US Pursues Third Oil Tanker, Ramping Up Pressure on Venezuela

Summary

Balance of Power – "US Pursues Third Oil Tanker, Ramping Up Pressure on Venezuela"

Podcast by Bloomberg, December 22, 2025
Hosts: Joe Mathieu, Kailey Leinz, Christina Ruffini

---

Overview

This episode takes a deep dive into current U.S. foreign policy and economic pressures—focusing on the Biden administration’s aggressive actions against Venezuelan oil tankers, the evolving legal and geopolitical implications, and related moves on the global stage. The conversation also pivots to domestic policy—including the looming risk of a government shutdown, the chaos around the Supreme Court’s potential ruling on Trump-era tariffs, and a granular look at the surging demand for data centers amidst the AI boom.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Escalation of US Pressure on Venezuela

(Segment: 01:02–08:43)

• Ongoing US Siege of Venezuelan Oil Exports

  • Christina Ruffini reports on the pursuit of a third oil tanker, with uncertainty over its sanction status and legality. The U.S. is increasingly aggressive, even targeting ships not explicitly on the Treasury sanctions list if their cargo is Venezuelan oil.
  • Nick Wadhams (Bloomberg National Security Team Lead) frames this as the Biden administration resurrecting a "maximum pressure" doctrine reminiscent of previous years.
  • The line between anti-drug efforts, regime-change ambitions, and economic policy is increasingly blurred, with limited transparency on the administration’s end goals.

• Memorable Quotes:

  • Nick Wadhams (01:49):
    "It is clear that the current status quo with the Venezuelan regime is intolerable for the United States ... our goal is to change that dynamic."
  • Nick Wadhams (02:50):
    "Anything that hinted of regime change or was regime change adjacent was verbiage people at the State Department didn’t want to say. … Now we have Kristi Noem on Fox saying 'Maduro has got to go.'”

• Legal Gray Zones and US Policy Shift

  • Wadhams explains the administration’s willingness to push the legal boundaries, focusing on sanctioning oil cargo instead of ship names—a strategy previously unthinkable.

• Chevron & Quarantine vs Blockade

  • Despite wider sanctions, Chevron maintains limited legal operations, thanks to special licenses, underlining the complexity of U.S. policy. White House insists on calling their action a "quarantine" rather than a "blockade" due to the implications under international law.
  • "It's called a quarantine, not a blockade, because a blockade is an act of war." — Nick Wadhams (05:19)

• Greenland as a Political Sideshow

  • Christina and Joe joke about the President’s revived interest in Greenland and the appointment of Louisiana’s governor as special envoy.
  • Nick: "Despite the unease ... the President has not forgotten [about Greenland], is going to keep pushing this issue." (07:06)

---

2. Domestic Policy: Government Shutdown, Tariff Chaos, and Congressional Gridlock

(Segment: 09:55–21:05)

• Looming Government Shutdown

  • Nathan Dean, Bloomberg’s Senior US Policy Analyst, assesses the risk of a shutdown at 30%, citing neither party wants blame going into an election year. The preferred maneuver is to “kick the can” with continuing resolutions (CRs).
  • "It's 2026, it's an election year. Neither party wants a shutdown in an election year." — Nathan Dean (12:02)

• Supreme Court and Tariff Refund ‘Chaos’

  • Potential for chaos if the Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs, creating major administrative and financial headaches for corporations and government (“refund chaos”).
  • “There’s really no way that a company can say, ‘give me $500 million’ … It’s going to be piecemeal, paper checks.” — Nathan Dean (14:17)

• Likelihood of Renewed Tariffs Before Elections

  • White House might “reinvestigate” and reimpose tariffs quickly before midterms if current ones are struck down—raising political and economic stakes.

• Congress in a Year of Electioneering

  • Dean predicts little substantive legislative progress:
    "2026 is a story about deregulation because the regulators live here. Congress? Forget Congress." (15:23)

• Deregulation & Crypto

  • Major deregulation expected in banking—estimates of $60 billion returned in capital to big banks. Cryptocurrency regulation advances predominantly through administrative agencies.

• Healthcare Legislative Roadblocks

  • Disagreement and thin majorities hamper health care reform, particularly around premiums and subsidies.
    "You’re playing with something that people see day in and day out. It's extremely difficult to get that done, especially in an election year." — Nathan Dean (19:47)

---

3. Data Centers, AI Race, and Energy/Infrastructure Bottlenecks

(Segment: 21:22–32:03)

• Massive Data Center Build-Out Drives Infrastructure Concern

  • Christina introduces Joseph Micah (CSIS) to discuss the exploding demand for data center capacity driven by the AI arms race and the implications for US energy supply.
  • Nick Wadhams: "It's the best of times, it's the worst of times. ... When we think about the build out that we expect to see over the next five years, that's going to continue to happen. All the challenges ... will only get worse." (23:52)

• Energy Bottlenecks: Power, Water, NIMBYism

  • Expansion is constrained by power availability, water use, community resistance. Off-grid solutions (onsite generation) are increasingly considered, especially for hyperscale centers.
  • Nuclear is mentioned (as a long-term solution) but most short-term growth relies on natural gas, solar, and batteries.
  • "For the next five years, the story is almost kind of written. It’s just how quickly can we do it." — Joseph Micah (26:41)

• AI Regulation Patchwork vs. Federalization

  • Debate on whether federal vs. state-by-state regulation will accelerate or slow the U.S. AI industry.
  • "Everybody agrees a federalized system would be better for diffusion than a patchwork ... The structure of the regulations is only half the battle." — Joseph Micah (30:14)

• Long-Term Electricity Demand Surge

  • Anticipation of much higher electricity demand over next 20 years due to AI, EVs, reshoring of manufacturing, and home electrification.
  • "We need a lot of electricity. It’s fundamental for our economic security and growth. ... Overbuilding is not a concern, even decades out." — Joseph Micah (29:52)

---

4. Epstein Files Release: Political and Legal Turmoil

(Segment: 33:12–44:31)

• Partial, Heavily Redacted Epstein Files Released

  • Christina and Joe dissect the major Friday document dump as the DOJ released a fraction of Epstein-related files, with swathes redacted and key indictments missing.
  • "The amount of redactions and the amount of material missing, material that people know should be in there ... all missing." — Jeannie Shan Zaino (36:14)

• Outrage, Political Maneuvering and Victims’ Rights

  • Bipartisan frustration over the pace and completeness of release; congressional calls for contempt charges against AG Pam Bondi; concerns about protecting victim identities.
  • The situation is a political headache for the White House, with continued public focus on the scandal distracting from policy messaging.
  • "It’s a total political mess for the White House ... Every day they're talking about Jeffrey Epstein, they're not talking about what they want to be." — Jeannie Shan Zaino (39:51)

• Panel Split Over Blame and Motives

  • Greta (Republican strategist) claims Democrats shoulder most blame (“the pictures of Trump don’t bother you?” — Ruffini); Jeannie points to historical failures of multiple administrations and prioritizes victim protection.

---

5. Brief Notes: Turning Points USA, Political Dynamics

(Segment: 44:31–end)

• Jeannie Shan Zaino gives a quick take on the Turning Points USA convention, spotlighting the challenge for leading figures like J.D. Vance to walk the primary tightrope and the ripple effects on intra-party dynamics.
• Christina: "Are the kids fighting, or is this an opportunity for Democrats—or are they going to mess it up again?" (44:06)

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Venezuela Policy
  "What we do know ... is going back to one of the terms that was famous ... 'maximum pressure.' And that really seems to be what it's about." — Nick Wadhams (03:38)
• On Legal Risks to Oil Companies
  "Is there a risk to those tankers? ... A lot of shippers just turning their tankers around because they don’t want to face those risks." — Nick Wadhams (05:19)
• On Tariff Refunds
  "Refund chaos is something companies should just be prepared for over the next couple quarters." — Nathan Dean (14:16)
• On Industrial Policy
  "Over the next 20 years, we expect to see significant electricity demand growth ... It’s fundamental for our economic security and growth." — Joseph Micah (29:07)
• On Epstein Files Release
  "By some accounts there is something like 500 gigabytes of material and about three have been released ... heavy, heavy redactions all to come." — Jeannie Shan Zaino (36:14)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• US–Venezuela Policy, Shadow Fleet, Tanker Seizures
  01:02–08:43
• Shutdown & Domestic Political Outlook, Tariff Litigation
  09:55–21:05
• AI Boom, Data Centers, Energy Crisis
  21:22–32:03
• Epstein Files Political Fallout
  33:12–44:31

---

Overall Tone and Takeaways

• Urgent, analytical, occasionally wry. The hosts blend rapid-fire policy analysis with sharp observations and the occasional pointed joke or aside.
• The episode lays bare the complexity, legal ambiguity, and sometimes political theater of contemporary US policy—both foreign (Venezuela) and domestic (shutdown, tariffs, AI, scandal management).
• Notable is the theme of underlying uncertainty: whether in administration strategy toward Venezuela, the unpredictable path of legislative dysfunction, or the practical realities of a digital/AI-driven industrial revolution.

---

Highly recommended for those looking to grasp the nuanced, often messy status quo at the intersection of U.S. foreign policy, economic regulation, and the domestic political climate at the close of 2025.

Transcript

[Joe]

Introducing the all new Adobe Acrobat studio, now with AI powered PDF spaces. Do more with PDFs than you ever thought possible. Need AI to turn 100 pages of market research into 5 insights with a click. Do that with Acrobat. Need templates for a sales proposal that'll close that deal. Do that with Acrobat. Need an AI specialist to tailor the tone of your market report to sound real smart in real time. Do that with the all new Adobe Acrobat Studio. Learn [e-mail] do that with Acrobat.

[Bloomberg Announcer]

Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio news. 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. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.

[Christina Ruffini]

It was an interesting weekend. Yeah. Do you know stand of the closing doors, please? Do you know that line? That's.

[Joe]

I do. I do know that there were a couple policy things that have happened over the last week. I'd like to stand clear of that. You know, we're following Venezuela and we've got another tanker maybe on the run, maybe it's empty. We're not quite sure what the rules are there. And Rubio was asked about this at his press conference on Friday. We were just talking about.

[Christina Ruffini]

Right.

[Joe]

Where does this policy go? What I'm trying to figure out is what the administration really wants from Venezuela.

[Christina Ruffini]

Well, it's a. It goes to a third tanker, apparently. We got. We nailed the second tanker over the weekend and then found a third that we're now chasing out of the Caribbean. They turned tail and ran. And I guess we've got eyes on this empty tanker right now that may or may not be presumed property of the new US Shadow fleet. Nick Wadhams is with us to talk about this. Listen to what the Secretary of State said. As Christine is referring. Here's Marco Rubio.

[Nick Wadhams]

It is clear that the current status quo with the Venezuelan regime is intolerable for the United States. The status quo that they operate and cooperate with terrorist organizations against the national interests of the United States. Not just cooperate, but partner with and participate in activities that threaten the national interests of the United States. So, yes, our goal is to change that dynamic. And that's why the president is doing what he's doing.

[Joe]

With us Is Nick Wadhams. Nick, your official title is Bloomberg U.S. national Security Team Lead, but you and I have worked together forever. And when we used to work for different networks at the State Department, I just referred to you as guys whose office I would run into when I didn't know what was going on and had questions to ask.

[Christina Ruffini]

Still has that.

[Nick Wadhams]

Thank you.

[Joe]

Yeah. So I got some more questions, Nick, what's going on here? Because for a long time, anything that hinted of regime change or was regime change adjacent was verbiage that people at the State Department, diplomats, Americans, really didn't want to say. Where is that ball moved?

[Nick Wadhams]

Well, I mean, you, your question at the very beginning of this, what's going on in Venezuela is still something we're all actually trying to figure out. I mean, the administration has moved very clearly. You had Kristi Noem today saying on Fox Maduro has got to go. So they have been very explicit that they see Maduro as an obstacle to Venezuela's future. Rubio in his press conference was very evasive on this issue, saying, you know, the situation is intolerable but not openly advocating for regime change. Kristi Noem takes it a step forward today, but we still don't really know the full strategy. So they're putting this pressure on these tankers. They're launching strikes on alleged narco traffickers coming from in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. But what is that strategy moving toward? Is it an anti drug effort? Is it a desire to boost Maduro from power? The administration has not said how it wants to get from point A to point B. What we do know, though now is going back to one of the terms that was famous from the time we worked together at the State Department, maximum pressure. And that really seems to be what it's about.

[Christina Ruffini]

We're showing some images right now of just a wealth of videotape that's coming out of the Caribbean of us boarding tankers, blowing up alleged drug boats. Nick, let's focus on the tankers for a minute because this third one kind of runs against the grain of the narrative last week and that we were pursuing sanctioned tankers. This one may be under a false flag, but is not on the list of sanctioned tankers. Can we legally take this thing?

[Nick Wadhams]

Well, I mean, this is the question we are all trying to figure out because this administration has been so aggressive in pushing the bounds of what is legal and what's not and what we would consider to have been totally unacceptable in a previous administration. What they're saying on this one is maybe it's not about the tanker, but it's about the oil. So we have so many sanctions on Venezuela, we can't get you on the tanker, the name of the tanker at being on some Treasury Department list. But we know its cargo is essentially something that Venezuela should not be allowed to trade in, so we're gonna go after it on those grounds. So many questions here about the legal boundaries and whether a reason like that would hold up in a court of law, but what you see from this administration is they don't care. They're doing it. And, you know, a real big question on where things go from there.

[Joe]

The other question I had is there are still legal oil tankers coming out of Venezuela. I mean, I was reading up to a fifth of Venezuelan oil is still processed in the United States. Chevron is still operating there in partnership with Pitt Vest, and a lot of places. Is there a risk to those tankers? If you were that company, would you want to put that oil on the water right now?

[Nick Wadhams]

Well, we have seen a lot of shippers just turning their tankers around because they don't want to face those risks. I mean, it is a sort of fascinating dynamic about this, that, yes, Chevron does have a general license that basically gives it not carte blanche, but they are allowed to do business because they have had, over the years, a lot of operations in Venezuela. And as you say, Venezuelan oil is really sour. It's really sludgy. It needs to be. It's hard to process. It needs to be refined. And the place where that has traditionally happened is in the US So they have kept that channel open through a series of licenses. So it's expected that those tankers would be allowed to pass through this quarantine. They're calling it a quarantine, not a blockade, because a blockade is an act of war. What we are seeing is that a lot of those other tankers are just turning around, are not willing to risk it.

[Christina Ruffini]

Yes, we take all these tankers to Greenland once we get them all together, because he's not. He's not letting go of the bit on Greenland. No, Nick. The president said last evening he's naming Jeff Landry, the governor of Louisiana, who's not from Greenland, to be his special envoy in this case because Landry, quote, understands how essential Greenland is to our national security. Presumably, Governor Landry read this on Truth Social and then issued his own statement saying, this in no way affects my position as governor of Louisiana.

[Nick Wadhams]

Right.

[Christina Ruffini]

Are we playing around here? Is this just something to distract us from another thing, or are we actually going to annex Greenland at some point?

[Nick Wadhams]

You know, I don't really believe very often in the distract us from another thing narrative on a lot of these. I think what you're Seeing, though, is an administration. You know, when, when Trump came back into office, there was a lot of talk about Greenland. It was really in the news.

[Christina Ruffini]

There was a lot of.

[Nick Wadhams]

With Denmark. J.D. vance Jr. Then it kind of faded away. And we all thought. And a lot of Republicans who were very uneasy with the President's desire to annex Greenland and the Panama Canal were, I think, sort of relieved that this had faded from the headlines. But what we're seeing here really is an indication that President Trump has not forgotten about Greenland. He wants Greenland, and he is going to keep pressuring this issue. So where this decision came from at this particular moment, we haven't figured it out yet. But what you can be sure of is that despite, despite the unease, the feeling of queasiness among Republicans about this, the President has not forgotten, is going to keep pushing this issue.

[Joe]

So I was actually in Greenland not too long ago, and they.

[Christina Ruffini]

What were you doing? There was this flight.

[Joe]

There is a new breaking news. There's a new direct flight from Newark. You can fly four hours, Newark to Greenland. It's amazing. So they're getting the first batch of American tourists. And they told me, first of all, the first couple planes did have a lot of MAGA folks who came off the plane with red hats and were walking around looking like they were picking out places to live. So now when you walk downtown in Greenland, they have shirts that essentially say Greenland for Greenlanders and a lot of, like, anti Trump posters. Yeah, but the irony is they said they would have liked the economic interest from the US Just maybe not at this level of takeover.

[Nick Wadhams]

I think the level of intensity has made a lot of people very uncomfortable.

[Christina Ruffini]

The EU weighed in on this, by the way, saying that it stands in full solidarity with Denmark and Greenland. So add this to the list of conversations. And what European.

[Nick Wadhams]

What Landry will do as the envoy is very much unclear. We've seen the President propose a lot of these envoys in the past, and then their job description is very unclear. So a lot of questions.

[Christina Ruffini]

The governor will never buy a drink in Greenland. I guess you can assume right now if he's confirmed. I don't think that's a confirmable position. Nick, thank you so much. Great to see Nick Wadhams and start things off here in the national security space. Stay with us on balance of power. We'll have much more coming up after this.

[Okta Advertiser]

These days, it seems like AI agents are just about everywhere you turn, every field and every function. But without identity, you can't trust they'll serve your business instead of jeopardizing it. Fortunately, Okta helps you get identity right by securing your AI agents identities, giving you a single layer of control, a single standard of trust. So whether an AI agent supports a single user or your entire enterprise, with Okta, you'll turn risk into opportunity. Secure every agent, secure any agent. Okta secures AI.

[Bloomberg Announcer]

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 Alexa, play Bloomberg 1130.

[Christina Ruffini]

Predicting the direction of crypto has left many people broke. Nathan Dean, of course, talks crypto with us by way of regulation, along with all the issues that are percolating here in Washington. Christina Ruffini, this is the man we talk to when we want to know what the folks outside of this studio are thinking, particularly terminal users. And right now one of the big question questions is we'll be able to fund the government when lawmakers come back or are we going to do this whole thing countdown to shut down again to the end of January?

[Joe]

I mean, that's not just a question for terminal users. That's a terminal question for anyone in Washington.

[Christina Ruffini]

See what you did?

[Joe]

Look at that. We got, you know, I got to keep up with you guys.

[Christina Ruffini]

It's perpetual for sure. And you know, Nathan, of course does this for a living as our senior US Policy analyst, known to some as America's dad. Did you win at flag football this week?

[Nathan Dean]

We lost in a two point last second, two point conversion. But everybody got two donuts afterwards.

[Christina Ruffini]

So they were, I was going to.

[Joe]

Say, Nathan, do you want him calling you America's dad?

[Greta]

Are we on board?

[Christina Ruffini]

100%. Absolutely.

[Joe]

I mean you were, were just talking to us about taking your kids to Disney World. So it does vaguely accurate, but.

[Nathan Dean]

All right, you know, I got to run with it.

[Christina Ruffini]

This, there's got to, is that called like the Japan theory or something? Nathan has uncovered a theory and has proven it that it's actually cheaper to take your kids to Disney Tokyo than it is to Disney Orlando.

[Nathan Dean]

Yeah, there was a meme and we're going to Disney in Florida. So I was like, you know, let's compare contrast.

[Christina Ruffini]

And I find that.

[Nathan Dean]

But there is a boom. There is a Bloomberg piece to this though. The Japanese yen did play into a part of that.

[Christina Ruffini]

So this is a currency story.

[Nathan Dean]

Had the yen actually been a little bit stronger than it would have been, closer to even. But you know, I had my monitor up and was looking at that.

[Christina Ruffini]

Now people are going to start calling you about this to get the plan because now they know they've got his number already. Everyone's going to come back after New Year's and be reminded that we just went over a cliff, right, a health care cliff, and there's no plan to fund the government past the end of January. Although I read that there was very quietly over the weekend, an important moment when the two approaches chairs got together and carved out top lines. Is there a chance that grownups actually engage when Congress comes back to D.C.

[Joe]

What'S the over under on a shutdown?

[Nathan Dean]

We think so. We're at a 30% chance of a shutdown and we're pretty low on that because, look, it's 2026, it's an election year. Neither party wants a shutdown in an election year. From the Republican perspective, they got largely the blame amongst independents for the this past shutdown. And so obviously they don't want to rock the boat there. And from the Democratic perspective, they had big wins in Virginia, New Jersey, Miami, New York City. They don't want to rock the boat there. And so it's easiest thing to do. As you both know from being in the city for a long time, the best thing for Congress to do in this situation is to kick the can. They'll kick the can again in this situation. And I don't think there's a shutdown.

[Joe]

As we come up on the new year and many of us will be sitting at home, possibly hungover. I was talking to you earlier about the Epstein hangover for the new year and what the repercussions of all of that will be. If it's going to resurface, if you think it's going to stay with us, how do you think that's going to impact Congress's ability to get things done?

[Nathan Dean]

Yeah, I mean, what we've told our clients is that, you know, the Epstein case in particular is really no investing angle to it, that we don't cover all that much. But for every day they talk about Epstein in January is not a day that President Trump's talking about affordability. If you go back to his speech from last week, it was all about trying to reset the narrative for next year's elections to try to get this back on affordability. And, you know, for everything that we're seeing in terms of the Epstein, you know, issue, it's going to return back. But for January, really the big things for us is the shutdown, which we are at a 30% chance and we also think the Supreme Court's going to come back and deny President Trump's IPA tariffs, which is something that we're just waiting for.

[Christina Ruffini]

Well, so I guess we bury the lead because no one's going to care about a shutdown or a CR if that happens. I think the words that Kevin Hassett used on CBS Face the Nation yesterday was we will have a major administrative problem if they're ordered to refund that money. You're saying it's going to happen. Is the refund necessarily part of a settlement?

[Nathan Dean]

So we're at a 60% chance that the Supreme Court's going to come back and say that these are unlawful. So we'll follow up on the trade court and the appeals court. But there's a little bit more discussion amongst our even in our internal team about whether or not the refunds will be a portion of it. Now, Bloomberg News is called this refund chaos, and I love that word because to the best of our knowledge, there's really no way that a company can say and say, give me $500 million.

[Christina Ruffini]

I've got a receipt.

[Nathan Dean]

It's got to be piecemeal, you know, individual line items. And also, we can't figure out there's a way that there's actually an electronic wire here. We're talking about paper checks. So refund chaos is something that companies should just be prepared for over the next couple of quarters. But the bigger question is, is that we will the Trump administration say, look, okay, we can't do I eat anymore? Let's go Back to section 232 or section 301, if you don't know what I'm talking about. Essentially, investigations take time. Takes three, four, five, six months. So it'll be easy for the White House to come back and say, okay, we're going to now launch an investigation. But the question is, and we're putting this in one of our black swan categories, is that will the Trump administration say, okay, we've launched this investigation and now we're going to reapply tariffs, say in June, July, August, months right before the midterm cycle, therefore, prices would go back up again? We're not exactly sure.

[Joe]

That's a hard place for the administration to be because on principle, if they lose, especially if they lose in this court, which has been very generous to them, they've got an optics problem, but they've also got an optics problem. They're raising prices right before an election. That's that could be tough for them.

[Nathan Dean]

And not to mention trade Deals that are essentially deals just on pieces of paper they haven't been ratified or anything like that. So then you get a geopolitical question here. So, you know, the main message that we've been telling to our clients about 2026 is that forget Congress. I hate saying that because I love Congress. But, you know, every day they're here in Washington next year, their component is campaigning against them back home. They don't want to be here. So 2026 is a story about deregulation because the regulators live here. They've got to do something. And it's about these tariffs. The question from the White House is, is that are they going to reinstitute these tariffs if the Supreme Court deems them unlawful like we think so, or are they going to have a political question of are we going to institute bad or, I'm sorry, policy that's unpopular with the American populace just months before the elections?

[Christina Ruffini]

You talk around the kids like that black swan event, second half of the year. No, Congress doesn't matter. This is a whole different side of Nathan Dean that said, could we have a full year? CR so Congress really doesn't matter?

[Nathan Dean]

I don't think so. I think, I think the appropriators, look, they want to get stuff done. I mean, they want to be relevant here. I mean, if there's one thing that we've seen over since President Trump has taken office is that the White House has really tried to claw back some of the authority on appropriations to the detriment of Congress. And I think both parties want to be able to say no. We, Congress, we are the appropriators. Let's get this back into our ball side of the court. You know, I do wouldn't rule out a short term cr, maybe just in March. But I think, you know, at the end of the day, I think both parties want to get something done to just least get us through the rest of the fiscal year.

[Joe]

And looking ahead, we were mentioning deregulation in passing. What are your deregulation greatest hits you see coming up next year?

[Nathan Dean]

So obviously the banking industry, I think, is the biggest one. You know, the banks have been writing a lot of sentiment since the election on deregulation. Now it's actually happening. We had a proposal that was finalized right before Thanksgiving that's going to return about $13 billion in capital to the big banks. There's two more proposals that are coming out the first half of next year, maybe probably in the first quarter. We estimate back in the napkin math that you're going to bet around $60 billion in return capital to the bank of America's and the JP Morgan's of the world cryptocurrency. Even though there's this debate in Congress about a crypto bill, the regulators are still moving forward. The FDIC just launched its new proposal on stablecoin implementation. There's probably another one on that will lead to higher institutional usage. And just like JP Morgan announced this morning that they're thinking about getting into institutionalized crypto, the combination of regulation plus Congress next year on crypto is essentially creating this regulatory framework that just both banks and non banks are going to want to play in.

[Christina Ruffini]

You know, you start talking about the next steps here in Congress. Jodi Arrington was speaking very confidently on the program last week about another reconciliation plan. If Congress is going to be that ineffective next year, is that even possible? He thought that even flagged that as a potential to solve the health care standoff.

[Nathan Dean]

Oh, I mean, Senator Lindsey Graham over the weekend said we're going to go for it on health care. But I go back to the question.

[Christina Ruffini]

Talking a big game.

[Nathan Dean]

If it was easy, they would have already done it, you know, in reconciliation 1.0. And I'm not saying they can't. I'm just saying is, is that, you know, we have to look at the scope of what this reconciliation bill would look like. There's also been talk about potentially Giving President Trump AIPA authority through this reconciliation bill, the $2,000 check. You know, there's a lot of different ideas that are flowing around right now. Back in early 2025, they called this too big, too beautiful. I'm not sure if they're still sticking with that. But I will say Congress could give.

[Christina Ruffini]

Him a authority that's, you know, that's, well, essential parliamentarian going to do with that.

[Nathan Dean]

Well, that's it. You know, there's been discussions about if the Supreme Court doesn't give you a authority, Congress is, has largely delegated tariff authority to the president. They didn't claw that back. And so if Congress just were to say, look, we will give this authority to you all subject to the parliamentary office. So, you know, but what we're saying to our clients is, is that lots of headlines are going to be floating around. Every lobbyist, every lawmaker is going to say, hey, what if we can do this? What if we can do that? But then ultimately they're going to be hit with the idea that there's an extremely thin margin in the House. If it was easy, they would have already done it. So we're either saying no reconciliation bill or very, very small scoped reconciliation bill. With determined issues to be determined, what.

[Joe]

Are the major stumbling blocks still on health care? Because you are starting to hear some of the same things on the right and the left. They just don't seem to be able to get it together on so many levels. But are any of them surmountable or to your point, do you think this is just going to be an enduring battle that we have all the way down to the midterms?

[Nathan Dean]

So there's two issues. When you have the subsidies argument now, the subsidies argument, it's essentially people get subsidies right now and then subsidies are going to go away. Premiums, you know, we've, we've heard anecdotally, you know, $1,000 in premiums going up to 4,000. That's not easy for somebody to come in and say that, look, we support that as a policy, which is why a lot of these moderate Republicans have been trying to use discharge petitions to get that through. The second one is just the replacement on trying to get Obamacare or at least from the Republican angle, trying to shift us a little bit more into the private sector. But again, you're playing with something that people actually see day in and day out. And so it's extremely difficult to get that done, especially in an election year, especially just months before the midterms when a lot of the politicians are going to say, no, no, let's try and kick the can on this. We just want to not rock the boat.

[Christina Ruffini]

You got a podcast up today?

[Nathan Dean]

Not this week.

[Christina Ruffini]

We're all 2026 after 2026, so don't be disappointed. But you'll hear him on this podcast, which is is why things all come together on a Monday. Nathan Dean, many thanks as always. If they get donuts when they lose, what do they get when they win?

[Nathan Dean]

More donuts.

[Christina Ruffini]

Really? I thought you're going to say ribeyes something. Chicago boy. Thank you, Nathan, as always. Merry Christmas. This is Bloomberg. Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this.

[Bloomberg Announcer]

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Andro Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.

[Christina Ruffini]

President, of course, has done a lot of talking about AI when it comes specifically to regulations, the competition between national or federal regulations and state regs as well the need for clean, uninterruptible power. This is something that we have heard about quite a bit from the President of the United States in this case back in August.

[Okta Advertiser]

Listen.

[Nathan Dean]

Because of the genius and creativity of Silicon Valley and it is incredible, incredible genius. Without question the most brilliant place anywhere on earth. America is the country that started the AI race. And as President of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it.

[Christina Ruffini]

God knows the administration has put its chips on the AI story. The AI spend the AI race. And this bit of news from Reuters about Nvidia finally putting up H2 hundreds to China certainly has investors in a good mood. It's got the shares of Nvidia moving higher here, up a little more than 1%, but the whole space is moving higher along with all of the Mag 7. Well, with the exception of Apple today. But that's not so much an AI story. This brings us to the broader conversation about the data center build out. And if you just get on the terminal or get online, go to whatever site is, search data center and tell me what kind of headlines you see. They'll talk about NIMBYism, they'll talk about the need for energy, they'll talk about power and electricity rates going up, and they'll talk about the regulations that we just mentioned. That's why we wanted to spend some time with Joseph Micah, director of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at csis, the center for Strategic and International Studies, the home of Gregory Allen, who's had some great conversations with us here about AI. And I've been looking forward to this one with Joseph. It's great to see you. Welcome to Bloomberg TV and Radio.

[Nick Wadhams]

Hey, thank you for having me.

[Christina Ruffini]

A real pleasure. Everyone's got a different complaint, it seems at the moment, about Data Center. It went from a story of inspiration over the summer. By the time Jensen Huang got here for the big GTC conference in Washington, we couldn't say enough about how early the innings were that we were in. Now there's a big worry about, boy, we're bumping our heads against the ceiling on energy capacity, on NIMBYism, on just available ground, and of course, the fight over regulations. We'll start more broad here, if you would. When you see a story like this and stocks are popping up again, where are we in this race?

[Nick Wadhams]

You know, I think it's a little bit like A Tale of Two Cities. It's the best of times, it's the worst of times.

[Christina Ruffini]

Wow.

[Nick Wadhams]

Looking back at 2025, it's been a remarkable year of continued acceleration. You know, industry reports released A couple weeks ago showed that hyperscalers signed contracts for new data centers as large in Q3 of this year as they did in 2024 altogether. When we think about the build out that we expect to see over the next five years, that's going to continue to happen. All of the challenges that you raise, power availability, water use, a general sense that society's not getting the benefits, benefits of the data center build out, those are going to almost probably get worse over that whole acceleration period rather than better.

[Christina Ruffini]

That's really interesting because you point water use is another one. A lot of people are just hearing about these data centers. If you live in Northern Virginia, outside of Washington, that's been your reality for a while. But somebody comes to your neighborhood, they want to put up a data center and they say, well, you're going to take my water away and you're going to make my electricity rates go up. And so it's, it's started a conversation about what can these data centers and these projects do on their own off grid and will that be the answer to all of them?

[Nick Wadhams]

It won't be the answer for all of them, but it'll be a big part of the answer, particularly I think for the big ones.

[Christina Ruffini]

Yeah.

[Nick Wadhams]

So let's say you want to build a really large data center, right. You have to spend a lot of money on the chips. You have to spend a lot of time and effort to get the right software and data in place. And one of the things we're seeing develop in the industry is so they look at these large sort of gigawatt scale facilities is you need to probably bring your own power. And then the real question to you for you as a developer is can you build the right mix that's going to be reliable and how much do you trust your, your on site generation for providing those, those chips with power? All the time? 24, 7.

[Christina Ruffini]

Yeah.

[Nick Wadhams]

Because you want to be running them, they're so expensive. You want to be running them as much as you can.

[Okta Advertiser]

Sure.

[Nick Wadhams]

And that's where we're seeing a lot of really interesting policy development between regulators and developers so that developers can bring their own power, build quickly, not burden everybody else, but also rely on the grid when they need to.

[Christina Ruffini]

Really interesting this talk of nuclear. I think for many people who sent stocks like OKLO and Constellation to record highs this year, they're starting to come down and hold on guys, this is maybe a five or ten years out story. We're not building a lot of new nuclear power plants. You specialize in energy And I'm just curious specifically how you look at the, this space now and if we're really telling a natural gas story for, for the next several years.

[Nick Wadhams]

I think the story breaks down into two time frames, Joe. Over the next few years we have to use what's right in front of us. And that's going to be a mixture of natural gas, solar power, increasingly batteries, a big surprise over the past year and really strong outlook for next year. And then of course you've read the stories about the few nuclear reactors that are sort of constructed, recently retired, can be restarted.

[Okta Advertiser]

Sure.

[Nick Wadhams]

But you know, we don't have a dozen of those laying around. It's really two or three projects post 2030. That's really where I think the sort of new nuclear technologies could come online, where even older technologies, the large nuclear reactors that we built much of the industrial capacity of the late 20th century upon, could be back on the grid, coming back onto the grid. And then of course there's questions around, you know, how much natural gas are we need building in the 2030s, what are the price pressures there for that for the next five years? The story is almost kind of written. It's just how quickly can we do it? And after that then we get into sort of policy and strategic thinking around energy sources.

[Christina Ruffini]

I want to ask you about regulation, but with regard to power. As you see Michael Burry, the guy from the big short who's been shorting in video and really questioning this I spend, which he says is a circular investing destined to fail. He's specifically calling out in video today for what he refers to as power hungry microchips over alternatives, questioning the longevity of say a Blackwell or a Rubin. And it's give and take deals and compensation. The more efficient these chips get, the less power they'll need in a data center. Could we be in a situation where we were overbuilding or overlaying fiber, for instance, a lot of years ago, where we're designing these data centers for this massive intake of power when at some point they're going to be in a box.

[Nick Wadhams]

I think there's two ways to look at that question, whether you're looking at it from the firm level or from the sort of societal level. You know, in our modeling we incorporated significant efficiency gains in the accelerated chips necessary.

[Christina Ruffini]

So that's already part of your view.

[Nick Wadhams]

We already see 90 gigawatts of data center demand in the US by 2030 for AI alone. That leave alone traditional web services. That's a medium to upper end estimate. When you look across the range of consulting firms and industry specialists. So efficiency doesn't get you out of the need to build a lot of new data centers. Now it could be like, for a variety of reasons, we don't end up needing all that capacity. Sure, maybe it's a bubble, something like that.

[Christina Ruffini]

If you build a trillion dollars.

[Nick Wadhams]

So say you built a lot of electricity generation capacity, society can absorb that capacity.

[Christina Ruffini]

Okay.

[Nick Wadhams]

Data centers are the big story right now. There's a lot of market correction and adjustment happening because this is just a tidal wave of new demand.

[Greta]

Right.

[Nick Wadhams]

But if you look at the next 20 years, we expect to see significant electricity demand growth in the United States for a variety of reasons. You've got reshoring of manufacturing chip fabs. Take 500 megawatts to a gigawatt themselves. Wow. You've got electrification of the light passenger duty fleet. You've got electrification of homes and businesses, and you've just got economic growth. You know, the story of the last 15 years in energy and electricity for the United States was one of plenty of new supply and major efficiency gains, mostly because of LED lighting over the next 20 years. We need a lot of electricity. It's fundamental for our economic security and growth. And so. So I'm very sanguine about the risks.

[Okta Advertiser]

Interesting.

[Nick Wadhams]

Overbuilding can have too much. It sounds like over the next couple.

[Christina Ruffini]

Decades, the EO that President Trump signed recently on a federal landscape for AI regulations versus each state having its own and creating a patchwork here. And he says if you're in video, you just can't do business easily enough. It slows things down to the point that we'll lose. Lose the AI race. Is he right?

[Nick Wadhams]

I think that everybody, when you talk to. I talk to my colleagues at csis, you talk to people here in town, everybody agrees that a federalized system would be better for diffusion than a patchwork. What does that federalized system look like? So political.

[Christina Ruffini]

You still have to write that, don't they?

[Nick Wadhams]

Yeah, of course. And I think there are big debates about how do you incorporate safety, how do you deal with minors, how do you deal with privacy. And, you know, whether you're a federalist or you look at federal or federal authority as being the key here. We still don't need to get over these big political debates. The structure of the regulations is only half the battle.

[Christina Ruffini]

The content side is of course, one thing, and we can talk about whether AI is eventually going to eat us alive. But in terms of the data center build out, having a federal policy would hasten the end of this race, would it not?

[Nathan Dean]

Sure.

[Nick Wadhams]

And we've seen from the Department of Energy in particular, a real effort to use federal authority to help speed the build out. On the on the electricity side, they've made significant investments in nuclear power to help deal with the sort of sustainable growth of the industry in years forward. But they've also looked to change the way regulations apply to large loads like new data centers, sort of federalizing the way that works. That's traditionally a state responsibility. There's an ongoing case at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the federal body in charge of the electricity grid, to figure out how to do that. Yeah, right. And there again, there's some political debates. You know who, you know who needs to pay for grid upgrades when you're building new data centers. But FERC's in a good position, I think, to resolve a lot of those things and make sure that the best models are used nationally.

[Christina Ruffini]

Really interesting. This has been a fascinating conversation. That build out still has another five years is the first point you made. That's right.

[Nick Wadhams]

If you're in a second industrial revolution.

[Christina Ruffini]

It might be 25 fast, it might be 25 years. That sounds like second inning. I don't know, Joseph. Don't be a stranger, Joseph. My cut CS is great conversation. Thank you for the insights. Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this.

[Okta Advertiser]

These days it seems like AI agents are just about everywhere you turn, every field and every function. But without identity, you can't trust they'll serve your business instead of jeopardizing it. Fortunately, Okta helps you get identity right by securing your AI agents identities, giving you a single layer of control, a single standard of trust. So whether an AI agent supports a single user or your entire enterprise, with Okta you'll turn risk into opportunity. Secure every agent, Secure any agent. Okta secures AI.

[Bloomberg Announcer]

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 Alexa.

[Christina Ruffini]

Play Bloomberg 11:30 was this time on Friday. We were anticipating the release of the Epstein files. They hit right before the late edition of Balance of Power on Friday and boy, that was quite a doozy of a conversation. They were coming out in real time with massive redactions. We were scrolling through them live on the air, blank page after blank page. And of course, this is not the full lot. Todd Blanch, the Deputy ag, suggesting that there are Hundreds of thousands. And they will continue to be released in the weeks ahead.

[Nick Wadhams]

Right.

[Joe]

I mean, obviously they were all supposed to be released on Friday, but as we discussed leading up to that, because we were getting signals from the AG's office that wasn't going to happen.

[Christina Ruffini]

Right.

[Joe]

There really is no enforcement mechanism for that. So they've released some and they're going to release more. And who knows, somebody online was joking. The Department of Justice mixed up their highlighter with their Sharpie because so much was redacted. It was just black.

[Christina Ruffini]

To see full black pages was. Was startling. And of course, look, there's a lot of sensitive information here. And of course they're looking to protect, as we learned for the first time Friday, 1200 victims. That's how many names were unearthed from these files. And as a result, about a half dozen photos were taken off of the server over the weekend. One of them included a photograph of Donald Trump. And so there was an immediate outcry of conspiracy. Those were, in some cases were reinstated. But we're hearing from the lawmakers, Christina, and we've talked to both of them here recently who were on the discharge petition, the Democrat, Ro Khanna, the Republican, Tom Massie. They want to hold the attorney general in contempt.

[Joe]

I mean, I think that's interesting. Well, we'll see if it happens or not. But the problem with this issue is there are so many eyes on it that something like that photo you were just talking about, which was a drawer with a bunch of picture frames, and then it looks like it might have had a familiar face in there, and all of a sudden it was up and it was down. You've got too many people too invested in this to really get away with that kind of thing because people notice it and they notice that it went away. So all eyes are on it. And as we were just talking about with Nathan, we're going have to see how much this plays for the next year because although it was a big deal on Friday, it then kind of fizzled. I'm not sure it got as much coverage, as much pickup as we were expecting, and I'm not quite sure that's.

[Christina Ruffini]

In terms of public reaction. That's fair. Now, as we mentioned, there's going to be a resolution in the Senate, Chuck Schumer introducing today, that would direct the chamber to initiate legal actions against the DOJ for what he calls blatant disregard of the law. Massie and Kana, who I mentioned, say they're considering bringing inherent contempt charges against Pam Bondi. Let's see what our panel thinks today. Bloomberg Politics contributor Jeannie Shan Zaino is with us, of course, our Democratic analyst and democracy visiting fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center. We're joined as well by Republican strategist Greta joins policy director at Brownstein Hyatt. It's great to see you both. Jeannie, you've had the weekend to consider this and I know you were with us, of course, late Friday when these files emerged. What's your thought about what is left? We could be getting document dumps any moment now and we could continue right into the new year and they may show us a lot more than Bill Clinton. What should we have in mind here as this process unfolds?

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

Yeah, they absolutely might. By some accounts, there is something like 500 gigabytes of material and about three have been released. So there is a lot more to go. Percentage wise, the amount of redactions and the amount of material missing, material that people know should be in there, including the original 60 count indictment against Jeffrey Epstein and then the memorandum as to why he was only charged with two counts in the end, all missing. And of course, as we talked about heavy, heavy redactions all to come. So people are very frustrated with the amount of material missing and the redactions. But there was some material released on Friday which is utterly horrifying, including for the first time we see the document from Maria farmer to the FBI, September 3, 1996, charging Jeffrey Epstein with pornography. He is not even investigated really for another decade and worth 30 years after that. So when we talk about the entire federal government, starting with the FBI falling down on this, that is a horrifying example. And to your point, Joe, 1200 potential victims, if not more. So a lot of material released and tons yet to come.

[Joe]

And, Greta, those 1200 victims, the government has said, and possibly there's a point here, and I want to ask you what you think that one of the reasons they're not able to release everything, the reason it's taking so long is they do need to comb those files and make sure they're not inadvertently divulging the identity of victims. This is something the victims families, the victims themselves have been very outspoken about, that there have been, you know, releases in the past that have compromised their identities. But you have that weighed with this feeling even from, as Joe was just saying, some Republicans on the committee, that the AG is not doing what it needs to do. So what is your take on that? And do you think Pam Bondi could really have congressional action taken against her?

[Greta]

No. And let's be clear, it's one Republican on the committee. It's not the majority of Republicans on the committee. So I think that there is a lot of focus, obviously, on these documents. I think there should be a lot of focus how Bill Clinton is throughout. And I think that narrative is sort of lost. Right. You know, there is, there's been a number of opportunities for the FBI to release these documents since they first started combing through the various things that Jeffrey Epstein was and should have been charged with. And so ultimately, it is a little interesting that now, ultimately, Pam Bondi is the only one that could possibly release these documents over the course of the years and trying to play catch up and comb through these, which were very much hidden when President Trump was sworn into office this time, and ultimately make sure that they are releasing them in a proactive, but also a way that protects victims and also people who are caught up in these documents who literally did nothing wrong and don't want to be associated with someone like Jeffrey Epstein.

[Christina Ruffini]

Well, I think the point is there's a law now, though, right, Jeannie? It mandated the release of these files by Friday. The administration did not meet the deadline and also did not meet the requirement that there would be a searchable database. So there is some accountability here for the attorney general? No.

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

There is. I mean, yes. Oh, sorry.

[Christina Ruffini]

Sorry, Jeannie first and then. Greta, go ahead.

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

Yeah, the Epstein Files Transparency act. And you know, they had 30 days. And so if any of us are under the requirement of a law that requires 30 days, Todd Blanche went out this weekend and said, well, we had 200 lawyers working through this, you know. Absolutely. But if they weren't going to get through it in 30 days, given it's a law, they had to get maybe 200 more lawyers. Do we know what's going to happen in terms of the attorney general? Absolutely not. We're hearing things from Ro Khanna, we're hearing things from Tom Massie. I'm not sure that they'll get bipartisan support to take any action on any of this, but the reality is, is that this is a total political mess for the White House. When Susie Wilde says Pam Bondi with the entire White House has whiffed on this and continues to, because every day they're talking about Jeffrey Epstein, they're not talking about what they want to be. And so this is a problem for the White House politically. And of course, back to my consistent message for the victims and survivors as.

[Joe]

Well, Greta, I don't know if you wanted to go ahead with what you're going to say earlier, I also want to ask you, I mean, to that point, point, the White House knows that this is an issue that Democrats can go after them about ahead of the midterms leading up to all of these things they're trying to get done. Why not do better? Why not put more pressure on the AG to get this done so they can get it off their plate and move on with their agenda?

[Greta]

Well, I think that they are doing the absolute best they can. I don't know where one would Procure an additional 200 lawyers to comb through Jeffrey Epstein documents in a way that ultimately was serving the best interests of the victims and of the other people that are mentioned in these files while also providing the transparency that Democrats have failed to provide since Bill Clinton was in office and started flying around on the Lolita express with Jeffrey Epstein. So I think there's a lot of catch up. 30days is an incredibly short period of time to go through that many documents in a way that is responsible ultimately. I'm sure that Democrats would love to just release everything so they could ultimately try to find more victims that they could use as talking points for this narrative that they continue to push when they literally have decades of failing to do anything about this.

[Christina Ruffini]

So you really seem to think this is a Democrat issue, Greta, am I reading you right? This is the Epstein thing is a Democrat story?

[Greta]

Well, I think ultimately there is one president who is caught in, in the Epstein files so far potentially partially nude with victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So, you know, I mean, I think that that is certainly pretty newsy. But ultimately I do think the pictures.

[Christina Ruffini]

Of Trump don't bother you.

[Greta]

Is he in a hot tub with any of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein?

[Christina Ruffini]

Well, no, but you didn't make that the criteria. You said there's only one president who's, who's photographed in the files. And we've seen a lot of pictures of Trump floating around.

[Greta]

I said we're not even through half of these yet of the president.

[Christina Ruffini]

Well, he's the president's. The president who is in office now is in photographs with multiple redacted women. We don't know who they are, do we?

[Greta]

Well, there it's Democrats who've redacted some of those photos. And then there are other potential women.

[Christina Ruffini]

This Department of Justice.

[Greta]

Yeah, right. Let me finish my thought. What I was saying was that certainly there are pictures that have been released by the attorney general who is serving President Trump in previous administrations, Democratic administrations, they have released nothing. So ultimately, whether these were compelled by law or by not those, those pictures of the president were not redacted. They were released. And while there are certainly redactions which were to be expected as per the law that President Trump signed, there is certainly been a ton release and there is more to be released and it will be done in a way that is responsible and keeping the victims top of mind.

[Joe]

Before we go, we don't have a ton of time, but Ginny, I want to ask you if you've been keeping your eye on the Turning Points USA convention out in Arizona and some of the sound. Do we have time to play the sound or no. We're just going to ask you if what you're thinking about what's going on about there, you know, you've got Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, you've got all kind. I mean, are the kids fighting? Is this an opportunity for Democrats or are, you know, they're going to mess it up again?

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

Well, of course I had to follow Christina because Nicki Minaj was there. So she was the special guest. Absolutely. And yeah, I think the most interesting thing was J.D. vance trying to walk this tightrope. And it's going to be curious to me. I know we're short on time. It's going to be curious to me as the leading contender for the Republican nomination, early as it is, can he keep up walking that tightrope as we go forward or is he going to be forced to pull aside? And I think that's going to be the big question. And Vivek Ramaswamy, he did take a side, which was interesting.

[Christina Ruffini]

We're going to get in to our next hour with our panel on Geopolitics, Christina Raffini and Joe Matthew, this is Bloomberg. 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 [e-mail].

[Okta Advertiser]

These days it seems like AI agents are just about everywhere you turn every field and every function. But without identity, you can't trust they'll serve your business instead of jeopardizing it. Fortunately, Okta helps you get identity right by securing your AI agents identities, giving you a single layer of control, a single standard of trust. So whether an AI agent supports a single user or your entire enterprise, with Okta you'll turn risk into opportunity. Secure every agent, secure any agent. Okta secures AI.

[Christina Ruffini]

We buy insurance for peace of mind, but every year millions of claims are denied, not because people did anything wrong, but because their policies quietly excluded what happened. Insurers know every detail. Policyholders rarely do. That's why my policy advocate exists for just 27 cents a day. Their platform reads your policies and explains where you are vulnerable. They don't sell insurance. They deliver transparency. Before you trust your policy to protect you, let my policy advocate tell you what it really says. Go to mypolicyadvocate.com.