Loading summary
Transcript112 lines
- [00:01]
A
When you buy lg, you get so much more than just an appliance. You get more done, more cost savings, more peace of mind and more control because LG appliances are designed to do more like washers and dryers with AI tech to take out the guesswork refrigerators that fit in tight spaces and keep food fresher longer or ranges with precise induction cooking and easy cleanup built in all with the style you want and reliability you can count on so you can get more from your home every day. LG appliances so much more make life easier with LG. See the latest models and savings now@LG.com.
- [00:46]
B
Bloomberg Audio Studios podcasts radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5, 5pm 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. Welcome to the Friday edition of Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington with eyes on big oil stocks with a who's who of the oil industry at the White House today. The top 17 or so companies are going to be in the Cabinet Room. Of course, as Charlie has been mentioning talking with President Trump about the job ahead in Venezuela, shares of ExxonMobil up about 1%. Same for Chevron. Valero is down almost 4%. The idea of refining much more heavy sour crude from Venezuela, the question is what will be the question. President Trump has some big asks of these executives who may or may not feel like there's a big return on investment in this case, particularly knowing that this project will likely last years and could outlast this administration. There are also questions about what the oil companies might be pursuing today with CNN reporting that they've been crafting a plan to present the president before he ever gets to his own agenda here, coming with conditions that the US Lift more sanctions and provide more supplies necessary to move the oil. Either way, as Donald Trump says, we're taking it. And he made that case again on the Hannity program last evening on Fox News.
- [02:22]
C
Listen, we're taking billions and billions of dollars worth of oil and it'll be hundreds of billions of dollars. It'll be trillions of dollars.
- [02:29]
B
We'll be running the oil.
- [02:31]
C
We're going to meet with the, you.
- [02:32]
B
Know, biggest oil people in the world. They're all coming here.
- [02:35]
C
The top 14 companies are coming here. They're going to go in, they're going to rebuild the whole oil infrastructure.
- [02:43]
D
They're going to spend at least $100 billion.
- [02:47]
B
At least 100 billion. Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall is on the north lawn of the right White House waiting for their arrival. Right now they're about an hour and a half away based on the White House schedule. And she joins us now for an update. How's this all going to work here, Tyler? And will these executives be seen by the media?
- [03:08]
E
Well, as of now, that meeting is closed to the press, so we'll end up seeing if it gets to be opened up. That we had had reporting as we spoke about last hour that one of the potential conditions on the table was to keep this close door because we know that this administration is really pressuring these oil companies that are looking for buy in from big oil to advance US Interests in Venezuela. And at this point, it's not clear if they're on board because our own reporting indicates people familiar with the matter telling us that these executives have in some cases made the case directly to the administration that they are weary about the amount of investment without physical security or financial guarantees being on the table. And as you and I have covered all week, on balance of power, President Trump had previously suggested that the US could subsidize or reimburse these oil companies. But this morning, the Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum, told Bloomberg Television that all of the capital is going to come completely from the oil company, suggesting that there would not be U.S. financial support. Of course, the other big question for these companies has to do with political stability in the wake of the US Capturing Nicolas Maduro. But to that end, this White House asserts that the interim Venezuelan government is cooperating with the US With President Trump suggesting that they are already cooperating in terms of giving access to Venezuela's oil infrastructure. So it is going to be something that we watch really closely how this meeting ends up shaking out because it is very clear that these oil companies need to see some firmer guarantees from this White House.
- [04:38]
B
Really interesting here, Tyler. Do we know anything about what's going to be the venue for this meeting beyond the Cabinet Room? When you have the biggest executives from the oil industry come over, you don't serve subway sandwiches, right?
- [04:51]
E
I don't. I don't think that that is likely to be on the menu. But of course, Joe, this is a very high stakes meeting. You're talking about the heads of the biggest oil companies, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Continental Resources, and then those counterparts in the administration that have really been leading this charge, including the US Energy Secretary, Christopher Wright, who's going to be joining US later tonight on Balance of Power and then the interior secretary, Doug Burgum. But most importantly, of course, it's going to be President Trump in that room as he has made it absolutely clear that he wants this support from oil companies to advance US Interests. Right, Joe? We often hear the president talk about this need to get Venezuela on more solid economic footing before we can talk about the US Setting a potential date for a democratic transition.
- [05:36]
B
Bloomberg Washington correspondent Tyler Kendall with us from the White House. Tyler, let us know when they show up. We'll be curious to see if they come on down the driveway or maybe the back door. There's no appetite at the moment, at least it seems for subsidizing this whole project. As Tyler just mentioned, and it's something that we asked Byron Donalds about, the Republican congressman from Florida clearly has no appetite. Listen, I'm not really interested in subsidies per se. I think the oil markets themselves will provide all of the ability for companies if they go back in to rebuild that, that infrastructure to be able to make money. I'm not. I don't think it's much more about subsidies. I think it's much more about a stable government in Venezuela, stable security apparatus. If those things are in place, there'll be plenty of opportunity, whether it's oil companies or any other company, to go and invest in Venezuela, kind of like what Tyler just said. Now, as we try to seize on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there's no voice more appropriate than Mark Short. The Republican strategist joins us right now. Former White House director of Legislative affairs and former Chief of Staff, Vice President Mike Pence. Mark, I hope your year is going well. Welcome back.
- [06:43]
D
Happy New Year.
- [06:44]
B
Thanks for having me on Bloomberg. Of course. Your thoughts on the involvement of Congress here. The appetite that they might have seems similar to the appetite we're told some of these oil executives might have of investing in this project.
- [06:56]
D
I can't imagine there'd be much interest in Congress to use taxpayer dollars to help subsidize this. But I'm not so convinced that there won't be executive opportunities for subsidiary. So when I hear the commentary from Bergrum that that's off the table, I wouldn't necessarily say it's off the table until the president says it's off the table. And I think everything you laid out is exactly right, that these executives are going to want to know there's some sort of assurance of stability in the country before making massive investments at shareholder risk. They need to know that risk is somewhat mediated. But I think that there's for multiple these companies significant amounts of dollars the World bank has ruled is owed to them. And I think the president can have a way of ensuring they get those resources if they make commitments to invest.
- [07:45]
B
Okay, interesting. How's this meeting going to go when you're in the room with Donald Trump? You've been in a lot of meetings with this president. Door closes, guys like me are thrown out of the room. Is there an agenda that's set or are we just kind of riffing because they're people who know each other and have relationships?
- [08:03]
D
I think there's probably an agenda that Secretary Wright, Secretary Bergam have of what's the path forward. I think the president, though, prefers to have these meetings more relationship oriented. And so they'll be needing to keep the agenda on track. But I think think he's going to take it where he kind of makes.
- [08:20]
B
It hard to say no that way.
- [08:21]
D
But I also, I also think that there's, it would be incredibly unlikely to me that cameras are not brought into this meeting. And so I think you'll get to see it for yourself. You'll get to see it for yourself in a little bit because the president relishes the optics of him being surrounded by some of the largest CEOs of companies that are global companies. And so it's hard for me to think that there won't be visual. You'll get to see the meeting yourself.
- [08:45]
B
Yeah, well, see, but mark that down. Producer James we might have a pool spray to be covering later on here on. On Balance of Power. Interesting watching the stocks. ExxonMobil is up a little bit. Chevron's up about 1 1/2 percent. Refiners like Valero are lower. How should investors be thinking about this with the president once again kind of emerging as the chairman of the board?
- [09:06]
D
Well, again, I think there's a couple of things for, for Chevron, for Exxon, there are dollars significant, particularly Chevron and ConocoPhillips. Billions of dollars the World bank has said that you are owed because Venezuela sees these assets from you. For Exxon, it's a small amount. So there's a lot of dollars that I would imagine that there's a higher prospect that that gets paid out. So probably for shareholders, there's a notion, hey, this is going to make a significant impact on their balance sheets. I think that for the president, you know, he has got a continued commitment to trying to lower gas prices and that's to his credit. I mean, oil prices are down significantly, energy prices are down significantly. Since he came in, I think that they still have other prices that are much higher because of his trade agenda. But he wants, I think, to offset the trade agenda by continuing to lower energy prices as much as he can. But obviously, as you know, by time you get any of this oil out of the ground onto the marketplace, it's going to be many years.
- [10:03]
B
Yes. Right. So we're going to be talking with the energy Secretary a little bit later on today at the conclusion of this meeting. Should we expect takeaways today or is this the start of a longer conversation?
- [10:13]
D
I would imagine there'll be some takeaways about what a path could. I don't think there'll be something finalized today, but I would imagine Chris can give you a sense of here was the conversation, here's the commitment that, that, that these CEOs have and here's what the president offered them.
- [10:27]
B
Got it going to keep your former legislative affairs hat on here because yesterday was a doozy on Capitol Hill and I'm really deeply curious to hear your thoughts. We went up to the Capitol for the vote on ACA subsidies and talked to two Republicans who crossed over. Republican Nick LaLota, the congressman from Long island from New York And Republican Ryan MacKenzie of Pennsylvania, in that order. Listen to what they told us after voting yes. A lot of our constituents rely on these subsidies and doing nothing we knew.
- [10:57]
D
Was not an option.
- [10:58]
B
So we wanted to and we explored several different options before Christmas. Unfortunately, a number of them are blocked.
- [11:04]
D
By our Rules Committee.
- [11:05]
B
And this was the only option available to us was to pass this three year extension which we understand is dead.
- [11:11]
D
In arrival in the Senate since running for office in 2024. On the campaign trail, the biggest issue that we heard about was a affordability and cost of living issues. And so that has not changed. After four years of Biden inflation, people were suffering. Our efforts in the House are keeping this conversation alive. And what is going on in the Senate is they are looking at plans very similar to what we had already proposed here in the House. And so hopefully we'll get to one of those resolutions.
- [11:37]
B
Really interesting to hear from both of them. Following that vote, 17 Republicans crossed over on the ACA. We'll see where that goes. I realize that's its own story, but five Republican senators voted for a War Powers Act. The president shamed them on social media. What's going on here?
- [11:54]
D
Well, let's try and break them apart because I think they are two separate issues. I think that on Obamacare and government run health care, you know, Democrats 15 years ago promised that it would lower costs and promise you like your doctor, you keep them. There's a lot of broken promises. Health care costs are astronomical today. The challenge for Republicans is they have not put forward an alternative. And so now you're in a box where Democrats say we want to continue these subsidies. Cost of living is higher, affordability prices is higher. And so for a lot of Republicans in swing districts looking at the midterms, they want to be on record voting for things that keep prices down, even if it's counterintuitive, the Republicans would be voting to continue government run health care and these subsidies. So that's, that's the dilemma for many of these Republicans. And I think it's added because the president, I think the president wants the subsidies extended. He's concerned about the affordability issue. And so that's why you saw in his remarks earlier this week, something's gotten less coverage. But the president saying to House Republicans, you need to have greater flexibility on the government taxpayers funding abortion. It was a remarkable statement for a Republican president to say. And I think what he's basically saying is he knows that's a tripwire for a lot of Republicans and he's asking them to go along in essence with this. So I don't think this bill is going to pass in the Senate, but I do think what you're going to see is that the Senate is going to use that to map another pathway forward. And I think ultimately you're going to see these subsidies extended.
- [13:18]
B
Is that the Moreno bill?
- [13:19]
D
I think that's terrible, terrible policy, terrible policy. But I think politically, politically, I think that's where we're going to end up.
- [13:24]
B
Because these two guys want to get reelected probably more than they're worried about being yelled at by Donald Trump.
- [13:28]
D
Again, I think there are better ways Republicans should be talking about here's what's happened since we passed Obamacare, here's the cost of how much health care is increased and here's where we're going to have as an alternative. But they're not, in an absence of that, they're going to be forced to vote on whether you just continue the subsidies. And I think a lot will interesting on the War Powers Act. I think it's a totally separate argument. What I don't understand is, I think frankly with all the news that's out there, it would have gotten less attention except for the president attacking those five. Why he chose to do that. It is more of a posture vote that's really not impinging what he's doing in the moment. And so I think a wiser course would be to ignore it from his position. But to go after those five only elevates a into the national conversation.
- [14:12]
B
We're just showing the five on the screen if you're with us on Bloomberg tv. That said, would it have been your job in the first administration to get on the phone and rap knuckles on a day like that? How does the white beyond going on truth social, how does the White House handle a jailbreak?
- [14:28]
D
Well, it is, it is Leslie affairs director's job to make sure they're aware of where votes are and who's going where. Yeah, there's probably less influence you have as a staffer.
- [14:37]
A
I see.
- [14:37]
D
But by alerting the president, the president can make calls to these people, say, hey, look, I don't want to see your vote going against me on this. So there's ways to get ahead of it that I don't know if it happened or not. But I think that, look, this president is usually more engaged than most presidents. I remember when I came into the role, I actually met with my predecessor who had served in the Obama administration and she gave me wonderful advice about doing the job. But it was remarkably different because I think Obama was gifted in so many ways, but he got kind of detached from Congress. This president has always been very engaged with members and so it's not as if there's a lack of communication and it's probably something that you should have the communication before as opposed to tweeting about after.
- [15:16]
B
Great. Where's your gut on government funding? It looks like we might have a couple of minibuses, maybe a short term cr. You're not worried about a shutdown, are you?
- [15:25]
D
I think it's very unlikely we'll have another shutdown. I think there's been progress on the appropriations front and I think that candidly for Democrats, they got everything they wanted out of the last shutdown, which I think has been counter the way these.
- [15:37]
B
Statements, considering there's no subsidies to show for it.
- [15:39]
D
Well, but politically, politically, politically, they gained a lot. And I still think they're going to get their subsidies at the end of the day. And I think traditionally when Republicans have shut down the government and saying we're going to leverage that for some other policy, we've always lost. And it seems, I think the Democrats got the leverage and the political win too.
- [15:58]
B
As the Donald Trump's former legislative affairs director, what do you think when you hear people say that he's the actual speaker of the House? Well, I'm sure you see it more nuanced than that, but is there some truth to it?
- [16:13]
D
There is. I think what the president has been very effective at is whether you like or you don't, he's been far more willing to engage in primaries in a way that strikes fear amongst House Republicans. And so they are more willing to walk in lockstep. Traditionally Republican or Democrat presidents looked at like, I'm not going to criticize my own team because the downside is you could get replaced by a Democrat. But this president has looked at it to say, I'm going to keep my, my team in step by them understanding I'd be willing to primary them. And so he's had far more influence as a president over this, this Congress than traditionally a president does over his own team.
- [16:50]
B
Maybe you set the new model. Mark, it's good to see you. We appreciate the insight says thanks for having me. Of course. Is Mark Short with us live here in Washington, former White House director, Legislative affairs, former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence. Stay with us on balance of power. We'll have much more coming up after this.
- [17:09]
A
When you buy lg, you get so much more than just an appliance. You get more done, more cost savings, more peace of mind and more control because LG appliances are designed to do more like washers and dryers with AI tech to take out the guesswork refrigerators that fit in tight spaces and keep food fresher longer or ranges with precise induction cooking and easy cleanup built in all with the style you want and reliability you can count on so you can get more from your home every day. LG appliances, so much more make life easier with LG. See the latest models and savings now@LG.com.
- [17:53]
B
You'Re listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm 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 Alex Alexa played Bloomberg 11:30 yesterday was a significant one here in Washington. If you were following along with what happened on Capitol Hill. And I know some of this stuff gets esoteric, but there were a couple of bills that were voted on that the president did not want to see passed and he even took to Truth Social at one point to shame the five Republicans who crossed the aisle. That was on the war powers vote that took place in the Senate. Five Republicans voting to check the president in Venezuela and actually limit his activities there as the commander in chief. The other big one had to do with health care. And if you were with us on the late edition of BALANCE OF power, we joined you live from Capitol Hill. As that vote was taking place, nine Republicans jumped across the aisle on the procedural vote. Seventeen showed up for the real vote last night on the floor. Pretty remarkable. This was not the compromise bill that we've been talking about. This is a clean three year extension. This was the Hakeem Jeffries bill. Seventeen Republicans, knowing we've already gone over the cliff, this would revive those enhanced Obamacare subsidies that bring us back to the COVID era, sat down with two Republicans who actually voted for this as part of our program last Evening, Republican Nick LaLota of New York and Republican Ryan McKenzie of Pennsylvania. Listen, a lot of our constituents rely on these subsidies and doing nothing we knew was not an option. So we wanted to and we explored several different options before Christmas. Unfortunately, a number of them are blocked.
- [19:39]
D
By our Rules Committee. And this was the only option available.
- [19:43]
B
To us was to pass this three year extension, which we understand is dead.
- [19:47]
D
In arrival in the Senate since running for office in 2024. On the campaign trail, the biggest issue that we heard about was affordability and cost of living issues. And so that has not changed after four years of Biden inflation, people were suffering. Our efforts in the House are keeping this conversation alive. And what is going on in the the Senate is they are looking at plans very similar to what we had already proposed here in the House. And so hopefully we'll get to one of those resolutions.
- [20:13]
B
Just a dose of the psychology from two Republicans voting with Democrats last evening, generating the headline from Jonathan Tamari's piece on Bloomberg government, a Day of Defiance. What will come of this? We assemble our political panel for their take. Bloomberg Politics contributor Rick Davis is back with us, Republican strategist and partner at Stone Court Capital, joined today by Democratic strategist, strategist Arshi Siddiqui, former senior aide to Speaker Pelosi, founder CEO Bellwether Government Affairs. It's great to have both of you with us, Rick, are we making too much of this? How important are these defections?
- [20:49]
C
No, I think it's fair to say that this is a new movement in the House and Senate. You haven't seen any real pushback in the year that Trump has been president by his own members in Congress. And so the fact that you had not only these two events, one in the House and one in the Senate, but you also had the Senate pass unanimously the rule to put together a plaque and put it on the front of the Capitol honoring the efforts by people to defend the Capitol on January 6th. So that was a direct rebuke to what the White House posted itself. So, yeah, I think there's a mini rebellion going on, but it's also acting in their self interest. Republicans in the House want to get reelected and the Speaker's not making it any easier. I think Congressman Lalota said it right. All the compromise bills were killed in the Rules Committee by conservatives. So the only option they had to do anything on health care was to side with the Democrats. And I think that's going to continue until they get a bill that they can pass and get signed by President Trump.
- [21:50]
B
Really interesting. Arshi, how would you describe this moment that we're in? It feels like the tectonic plates might be shifting, albeit mildly.
- [21:58]
F
Yeah, I would say it's a little overstated.
- [21:59]
B
Yeah.
- [22:00]
F
And I, and I, and you know, you look at whether it's Venezuela where they're, you know, there are more questions than answers. The answers keep on changing. So from that perspective, I think this was just a signal to the White House that they needed to kind of get things together. And then similarly on the aca, it keeps the issue alive. But as you recall, we've talked many times, the Republican mantra was reopen the government and we'll negotiate. Those negotiations never happened. To this day, those negotiations are at the rank and file level. So from that perspective, I think it was a heartening day. It actually kept the issue alive. It allows the Senate some room on the aca. But I would say the one issue that has plagued the ACA debate from the beginning is this ideological component on this complete hatred of the aca. And that has taken over rather than looking at what is best for constituents, all of these premiums. So I think at the end of the day, we'll see how this plays out. But this ideological spend to this and is problematic.
- [23:04]
B
You have a Hyde Amendment and things could get a little bit more complicated. Rick, Sarah Chamberlain from Main Street Partnership was on the program last evening saying that some moderates, some Republican moderates could fall off if the Hyde amendment is strengthened in this case. How sensitive is this issue in your mind when it comes to potentially derailing a bill?
- [23:26]
C
Yeah, it's, it's derailed a lot of bills in the past. So it does have an impact and I would say fear the rank and file. Most deals in the Senate, for instance, don't come out of leadership. They come out of the rank and file. And that's where the new deal is being cooked up for ACA relief. And I have heard consistently that there are a number of Republicans that actually are thinking exactly the opposite, which is water down the Hyde amendment a little bit. And they kind of got some high cover from Donald Trump which was unexpected. And so there seems to be motivation to do that. And so I do think there's going to be a solution to it. Not going to be what pass in the House, but the Senate typically jams the House with its solutions. And I think that's exactly what's going to happen here.
- [24:13]
B
So Rick, are you still looking at the Bernie Moreno bill as the most likely final product or something similar to it?
- [24:20]
C
Yeah, I think what we see coming out of the Senate is going to be what Dune has been talking about coming out of his rank and file. And that is, you know, a two year extension, but with modifications on eligibility and a watered down hide. So I mean I think if you get those kinds of things in, it's actually an improvement of the ACA program because these, these were designed to expire by now, these credits. And Democrats and Republicans both voted for that. So to say otherwise I think is misrepresenting the aca.
- [24:50]
B
That's something you can stomach that lease the form in which this is taking.
- [24:54]
F
I think the details matter here, but Rick is absolutely right. There are some significant and I think really well intentioned bipartisan discussions amongst the senators, but there are some bridges that may be too far. And you know, this high debate is interesting and that's why I was going back to the ideology because the ACA already has pretty strong language in there and Republicans have even conceded that and you have these outside groups taking over. But Rick is right. Like I think that there's, there's opportunity and hope, but the window is closing, relief and passed.
- [25:23]
B
Well, that window could be extended in a literal sense when it comes to open enrollment. If it also extended enrollment to the middle of March, is that enough to give people an opportunity to get back on the rolls?
- [25:35]
F
It's not ideal.
- [25:36]
B
And you dropped off.
- [25:37]
F
Yeah, it's not ideal. And you look at the tax cuts, they, you know, in the, in the reconciliation bill, they did extend them already, so way in advance, but it is, this is where we are. So I think the extending that would be helpful.
- [25:49]
B
Talk to us about war powers, Rick. This was the other big one and you mentioned that January six plaque. I'm glad you did because that actually was pretty significant. Yesterday when you see five Republicans jump on war powers, the president went right on truth social and said shame on them, they should not be reelected. Will there be blowback beyond that?
- [26:08]
C
Yeah, I think this is a continuing story.
- [26:12]
G
Right.
- [26:12]
C
I mean, we don't know how the Venezuela situation is going to end and we don't know if there are going to be other situations like Venezuela where the President uses force to achieve his policy goals, which is clearly what has occurred here in Caracas. And so I think Republicans are very nervous by the free talk that Donald Trump has started about putting boots on the ground and in essence occupying Venezuela. And I think that's what gave impetus to this vote. I'm not sure you could have gotten these Republicans without the President talking about putting boots on the ground. So the President's getting what he kind of of is dishing up, which is I'm going to raise the rhetoric and maybe he's doing that to get what he wants out of Venezuela, but it's having a net effect on Republicans in the United States Senate saying, hey, wait a minute, we're not giving you a free option here. And that's what you saw yesterday. And so President doesn't like that. He told New York Times reporters that the only limits on him is his own mind. And I guess that includes five.
- [27:12]
B
That's right.
- [27:12]
C
United States Republican senators, his own morality.
- [27:16]
B
As he said, we were just showing the fitful five. Collins, Murkowski, Paul, Hawley and Young. The President says they should be ashamed of themselves or Republicans should be ashamed of these senators. He says despite their stupidity, the War Powers act is unconstitutional, totally violating Article 2 of the Constitution, as all presidents and Departments of Justice have determined before me. The Vice President Arshi then said at the podium in the briefing room that the War Powers act was fake and unconstitutional. What do you make of that language?
- [27:50]
F
I think it's a running trend where a separation of powers is non existent to this administration. And you've seen that. And there has been this lockstep approach in Congress and now we're seeing a little bit of a break in the ice on that. So that's positive. But the separation of powers issue is a big one and I think it's going to play really significantly in the midterms in terms of should Congress be a rubber stamp to the administration.
- [28:17]
B
What do you make of that writing, Rick? The War Powers act is unconstitutional, violating Article 2 as all presidents and their Departments of Justice have determined before me.
- [28:29]
C
Yeah, this is the strongest power grab against Congress I think we've seen since the inauguration. And it's not surprising. I mean, this unitary executive theory that the President is trying to implement, you know, kind of generates that kind of debate. But at some point in time, the Congress or the president needs to have this clarified by the Supreme Court if this is going to actually affect the president's ability to go around the world and commit US Troops to combat situations, which is what he's done in Venezuela. So I think this could wake the Congress up. It's clearly fire Republicans think it's important enough to cross that line. And I would say if the rhetoric continues along the lines it did yesterday, that may actually create even more Republicans who want to make sure they retain the rights that the Congress indicates that they have related to war power.
- [29:27]
B
Sounds like a fairly significant day to look back on on Capitol Hill as the White House also tried to make its case and share details for the first time for the big ballroom project. You guys hear about this 89,000 square feet. But the ballroom itself, I guess, will be contained in this larger building at 22,000 square feet. Room for a thousand. Archie the ballroom will include the first lady's offices and a movie theater. He's moving the first lady out of the White House out of the east wing?
- [29:56]
F
Yes. I think that's probably an issue between him and the first lady. So I but I think it's another example of details matter. Right.
- [30:06]
B
I thought they'd move the press office of the press room over there. First Rick, what do you think the the first lady is going to have to go to work in the ballroom. What do you make of this?
- [30:14]
C
Well, I suspect it'll be very nice space for the first lady in the ballroom, but I agree with Archie. I think that they got to work that out amongst themselves. I would say more is to come on this issue.
- [30:29]
B
No doubt. They're also putting a second story on the west wing colonnade, so it's even across the board. This is going to be quite the look. Rick Davis, Arshi Siddiqui Stay with us on balance of power. We'll have much more coming up after this.
- [30:47]
A
When you buy lg, you get so much more than just an appliance. You get more done, more cost savings, more peace of mind and more control because LG appliances are designed to do more like washers and dryers with AI tech to take out the guesswork refrigerators that fit in tight spaces and keep food fresher longer or ranges with precise induction cooking and easy cleanup built in all with the style you want and reliability you can count on so you can get more from your your home every day. LG appliances so much more make life easier with LG, see the latest models and savings. Now@LG.com you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
- [31:34]
B
Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm 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 state. Just say Alexa played Bloomberg 11:30 on what is a jobs day. Any other time this would have probably been our lead story because it was the first complete jobs report we've had in a while following the whole government shutdown, the longest in American history. Really interesting to hear from Rick Reeder this morning on Bloomberg TV and radio. Interestingly said to be on the shortlist to be the next Fed chair. Yet there's reporting Scott Bessen said he hasn't actually had his interview with President Trump yet, who claims he already made up his mind. The read on the jobs report from reader, of course chief Investment Officer of Fixed Income at blackrock, seeing a below forecast payrolls number and also a lower than expected unemployment rate. Here's what he said.
- [32:30]
C
We're talking about 50,000 jobs and then a revision down over 70,000 jobs. If you take, we're growing now. If you go to last six month moving average, if you take out health care jobs, we're actually running negative jobs for the last six months away from health care, which is non cyclical, not interest rate sensitive. Actually, if you go back 8 months, the total net jobs is negative 213,000 jobs net of health care. What I think is going on is we have a productivity revolution of extraordinary proportion.
- [33:02]
B
Fascinating, but also very difficult to quantify. And it's where we start our conversation with Heather Boucher used to serve of course on the Council of Economic Advisers in the Biden White House when we spoke frequently, chief economist for the Invest in America Cabinet. Heather, it's great to see you. Welcome back. How would you describe this jobs report and the impact of productivity?
- [33:24]
G
Well, this is a, I mean I would describe it as a lackluster report. Right. We haven't, you know, the 50,000 jobs gained last month we've seen over the past year over 2025, 49,000 jobs gained on average each month. That's less than a third of the pace that we saw in 2024. We've seen the pace of wage gains, although a little bit faster than it was in recent months, is actually slower than it was in 2023 or 2024. And that is with ongoing higher prices that American consumers are facing. So I think from the worker perspective, this isn't a great report. It's not A terrible report. It doesn't, you know, is in line with expectations. It doesn't signal that we're in a recession or something like that. But it certainly doesn't bode well for millions of workers who are looking for work and for the labor market more generally. And to that point, about health care, I think, you know, this is a big story. I think in the labor market right now that, you know, net jobs for 2025 really were all about health care. And yet the administration, the Trump administration has made these huge cuts to the health care sector through the, the tax legislation passed in the spring, the cuts to Medicaid, the cuts now through the cuts to the Affordable Care act subsidies. And so I think that opens up real big questions about what health care looks like as we go into the new year.
- [34:43]
B
How are you looking at this through the prism of the Fed? The worries about a soft job market led the market to believe another cut was coming. But when you see the unemployment rate dropping like this, what does it tell you?
- [34:57]
G
Well, I think this is a tough report for the Federal Reserve, you know, and I think all indications are that they are probably going to going to pause. But, you know, obviously we'll have to wait and see. You know, from their perspective, prices remain higher than their preferred 2% rate. And, you know, we saw unemployment come down a little bit. I think, you know, we're also seeing that the layoffs that were happening across the federal government appear to have abated. So there does seem to be some stability in the labor market again, you know, it's not like we saw massive job losses this month. We're just seeing this tepid, you know, pace of growth at about 50,000amonth. So I think that that will probably lead them to stop wait for the next round of data. And of course, they're also still struggling with the fact that we didn't have data for a few months because of the government shutdown. So I think they probably want to be extra careful that we are getting good data and might want to wait to see what the benchmark revisions look like that are coming at the beginning of the year to the labor market data.
- [35:59]
B
As we spent time with Heather Boucher, I want to mention some breaking news as the president is posting on social media ahead of his meeting with big Oil. He's got Colombia on his mind. He says he's looking, looking forward to having a meeting with Gustavo Petro, the president of Colombia, in the White House first week of February. So we've got something on the calendar here. It seems he says, I'm sure it'll work out very well from, for Colombia and the usa, but cocaine and other drugs must be stopped from coming into the U.S. thank you for your attention to this matter. You know, Heather, I'm curious your thoughts on this meeting today at the White House with big oil in the room and a big ask from the President here. We've heard from the administration that this effort, effort to start investing in a broken oil infrastructure in Venezuela is America first and will help our economy by lowering oil prices. Is that your expectation?
- [36:53]
G
Well, here's the thing. You know, from the perspective of American consumers, gas prices have come down quite a bit and any benefit that they're going to see at the pump is going to take a long time to, to come to fruition. And we've also heard the president say that he wants a massive increase in what the American people pay for defense, for all of the work that's going to be required to maintain that presence in Venezuela and the other actions that he's taking around the world. The President has also said that he wants the American people to subsidize some of these investments that he wants the oil companies to make. I mean those are big question marks. Where does this end? Where does this go? So I have a lot of questions about whether or not this will actually benefit the American people. And of course this is alongside, alongside all the steps that this administration has taken to make electricity prices more expensive in the here and now. You know, all of the cutbacks that he did to the investments that were happening across the country and electricity in the grid and in lowering families energy prices. You know, he's got a very confusing message on energy right now. And you know, as your opening segment talked about, this is a decades long investment and I think we have to wonder whether or not future administrations will be committed to the same kind of, you know, imperialist tendencies that this president is. So if I were the American taxpayer, which of course I am an American taxpayer, I have a lot of questions for how this meeting goes today and what the President expects the American people to pay in the here and now.
- [38:23]
B
Yeah, shareholders do too. Heather, it's good to see you. Thank you for coming back on Bloomberg TV and radio. Heather Boucher with us on Balance of Power President back on Truth Social. He's looking forward to the meeting here. He just posted once again, the largest oil companies in the world are coming to the White House at 2:30pm he's right. A little more than a half hour away. Everybody wants to be there it's too bad the ballroom hasn't completed because if it were, it would be packed. He says we apologize to those oil companies we cannot take today. But Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Secretary Interior Doug Burgum will see them them over the next week. We did learn yesterday they didn't reach for the bigger ballroom. I guess it's going to be 22,000 square feet, but of course, they haven't built that yet. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, and we thank you for being with us here on Balance of Power. As we turn to our closer. I was so glad to hear that Nancy was coming in because she's up with a really interesting profile that I want you to find on the terminal or online. Remember when they used to call Karl Rove Bush's brain is Stephen Miller Trump's brain. Now I'm going to get Nancy Cook in trouble. She's with us to talk about this great story that I mentioned, Stephen Miller and the policy shaping Trump's next three years. Bloomberg SENIOR NATIONAL Political Correspondent it's great to see you.
- [39:40]
H
STEPHEN miller, Trump's BRAIN well, interestingly, a bunch of Trump people call him the prime minister.
- [39:45]
B
The prime minister, yes. That's a different wrinkle because he has found himself, as you describe here, with a much broader portfolio in this second term. How important is he compared to the actual chief of staff, for instance, in running policy in the agenda in this administration?
- [40:02]
H
I think he's just as important as Susie Wiles. And what I uncovered in the reporting is he's actually really functioning like a cabinet secretary in this particular term. I think people so often associate him just with immigration from the first term. And there's good reason for that. He was key behind the expansion of ice, you know, mass deportations, a lot of the immigration policy. However, this term he is playing a huge role in the strategy on Venezuela, for instance, and what is happening there, foreign policy, national security, you know, going after elite universities and pulling their federal funding. I mean, just every single area of policy, even economic ones where he we don't think of him as playing like trade and tariffs. He is playing a key role. He is really the main person for whom policy is running in this term. And so the piece just looks at how he operates in the West Wing.
- [40:56]
B
Is he feared?
- [40:58]
H
He's completely internally, he's very much feared internally. He has a very large staff. And one of the other interesting things I learned in the course of reporting is he has allies kind of in all these different crevices of the government, which really just Helps him exercise power in all these different places. He has allies at the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, you know, the National Security Council, White House Counsel's office, sort of all these pockets that really help him, you know, pull the levers of power. He's quite good at that.
- [41:27]
B
There's some reporting recently on the way he conducts conference calls. You don't want to cross. Cross the boss. If his name is Stephen Miller, you don't.
- [41:35]
H
And a key part of his role is not just coming up with the policy, but is also executing it. One person that I talked to for this story told me about on things like energy policy, for instance, he'll convene a call in his office, you know, with all the people who are involved in energy policies from all the different agencies, and basically bark orders at them, you know, to make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to.
- [41:57]
B
Yeah. You mentioned Venezuela. His remarks, remarks about America's right to take that land were striking just in the last couple of days here. His view of the world order, it seems, does help to inform the president's view.
- [42:15]
F
Absolutely.
- [42:16]
H
I mean, I think that part of the reason that he is so powerful is because he's very loyal to Trump, but also part of it is because he is the person in the White House who is most aligned with Trump, Trump's gut on issues, and he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are really the two key people inside the administration moving ahead with the Venezuela planning. I would say Rubio's sort of maybe the more diplomatic of the two, the one they send out on Sunday shows. Yes, but Stephen is the president's ID on this.
- [42:44]
B
Yeah. Okay.
- [42:44]
H
And is really driving the policy.
- [42:46]
B
Wow. You referenced his interview on CNN in the piece where he referred to our. Right. You could talk, talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, he says, that is governed by strength, by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world. You covered the first Trump administration. Is that the same Stephen Miller?
- [43:08]
F
Yes, he is the same.
- [43:09]
H
I have covered him for almost a decade. He is the same. He has not changed. He does these, like, ranty, you know, media appearances. He has big, very strongly held beliefs. I think the difference is, is he just has so much power now. And, you know, really, there's only two aides I can think of who have lasted this long, continuously in the Trump Organization. One is Dan Scavino, who is Trump's, like, former, longtime, you know, golf caddy who then did social media in the first administration and who's now the director of personnel and Stephen Miller.
- [43:40]
B
Wow. Isn't that amazing? Does he like getting calls from Nancy Cook? Does he deal with reporters?
- [43:45]
H
No comment.
- [43:45]
B
Okay, find the story on the terminal or online. Really interesting and great reporting as always, because it came from the great Nancy Cook. 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 D.C. at NoonTime Eastern at@Bloomberg.com When you buy LG, you get.
- [44:13]
A
So much more than just an appliance. You get more done. More cost savings, more peace of mind and more control because LG appliances are designed to do more like washers and dryers with AI tech to take out the guesswork. Refrigerators that fit in tight spaces and keep food fresher longer or ranges with precise, precise induction cooking and easy cleanup built in all with the style you want and reliability you can count on so you can get more from your home every day. LG appliances so much more make Life easier with LG. See the latest models and savings now@LG.com.