's

watching the Sopranos or we're going to

have it here on Bloomberg, you know. Um

I'll be very curious to see what kind of

guests we're going to see once we get

through the US men's hockey. They got to

be in the gallery, right? Are are we

going to see victims uh of uh illegal

aliens uh a sort of bleak view of the

country tomorrow night? Is this going to

be a more hopeful view? We're going to

pack the stands with astronauts and

hockey players. How how dark or light

might this be?

>> Well, historically speaking, uh

presidents have tried to gain consensus

through bringing in sort of uh

individuals that represents consensus in

one way or the other. Um Trump has never

done that. Uh Trump tends to be more

divisive in the way he approaches his

rhetoric, approaches his politics. I

expect to have these credibility builder

building individuals there. I think they

will tend on the side of MAGA and being

a little bit more divisive than not, but

but we will see.

>> President Trump's producer James just

dug this out. His speech last year, that

was March 4, by the way, at the joint

session of Congress, 36.6

million viewers. with the madness that

we've seen worldwide since then. That

number is only going higher, right? You

might not beat

>> I think we'll beat it. You think we're

gonna beat that for sure.

>> Yeah. So, people are paying attention.

>> Then the question becomes, what's the

tenor and tone in the room? Will there

be decorum? Will there be holding signs

yelling at the president?

>> Yeah. I think I I think there's a

greater likelihood than in past years

for this to be a non-traditional State

of the Union address. I

>> we've already got like there are other

competing states of the union that

Democrats are going.

>> Yeah. Let's just take this one for the

sake of argument. Um Trump, there's a

likelihood that Trump will not go

consensus. He will go really partisan in

base. He needs to energize that base.

It's a problem. He's looking towards a

midterm. And I see the Democrats as

being non-ooperative potentially and we

live in this partisan time. I think

they're energized. We'll see obviously,

but I think there's a likelihood of

having a a much higher likelihood of

having a non-traditional state of the

union.

>> Why would anyone do the official

response if there's such a curse? If the

speech doesn't help Trump, the response

isn't going to help anyone else, is it?

If you're Abigail Spanberg, you just

won. Can you get any better than this?

>> Yeah, maybe you just want name

recognition. You want to be known by a

broader audience. Uh it's a difficult

sort of followup, right, ultimately. But

I do think that Democrats feel

emboldened. They've won some off cycle

elections even at the state level that

are suggestive of what will happen later

this year. I think they want to get

their message out. They want to be seen

as the affordability party. uh contrary

to uh the Republicans and Trump um they

have won the last few elections on that

message. That's a good message for them.

I think they'll want to hammer that

home.

>> I haven't mentioned the Epstein files

since we started talking and you did uh

run numbers on this. The headline

Epstein files undermine credibility of

the political class. That cuts both

ways.

>> Yeah, it's a all your houses. Uh it's

not good for the political class in

general. Um you know, both uh you know,

Americans on the right and the left want

to burn it all down. um now you know so

it really doesn't hurt anyone

specifically directly. That said, I do

think it takes away um from the you know

from from the um or takes away oxygen uh

from Trump on the narratives he wants to

push forward. It diverts attention away

from those issues that are important to

him. So it's probably a net negative for

Trump because of that. But from a public

opinion standpoint, they blame everyone.

>> State of our union is affordable. What

else could he say? Yeah,

>> he's going to do strong because we're

safer or something like that.

>> Yeah. I also think he's he he he might

sort of double down the fact that the

system is broken.

>> The state of our union is broken

>> and I'm the right man to fix it and look

at what we're doing and I'm confronting

the elites and the corrupt and pushing

it forward. It's difficult, but I'm your

man.

>> He didn't do it last year. Based on my

research here, it was not our State of

the Union dot dot dot. He said America

is back. We'll see if he doubles down on

that. Cliff, great to see you.

>> Great to see you.

>> Um, we'll see if you run numbers on the

length of the speech. That's going to be

another one as well. 36 million watched

it last year and it was not short. Uh

we'll find out tomorrow night. Special

coverage here on Bloomberg. I'm Joe

Matthew. Will assemble our political

panel next. 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. p.m.

Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android

Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.

You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa

from our flagship New York station. Just

say, "Alexa, play Bloomberg 11:30."

>> As we asked many of the same questions

today, this Monday that we were asking

on Friday, when it comes to tariffs, you

listen to Bloomberg radio for 5 minutes.

My god, how many times 122301 1974 just

slow down. I suspect the president will

have more to say on this tomorrow. He's

saying on True Social today he does not

need Congress to help him with the

tariffs and therefore that's why

everyone thinks he's going to go to this

uh I it's

for now it's 122.

Is he going to talk about this tomorrow?

Sure. Of course he's going to be looking

right at the Supreme Court. What's he

going to do to the justices? Will he

shake John Robert's hand when he walks

by? That's what everyone's been talking

about. So, it strikes me that it

probably won't be an issue, right? You

know how this goes. Donald Trump says

lots of nasty things about people until

they're together and then they seem to

become friends. Even Jay Pal had a

pretty good time hanging out with him

with the hard hats on. Uh, we'll find

out knowing as well he's going to be

talking about Iran with this massive

buildup of military hardware in the

Middle East. Been really looking forward

to hearing from Rick and Genie together

on this. And this will be our chance for

the first time in a week with talks now

between the US and Iranian officials set

for Thursday if we get that far. The

president, the New York Times is out

with the latest bloody nose story here,

right? You do the bloody nose strike and

you threaten something much larger to

bring Iran to the table. Um targets

under consideration remain uh pretty

much the same as well. Headquarters of

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard

Corps, to the country's nuclear sites,

which we've already hit, to the

ballistic missile program. But it's

really interesting what Scott Besson

said yesterday,

suggesting that on Fox News this might

not wait until next weekend, claiming

that Iran's regime is quote probably a

week away, he said, from having

industrial-grade bomb- makingaking

material," unquote. Well, what's that

about now?

And what will the president say about

this tomorrow when he addresses the

American people? We assemble our great

political panel are both back together.

Bloomberg politics contributors Rick

Davis and Jeannie Shanzeno. Rick is

Republican strategist and partner at

Stone Court Capital. Jeanie is our

Democratic analyst and democracy

visiting fellow at Harvard Kennedy

School's Ash Center. Uh Rick, I can't

imagine that a president that a

commander-in-chief would would want to

be announcing kinetic action during a

State of the Union. But then again, this

is Donald Trump.

Do you believe that we're on the

precipice of more strikes?

Yeah, I think as soon as he amassed this

armada of power, you know, in the

Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, in the

Mediterranean, I mean, like they have

done as best they could uh from the sea

of uh basically surrounding Iran. Uh

that uh you're not going to do that if

you really don't mean business. And uh I

can understand that there's a group

within the administration who wants to

see a deal cut. Uh Steve Wickoff said

over the weekend that they think they're

still got a a plan to do that. Uh and

and no doubt that's a better option for

the president, but he's shown a

likelihood to use force as a negotiating

tactic and I would not be surprised by

anything including uh an attack the

night of the state of the union uh where

he would bring that up. So uh he is a he

is a theatrical genius. Uh there are a

lot of things you can say about Donald

Trump, but he knows theater. We're going

to see theater on Tuesday night. Whether

that includes Iran or not, I don't know.

>> With his flare for drama, Genie, would

you be surprised if the president

arrived in the speaker's rostrm and said

upon my direction,

you can imagine the rest of the

statement. We have begun strikes against

Iran.

>> Nothing would surprise me at this point,

Joe. Um, you know, I think the State of

the Union for the president is a really

important moment as it pertains to Iran

for him to explain what the heck is

going on. It was just months ago that he

told us their nuclear program was quote

unquote obliterated. Now we hear we are

like sleepwalking ourselves into the

biggest war that we have seen or been a

part of in the Middle East in decades.

Why? What has changed? As far as we

know, nothing has changed with the

proxies. Nothing has changed with their

nuclear program. Nothing has changed on

the ground with how they treat their

citizenry, which is deplorable. So why

are we doing this? The president has a

moment in the State of the Union before

he engages in limited strikes to explain

that. doesn't mean he will, but he

certainly owes it to the American people

and to Congress to say, "What is the

point?" And by the way, what is the

goal? What does the United States get

out of this? After Venezuela, we were

told, "Oh, that's okay. That it's a

violation of his promise not to get

involved in wars overseas because it's

in our hemisphere." Well, guess what?

Iran is not. So, why are we doing this?

He has yet to tell us that. and the

State of the Union is going to be his

biggest audience to explain that. So

gosh, I hope he explains it before he

engages in limited strikes.

>> Well, you know, there going to be a lot

of members in the room thinking about

war powers, Rick. Uh and it does look

like the effort to check the president

through legislation uh seems to be

petering out. They don't even have all

Democrats on board today. Pretty

remarkable to see Representative Josh

Godheimr, Democrat from New Jersey, pull

out of this. He issued a statement

saying, "We respect and defend

Congress's constitutional role in

matters of war. Oversight and debate are

absolutely vital. However, this

resolution would restrict the

flexibility needed to respond to real

and evolving threats and risk signaling

weakness at a dangerous moment." How

many members do you think in that room

he speaks for, Rick? Democrats and

Republicans.

>> You know, I think Representative

Gothimer uh actually speaks for the vast

majority of the House of

Representatives. I mean, there's a

significant difference between a show of

force, between uh using uh tactical uh

military force uh and fighting a war. Uh

and we've gotten so used to this idea

that they're the same, right? Uh oh,

we're going to go to Venezuela, we're

going to attack Venezuela, we're going

to be stuck in this long war. Well,

that's not what actually happened. Um

you know, we supported Israel and its

fights against the proxy groups that

Iran uh uh supports. Uh we were going to

get involved in a long war there. That's

not exactly what happened. Uh Syria, we

had soldiers stationed there for quite

some time. Uh but small number and we

helped uh basically create a free Syria.

Um uh that's not a longtime war. So uh

it just because it's happened in the

past doesn't mean it's going to happen

in the future. I think that speaks to a

lot of House members, both Republican

and Democrat. Uh, Democrats have shown

an interest over the last decade of

being much more muscular when it comes

to military affairs and I think that's

good for the country and it creates less

of a partisan divide between Democrats

and Republicans on key important

national security matters. So, you know,

this is a good news item. Uh, we should

celebrate that because we don't have

that many in Congress these days.

>> Well, I'll tell you, we had something to

celebrate as Americans yesterday. Genie

at the State of the Union going to do it

for you. Uh,

US men's hockey will. And I'm wondering

if we're going to see Jack Hughes and

his teammates in the gallery tomorrow

night. There were videos around there. I

told that they may or may not be real of

the president calling. You know, Cash

Patel went to visit these guys after

they won. 46 years to the day after the

miracle on ice. It's absolutely amazing.

Um, will will that be the moment,

Jeanie, when both sides of the room get

up and acknowledge these incredible

Americans who won gold yesterday?

>> Oh, if they're there, absolutely. Even

if they're not, and the president

acknowledges them, absolutely. I think

we're going to see more than one moment

when the entire room can get up and get

together on things. But of course, you

mentioned Cash Patel Joe. Why do you do

this to me? As the president's you saw

that getting attacked in Mara Lago and a

21-year-old culprit apparently is shot

and killed. Cash Patel is celebrating

after he said through his spokespeople

that he was not going there do anything

but business. There he was drinking his

beer. Um he he by the way criticized the

former FBI director for doing the same.

So, you know, I I think there's a lot

there that Cath Patel needs to live

down.

>> We'll see if he accompanies the hockey

team into the room tomorrow night.

>> We're looking at the video right now.

Genie, this is something, man. If you

want a party, you need to hang out with

Cash Patel. I guess he's drinking the

beer. He's throwing the beer all over

the players, wearing goggles. He's

slamming on the table, fist pumping,

table slamming display. Uh, and you

know, everybody's having a blast. The

question is, is that appropriate for the

FBI director, Rick, knowing everything

that Jeanie just said, Mara Lago,

there's a deadly breakin at Mara Lago uh

over the weekend here. Uh he said he was

not in Italy to hang out at the

Olympics, but he looks like he's having

a blast.

>> Yeah. No, look, I mean, first of all,

let's all celebrate the America's male

and female hockey teams, right? Gold

winners, both. Uh and uh and and and and

look, I can't begrudge uh red-blooded

American going crazy and celebrating for

a gold medal victory at the Olympics. I

mean, there are a lot of things I'll

throw him under the bus to do, but this

is not one of them.

>> I'm happy he's there showing the flag

and supporting our team. Uh I I' I'd

disagree with his uh flavor and beer uh

both wearing it and drinking it. Uh but

uh yeah, I mean if I were the FBI

director, I'm not sure there'd be much

difference between Cash Patel and Rick

Davis.

>> Well, even if maybe you pay your own

way. Yeah, Michalo Vultra just flying

around the room here. They must have

been watching Land Man. Uh Democrats

don't like it, Jeanie. The gift and

corruption is unreal, said Jason Crowe.

Sean Casten, Illinois. Your taxpayer

dollars funding the FBI director's

Italian vacation. 3 million pages of

evidence of a massive child sex

trafficking ring. And this is what the

FBI director is doing right now.

Jeannie, when do the hearings begin?

>> I think the Democrats may have to wait

to see if they can take the House to

have hearings on this kind of thing.

But, you know, it is the hypocrisy. It's

the public dime. It is so much going on

that he is responsible for. And it is

his critique of the former director, not

to mention flying around on this jet on

the public dime. So there's the lot

there to criticize. You think he might

have a little bit more common sense than

to do this publicly and yet he did it

and he did it full out there and I'm

curious to see what the president has to

say about that cuz none of this makes

him look good.

>> Well, he's very happy to see us beat

Canada there. And boy, I'll tell you

what, maybe we'll see them all. Maybe or

will all the men and women be up there,

James, what do we think tomorrow? There

aren't that many seats, you know, up in

the gallery, but we got a lot to

celebrate here. Two gold medals. pretty

cool and pretty amazing way to watch

that whole thing come to an end.

Thanks for listening to the Balance of

Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if

you haven't already at Apple, Spotify,

or wherever you get your podcasts. And

you can find us live every weekday from

Washington DC at noon time Eastern at

bloomberg.com.