Zelenskiy Says Russia Is Stalling, Oil Spikes as Iran Risks Return to Markets

Summary

Podcast Summary: Balance of Power

Episode: Zelenskiy Says Russia Is Stalling, Oil Spikes as Iran Risks Return to Markets
Date: February 18, 2026
Host(s): Joe Matthew & Kailey Leinz (Bloomberg), with Christina Ruffini, William Taylor, Matthew Miller, Sarah Chamberlain, and Kristen Hahn

---

Overview

This episode unravels three urgent power struggles driving global and domestic headlines:

• High-stakes U.S. diplomacy and military build-up amid nuclear tensions with Iran
• Russia-Ukraine negotiation deadlocks and President Zelensky’s plea for firmer U.S. support
• The Washington battle over the Homeland Security shutdown, with ICE reforms at the center
  Additionally, the program examines how a possible Democratic Congressional majority could reshape corporate oversight and Trump-era investigations.

The tone throughout is direct, analytical, and urgent, reflecting a moment of political stalemate and strategic uncertainty both at home and abroad.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. U.S.-Iran Tensions and Oil Market Volatility

Main Topics:

• Deployment of extensive U.S. military assets in the Middle East
• President Trump signaling openness to military force while pursuing a diplomatic deal with Iran
• Oil prices surge (+4%) on speculation of action against Iran

Insights:

• Significant uptick in U.S. military presence: two carrier strike groups, dozens of fighter jets, AWACS, and refueling planes ([02:10]).
• Both Republican and Democratic leaders express unease, prioritizing diplomatic over military solutions, but the administration is “gearing up for something” ([03:15]).
• Skepticism about the “two-week ultimatum” for Iran negotiations—seen as either genuine or a pretext for potential kinetic action helpful to certain U.S. allies (notably Israel).

Notable Quotes:

“One of the theories is the President is bullish… coming off of a fairly successful maneuver… but Iran is not Venezuela.”
– Christina Ruffini ([03:15])

“The US is saying to Iran: you’ve got two weeks to come back with a better plan. The question is, do they mean that, or is that lip service so they can say, ‘we tried, now we’re taking kinetic action’?”
– Christina Ruffini ([03:55])

---

2. Russia-Ukraine Talks: Gridlock and Strategic Stalling

Main Topics:

• Russia accused by President Zelensky of dragging out negotiations, leveraging U.S. focus on optics
• Zelensky appeals for stronger U.S. backing, notably from President Trump
• Russia’s patience strategy: wearing down exhausted Ukrainian forces

Insights:

• Negotiations are largely performative for Russia, aimed at placating Washington rather than Kyiv ([04:49]).
• The U.S. is seen as pivotal in pressuring Russia, but currently is unwilling to escalate decisively.
• Stalemate persists: Ukraine insists on full sovereignty and no territorial concessions; Russia seeks control or capitulation.

Notable Quotes:

“Russia is not negotiating for optics with Ukraine. The person Russia is trying to get to do things in that room is the U.S.”
– Christina Ruffini ([04:49])

“Putin thinks that this grind will eventually allow him to win… that the Ukrainians will someday give up. They won’t. He thinks someday the Europeans will back away from Ukraine. They’re not.”
– William Taylor ([07:43])

Timestamps:

• U.S. diplomatic and military strategy: [02:10] – [04:20]
• Russia-Ukraine negotiation dynamics: [04:49] – [11:56]
• Sticking points & pressure mechanisms: [08:40] (sanctions, support for Ukraine)

---

3. Diplomatic Outsiders: Kushner & Witkoff's Roles in Negotiations

Main Topics:

• Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff act as Trump’s envoys on both Iran and Ukraine talks
• Concerns over lack of formal diplomatic experience and potential credibility due to close ties to the President

Insights:

• While their “connection to the one man who’s making the decision” might grant leverage, there’s worry about inadequate backup from traditional State Department staff ([12:30]).
• Russians and Iranians mockingly refer to Kushner and Witkoff by local words for “son-in-law,” reflecting their status as presidential family allies ([11:56]).

Notable Quotes:

“What brings leverage is connection to the one man who’s making the decision… This gives them credibility, more than lower-level diplomats.”
– William Taylor ([12:30])

---

4. The Domestic Front: Homeland Security Shutdown & ICE Reforms

Main Topics:

• Partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) due to disputes over ICE reforms
• Both Democrats and Republicans entrenched, each claiming to have “moved” and to be “winning” ([17:20])

Insights:

• Democrats demand de-masking and judicial warrants for ICE agents; Republicans call these nonstarters but highlight other offered reforms ([17:51], [20:19]).
• As shutdown drags on, pressure grows on moderates and party leadership to avoid blame or cede core policy demands.

Notable Quotes:

“Both sides think that they’ve moved and they’re waiting for the other to go further. Both think they’re winning. And you know how dangerous that can be.”
– Joe Matthew ([17:20])

“They [Republicans] want to prevent [agents’ families from being targeted]. But we’ve come a long way. We’ve pulled them out of Minnesota, we’ve agreed to cameras… ICE agents are being funded, it is FEMA, Coast Guard, and TSA that’s really paying the price.”
– Sarah Chamberlain ([20:19])

---

5. Looming Oversight Blitz: Corporate America Faces a Democratic Congress?

Main Topics:

• Warned Democratic oversight could sharply increase if Democrats retake Congress, focusing aggressively on corporate cooperation with the Trump White House ([28:51]–[36:01])
• Subpoenas likely to target companies for transactions, involvement in Trump business (crypto, media, energy deals, etc.)

Insights:

• After past White House stonewalling, Democrats are expected to subpoena not just government but companies directly to gain leverage and bypass executive privilege ([32:46]).
• Reputational risk for corporations will be the immediate consequence, not only potential legal fallout ([34:55]).

Notable Quotes:

“If they want to actually get documents, it doesn’t make sense to send a subpoena to the White House where you might get documents in three years… when you can send it to a company and get documents and just go to the other side of the transaction.”
– Matthew Miller ([32:47])

“The process of turning over documents… can be hugely embarrassing. And unlike when you turn over documents to the executive branch… Congress has no incentive to [keep them private].”
– Matthew Miller ([34:55])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• U.S.-Iran escalation, oil prices, talks – [00:55]–[04:20]
• Russia-Ukraine talks and U.S. role – [04:20]–[11:56]
• Kushner, Witkoff as negotiators – [11:56]–[14:49]
• Munich Security Conference, Rubio’s messaging – [14:49]–[15:27]
• Homeland Security shutdown & ICE disputes – [16:36]–[23:31]
• Electoral implications, affordability, messaging – [23:31]–[27:53]
• Democratic oversight warning, corporate subpoenas – [28:51]–[39:52]
• Concerns over unofficial diplomacy, lack of readouts – [37:31]–[39:52]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• “When you have these big guns, you tend to want to use them. And people are getting really nervous about this.”
  – Christina Ruffini ([03:15])

• “There are two opposite views… The Ukrainians want to be a country. The Russians want them to surrender. There’s no middle ground there.”
  – William Taylor ([06:53])

• “If President Trump thinks he can lean on the Ukrainians as the victims, that’s not a win… That would be a loss.”
  – William Taylor ([10:05])

• “This gives them [Kushner/Witkoff] credibility… more credibility than lower level diplomats would certainly have.”
  – William Taylor ([12:35])

• “You always see companies contribute to various projects over time… but Democrats are very aware of the experience they had in 2019 and 2020… you saw them launch major investigations… and all of those investigations met with a stonewall.”
  – Matthew Miller ([30:33])

• “What Democrats believe is that corporate America has behaved as if there’s never going to be a change in power.”
  – Matthew Miller ([34:40])

---

Summary for Non-Listeners

This episode provides a comprehensive, fast-paced analysis of critical national security and political battles—the Iran nuclear standoff and oil spikes, the deadlocked Russia-Ukraine negotiations, and the potential consequences of a shift in party control in Congress for American corporations. The podcast blends field reporting, expert interviews, and seasoned analysis to spotlight how U.S. power is exercised, challenged, and contested.

Listeners are left with a sense of deep uncertainty: diplomatic and military levers appear both overextended and under-supported, negotiations drag on while humanitarian and political tolls mount, and stateside, lawmakers remain deadlocked with escalating consequences for federal workers and the electorate.

The balance of power, at home and abroad, hangs in the balance—awaiting decisive action, real compromise, or perhaps the next shoe to drop.

Transcript

[Joe Matthew]

At Oppenheimer, we're proven because we're grounded in discipline. For 145 years, we've been building and.

[Matthew Miller]

Protecting wealth through every market cycle with precision, clarity and the courage to think.

[Christina Ruffini]

Boldly beyond the moment.

[Joe Matthew]

This is what market tested legacy looks like for this generation and the next.

[Christina Ruffini]

Put the power of Oppenheimer thinking to work for you.

[Joe Matthew]

Wealth Management Capital Markets Investment Banking.

[Bloomberg Host]

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.

[Kailey Leinz]

I'm Kailey Leinz alongside Joe Matthew here in Washington, where we are laser focused on what happening in the Middle east in terms of the deployment of US Military assets to the region as President Trump is, yes, pushing for a deal on Iran's nuclear program, but also is warning at least sending signals that use of force is certainly not off the table at this time. The question, of course, for markets, as we're seeing a move higher in oil today of more than 4% on both Brent and WTI, is how real, realistically close could we be to another potential attack on Iran, knowing we just saw one of these back in June on Iran's nuclear program? Specifically, we asked this question to a member of the House Intelligence Committee on balance of power yesterday evening. Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamurthy was with us and this is what he told us.

[Matthew Miller]

I'm concerned that we're going to potentially.

[Joe Matthew]

End up in another war in the Middle East.

[Matthew Miller]

We don't want that. The American people don't want that. And that's something that comes out loud and clear. All that being said, Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.

[Christina Ruffini]

It cannot have a nuclear weapon.

[Matthew Miller]

And I'm glad that there's negotiations also with regard to ending their ballistic missile program and their nefarious activities in the region. But let's do it diplomatically. Let's negotiate this diplomatically in concert with.

[Joe Matthew]

Our friends, partners and allies. Well, even as the administration pursues this diplomatic track, we're just dropping enormous amounts of military hardware into the region. We've already talked about the USS Gerry Ford steaming its way to the region to join the USS Lincoln carrier strike groups. To have two aircraft carriers is in itself pretty remarkable with when we now add in the past 48 hours, 48 F16 fighter jets, 12 F22s, 18 F35s, six AWACS aircraft to conduct air traffic control in the Midst of what could be a huge operation, according to reporting at Axios, a weeks long operation and some 40 refueling aircraft. We're gearing up for something, it's unclear what as we spend some time with an expert on this matter. Our own Christina Ruffini spent many years covering the State Department and the Pentagon and joins us right now, the co host of Bloomberg this weekend live in New York. Christina, it's great to see you. Why would you move this much hardware if you did not plan to use it?

[Bloomberg Host]

That's the thing. You know, sources I've talked to said they are feeling a little better after these talks. Obviously no breakthroughs, but they're feeling a little bit more positive. The caveat is that's a lot of military hardware. And as we've seen historically, when you have these big guns, you tend to want to use them. And people are getting really nervous about this. A couple reasons. One of the theories is the President is bullish on this, coming off of a fairly successful maneuver. If you're looking at what he wanted to achieve in Venezuela, Iran is not Venezuela. Right. The U.S. has assets, the U.S. has allies throughout the Middle east, throughout the Middle east that even a wounded Iran, even a limited IRGC can hit back and can hit back badly. So this is where you're getting even some Republicans saying let's take a diplomatic, you know, a more diplomatic approach. But the US Is saying to Iran, listen, you've got two weeks to come back with a better plan. The question is, do they mean that or is that lip service? So they can say, look, we tried, we don't like their plan. Now we're taking kinetic action. That's something Israel would certainly like to see. We'll have to see where this ends up.

[Kailey Leinz]

Yeah. And we'll have to see if Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are the two individuals who are able to bring real progress on the diplomatic front, despite not being diplomats themselves. Christina. But not being diplomats hasn't stopped them from being involved in these talks or the talks that they brokering between Russia and Ukraine, which after ending after what, less than two hours today, don't seem to have yielded progress in the second day. Are we getting any closer to potential resolution on some of the big sticking point issues like the issue of territory in Ukraine?

[Bloomberg Host]

Yeah, it's interesting. Maybe they were trying to save air miles, consolidate time. You know, we got two negotiations, no waiting. They obviously weren't in the room for a lot of the Iran negotiations, but all the delegations were there moving from hotel to hotel. The thing with the Russian negotiations, you have to look at them. You know, Zelensky is now accusing Russia of dragging out these negotiations. I think it's important to remember that Russia is not negotiating for optics with Ukraine. The person Russia is trying to get to do things in that room is the U.S. russia is trying to show just enough flexibility, just enough impetus to convince the White House that they're trying so that the, you know, so that they can keep President Trump on side and saying that they're doing their best. I think that's incredibly frustrating for the Ukrainians. It's obviously, you know, you can hear my voice. I've been out in the cold here in New York. It's much colder in Ukraine and the forces are depleted and exhausted. The longer this war drags on, probably the better for Russia and they're taking advantage of that time in the room there. Zelensky needs the White House to hold Moscow to account. We've seen flirtations with that, but they haven't really done that yet. And so that's another thing. It's a big waiting game as well to see how much pressure Washington wants to put on Russia.

[Kailey Leinz]

All right, Christina Raffini, co host of Bloomberg this weekend, joining us from New York. Thank you so much. And for more on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which I would remind you as of next Tuesday will have marked a four year milestone of that war. And joining us now is William Taylor Taylor, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, who is here with us in our Washington D.C. studio. So we're call it four years into this thing, Mr. Ambassador. And it's good to have you here on Bloomberg TV and radio. After persisting for four years, we have not seen any real change of tune or desire on the part of Vladimir Putin to at the very least capture the territory in Ukraine that Russia currently holds. And we understand that the territory issue is the one that really is holding things up here. How is that possibly going to get resolved when you have Zelensky saying they aren't willing to hand any of it over to Russia?

[Christina Ruffini]

There are two opposite views. You're exactly right. There's no overlap. The Ukrainians want to be a country. They want to be a sovereign country. They want to live European. The Russians want them to surrender. The Russians want to dominate Ukraine, take it over. There's no middle ground there. Now, there is a way to get to some kind of a ceasefire. But Christine put it exactly right. President Trump needs to put the pressure on Putin. Putin without that pressure is not going to agree to anything.

[Joe Matthew]

You're a diplomat. You want to talk by nature, to keep talking, to solve problems. When is it appropriate not to talk? Is it not now?

[Christina Ruffini]

Talking, Joe, is fine. Talking is fine.

[Joe Matthew]

But it's also rewarding sometimes to give someone like Putin a platform to talk.

[Christina Ruffini]

Talking is fine. But you're exactly right. What that does is drag it out. And Putin has been dragging it out because he wants to grind away at the Ukrainians day after day, month after month, year after, as you say, coming up on four years. He thinks, Putin thinks that this grind will eventually allow him to win. He thinks that the Ukrainians will someday give up. They won't. He thinks someday the Europeans will back away from Ukraine. They're not. Europeans are really stepping up. Putin hopes that the Americans will get tired and lose interest. And so far, to be fair to the Trump administration, they've not given up. They're still focused. I mean, they're there in Geneva today.

[Kailey Leinz]

But as you suggest, there's more pressure that they could put on. As we talk about Putin dragging this on, continuing on with this war, he has to be able to continue to fund the war machine in order to do that. So is that really where the screws need to be tightened?

[Christina Ruffini]

Two screws need to be tightened, and that's one of them. Absolutely right. Putin funds this war by selling oil and gas to the world. And he uses this shadow fleet, these tankers, these old tankers that evade the sanctions. These old tankers move oil from Russia to India and really to China. And President Trump has shown that he knows how to crack down on the shadow fleet. That would be a big hit to the Russian ability. But the second piece, the second screw is long range weapons for the Ukrainians. These are the Tomahawks. This would allow the Ukrainians to put a real dent, dent into the Russian war machine. Going after military targets in Russia, that could do it. Those two things on the military side and on the economic side.

[Joe Matthew]

Russia seems to think, according to the narrative here in Washington, that there's a window of opportunity here before the administration starts to bear down on midterms. Focus on domestic issues. You've got the president's attention here. Maybe we can get something favorable to Moscow, knowing that, of course, Vladimir Putin has offered nothing really to Ukraine. Does that create a dangerous moment when you have Donald Trump hoping to make a deal, he's assembling the Board of Peace here tomorrow, and Vladimir Putin hoping to get this done in a certain period of time, or does it not work that way in the world of diplomacy?

[Christina Ruffini]

I Think it won't work that way, Joe. I think the reason it won't is if President Trump thinks he can lean on the Ukrainians who are the victors, who want to be the victors, and they are the victims so far. If President Trump thinking lean on the Ukrainians as the victims, that's not a win. That's not a win. If he forces a surrender, a capitulation which the Ukrainians will resist, totally resist. But if that's what Trump tries to do, he'll fail. He'll fail. He doesn't want to be a loser. That would be a loss.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, so let's talk about Vladimir Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, in this because he obviously has made great effort to stay onside with the Trump administration, knowing how poorly things had gone in the past. If we all think back to that meeting in the Oval Office last year, at the same time, President Trump does seem to be, at least for this time, being less patient with Vladimir Zelensky than he is with Vladimir Putin. So how does Zelensky as, as a head of state, have to navigate that kind of relationship? How difficult is this moment for him knowing he doesn't want to have to give up, he doesn't want to have to surrender, whatever.

[Christina Ruffini]

President Kelly, you're exactly right. It's very difficult. He will not surrender. Zelenskyy will not surrender, even if he's under great pressure from President Trump. And President Trump needs to understand that, that that will not be a success. It will not be successful. And President Zelensky is doing two things. He's trying to keep the Americans supportive. He's done everything, done pretty well, actually, since that horrible meeting last year. He's done that pretty well. But at the same time, he's building up the capabilities himself, defense industrial capabilities in Ukraine as well as the Europeans, providing not only the funds, but also the weapons. So he's doing both things. He's trying to keep the Americans on board, but at the same time become more independent.

[Joe Matthew]

New York Times column. Today, Trump bets on diplomacy without diplomats. And David Sanger shares the byline to write that some Russians have now taken to calling the duo Witkoff and Zayatkov because Zayat is Russian for son in law. The Iranians also have a nickname for Kushner, using the Persian word for son in law. Damad Trump, defining his influence by virtue of his marriage to the president's daughter. What do you think of that?

[Christina Ruffini]

As a career diplomat, you do need, as we talked earlier, Joe, we need to talk. Diplomats do.

[Joe Matthew]

Does that bring leverage, though, that someone else might not have.

[Christina Ruffini]

What brings leverage is, is connection to the one man who's making the decision.

[Joe Matthew]

So this is a good thing then.

[Christina Ruffini]

This gives them credibility. This gives them credibility, more credibility than lower level diplomats would certainly have. So, yes, if, if, if Wycoff and Kushner can bring a deal because they've got Trump sitting right behind them. Yeah, then, then that's a fine thing. That's whatever gets that peace, the just and lasting peace. That will be fine.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, but this is not their exclusive area of focus. As we noted in Geneva yesterday. They went to the Ukraine, Russia talks about after the Iran nuclear talks. Is there not some kind of conflict in being able to address these two things adequately?

[Christina Ruffini]

Addressing it adequately is the right question. These are both complicated issues. Very complicated. They've gone back years. Both of them have gone back years.

[Joe Matthew]

There's a lot of history there.

[Christina Ruffini]

There's a lot of nuance there. It's a complicated, both are complicated issues. You got to hope that they're getting some support from some other parts of the government because they don't have it themselves. They need to have that kind of support.

[Joe Matthew]

We were struck by the post on Twitter from Zelensky following the first meeting and ahead of the second, which, by the way, was over in 90 minutes. We understand, he wrote, yesterday's meetings were indeed difficult and we can state that Russia is trying to drag out negotiations that could already have reached the final stage. I thank the American side, he says, for its attention to detail and patience in conversations with the current representatives of Russia. Now you've got Ukraine apologizing for Russia at the table on top of it. I'm sure he's got a little bit of a wink as he's writing that, Ambassador, but what does that tell you about his posture before a third meeting?

[Christina Ruffini]

So the Ukrainians have sent very senior people. The head of the delegation is the chief of staff. The other head of the delegation is the National Security Defense Council. And then there's a deputy Ministry of Defense person. They've got a senior folks there. They got a group of senior people. The Russians don't. The Russian delegation was headed by, I think a deputy culture minister earlier. So that suggests to you that again, even on the Russian side, there's not a depth of, of understanding.

[Kailey Leinz]

We have just a minute left, Ambassador, but coming off of the Munich Security Conference this weekend, were you encouraged by what we heard from the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, in contrast to JD Vance last year, what it means for not just Ukraine but other European allies.

[Christina Ruffini]

Compared to the J.D. vance speech. Yes, but the message was basically the same. The message was the same a pretty much America first and. But the other big message coming out of that was where he went next, where Rubio went next. I mean he went to Slovakia and he went to Hungary. That tells you that there's not a change in message.

[Kailey Leinz]

All right, we appreciate you joining us in your expertise. The former US Ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, here with us in our Washington, D.C. studio. On balance of Power. And we have much more still ahead. We'll speak with our political panel, Sarah Chamberlain and Kristin Hahn.

[Joe Matthew]

Stay with us On Balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this. Pro drivers live for race day. But for small business owners, every day is race day. That's why going pro with Lenovo Pro matters one on one advice. IT solutions and customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra processors. Keep your business on the right track. Business goes pro with Lenovo Pro. Sign up for [e-mail] Pro Lenovo Lenovo.

[Bloomberg Host]

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 11:30.

[Kailey Leinz]

I'm Kelly Leinz alongside Joe Matthew here in Washington, where we are now on day five of the partial government shutdown, specifically of the Department of Homeland Security, which has not been funded since midnight Friday amid a dispute between Republicans and Democrats over reforms to ice. We understand that there have been proposals and counterproposals traded, but no real signs of progress yet that would bring an end to this shutdown in particular. And Joe, it seems that the issues that the two sides are focused on, that seem intractable on both sides are no closer to getting solved. The issue of removing masks for ICE agents and having requiring that they have judicial warrants, Republicans will tell you that is a non starter and Democrats say funding this department is a nonstarter without it.

[Joe Matthew]

Yeah, the news today is there's no news on this front, which is really why we're starting to ask whether we could have a record partial shutdown because no one's budging on this. Hakeem Jeffries saying a bill is not going to move without meaningful, bold, transformational changes to ISIS conduct and what they're seeing so far apparently doesn't fulfill that idea. We're in a situation, Kayleigh, where it seems like both sides think that they've moved and they're waiting for the other to go further. Both think they're winning. And you know how dangerous that can be.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, yeah. And remember, both Democrats felt that they were winning the last shutdown, and then it was ultimately Democrats who decided to end it without actually getting the policy on health care that they wanted to.

[Christina Ruffini]

Right.

[Kailey Leinz]

Are they going to repeat that this time around?

[Joe Matthew]

This is why people love Washington. And we assemble our political panel for their take on this. They've been through a couple of these, including Republican strategist Sarah Chamberlain, who is with us here in our D.C. bureau. Republican Main Street Partnership President and CEO sharing some time today with Kristen Hahn, our Democratic strategist and partner at ROC Solutions. Kristen, you heard the words of Hakeem Jeffries. He says ICE is out of control and they need to be reined in and the American people know it. This has not changed the boundaries of this debate. However, Kaylee just pointed it out. Demasking and warrants are nonstarters for Republicans and they are mandatory for Democrats. So how do we get to the next stage of this?

[Kristen Hahn]

I mean, I think, well, first of all, everybody's going to have to come back into town. You said this is why everybody loves Washington. I'm not exactly sure that that's true. But, you know, I think that, you know, like the Democrats have been talking about those two issues all along. They're seeing the public rise up not just in states but all over the country, not just in states where some of these tragedies have occurred at the hands of ICE agents. So, you know, they're being reactive and responsible to the American people and at least for now, believe that they're on the right side of this. And not only are they on the right side of it, like you said, when both sides believe they are winning the communications agenda, the political argument, they have very little incentive to come to the table eventually. When you're talking about TSA agents and other things that impact people's lives and not just the employees, but also air travel and other things like that, I think that's when people will eventually come to the table. But as we discussed in the last segment, could be a very long, drawn out shut down.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, the longer it goes on, Sarah, the closer we get to the midterm. So when we consider incentives here, electorally speaking, if you are a moderate Republican in a swing district, one of the ones that the DCCC is targeting, do you want to have voted for reforms to ice, given the public sentiment that Kristen was talking about, or does that risk backfiring with the base. I just wonder what the, what the calculus here and who they need to try to win over.

[Sarah Chamberlain]

Well, they do want to do reforms to isis. They've done reforms to ice. I mean, they've offered a lot. No, they haven't offered the masks because some of the ICE agents are in danger themselves. People figure out who they are. They go to their family's homes. So they don't. They want to prevent that. But we've come a long way. We've pulled them out of Minnesota. We've agreed to cameras. I mean, we've agreed to a lot. It's just we don't know what the Democrats want. The Democrats are making this political where the Republicans are trying to make this like, listen, they're being funded anyway. And I think that's a key part that's being missed in the, in the big beautiful bill. The ICE agents are being funded. It is fema, it is Coast Guard, and it is TSA that's really paying the price.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, since you brought up the big beautiful bill, I have to wonder if somehow this doesn't end up being resolved by another reconciliation package that Republicans can just through push through on partisan lines. If Democrats are never going to agree to a bipartisan funding compromise, could you see that happening?

[Sarah Chamberlain]

Potentially, but we don't want to have to do that either. We really want the Democrats to come to the table with a legitimate plan to get this done. We saw what happened with aca. The Democrats ended up opening the government with us. Did ACA get fixed now? And nobody's even talking about it anymore. So we just think this is another political ploy by the Democrats.

[Joe Matthew]

Is this an opportunity for the president to lay the stakes next week in the State of the Union, or is this a liability to actually step into the Speaker's rostrum and have a piece of the government closed?

[Sarah Chamberlain]

I think he talks about it in the State of the Union. I think he really, he talks about it. As far as FEMA and TSA and the Coast Guard, I mean, they're really paying the price. And you know what? We're paying the price here in Washington with what is happening in the Potomac. I mean, it really is a tragedy that's going on. We need FEMA to help fix this, and they're not getting paid.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well. And so this gets back to what you were talking about, Kristen. Fema, tsa, the Coast Guard, all of these things. For how long, realistically, do you think Democrats are going to be able to withstand knowing that these people serving in these roles are Going without paychecks. Can it be longer than 43 days? Would you see that same group of, of more moderate Democrats saying, all right, I'm folding here. We got to, we got to open this back up?

[Kristen Hahn]

I'm not sure about that. I mean, I think nobody wants to say, to see the government or any part of the government shut down because people suffer when that happens. But we're talking about who's paying the price for federal policies. People all over this country and hardworking illegal immigrants to this country and American citizens are paying the price for how ICE has operated in many of these states across the country. And so, you know, you're looking at, how do we change a lot of these policies? And clearly, the Republicans have a different idea of what's reasonable than, than the Democrats do. But the Democrats have been consistent in the beginning. Doesn't make it any less difficult. And the Republicans do have control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. So eventually behoove everybody to come to the table, you know, and really sit down and talk about what's happening. To say that one side is, is purely playing politics and the other side doesn't care about it at all is disingenuous.

[Joe Matthew]

Well, I'm curious about the conversation that was had last evening at the Capitol Hill Club, which a lot of folks are talking about. Susie Wiles had members of the Cabinet there. Sarah, you're a pollster. President Trump's preferred pollster, Tony Fabrizio, had some important lessons to be taught when it comes to messaging, specifically around affordability. But I'm wondering, as the president prepares to deliver this speech in Georgia on affordability this week in a State of the Union next. Immigration is still a huge issue for Republicans here, helped to get this president elected and a lot of members. This is a winning issue. But Democrats point to new polling since these two fatal shootings in Minneapolis. More than half of U.S. adults, 55%, disapprove of the president's handling, specifically of immigration. This is a Yahoo. YouGov poll that made a lot of waves last week. 41% approve. How worried are members about losing the issue of immigration to Democrats?

[Sarah Chamberlain]

They are concerned about it. And what they're doing is going back and talking about the border has been shut, obviously, under President Biden. It was wide open. That has been a great success of the Trump administration. We need to focus on that. The other things we're kind of putting on the side, obviously it was a great tragedy that two people died in Minnesota. We don't forget that. But what we're trying to do is we shut the border. Now we're pivoting to, to talking about economic issues because that's where the American people really are. Yes, they're concerned about immigration, but they're really much more concerned about paying their bills well.

[Kailey Leinz]

So how do Democrats try to make sure they dominate the affordability narrative? Kristen, if President Trump is maybe going to do the tour we were promised on affordability, it seems it's going to be resuming in Georgia tomorrow. Unclear if that is going to continue beyond, but he's going to try, or at least Susie Wiles would like him to try to dominate the affordability conversation.

[Kristen Hahn]

Yeah, I mean, it's always difficult when the president is in the opposite party from you because he or she had the bully pulpit. And so, you know, I think the Democrats have done a really good job of getting through on the issue of affordability. I'm not saying Democrats are always good at staying concise and on message, but on this issue they have even during the last government shutdown, when they were talking about, you know, the health care subsidies, which are the crux of the debate, they were talking about in the context of affordability for all Americans across this country with regard to their own health care. So I think that we continue to recruit really good candidates, which we have across this country who continue to talk about those kitchen table issues that we're all going to talk about and really relate to people at a local level.

[Joe Matthew]

I suspect that members and maybe yourself will be watching the president's speech tomorrow night in Rome, Georgia, pretty closely. This is going to be a test drive, I'm guessing, for some ideas in the State of the Union. How important will it be for him to work out that part of the speech that appears to be the most important thing to the Republican Main Street?

[Sarah Chamberlain]

It is extremely important that he deliver a good speech, that he stay on topic because the men and women, especially in the Republican Main Street Partnership, are going to need that come November. So we're hoping Suzy Wiles does a great job as the chief of staff. She'll get him out there and keep him focused and he'll start delivering. You know, we have done a lot in affordability. I mean, the housing bill that passed a couple of weeks ago that Mike Flood did mean the lower prescription drug prices, like we're working on it, but it does take time and it's really only been a year.

[Kailey Leinz]

She notes the housing bill, Kristen, which passed with a massive bipartisan majority, is that the last real legislative work we're going to see in this Congress because now it's getting into electoral politics and all the actual legislating is going to be put to the wayside.

[Kristen Hahn]

Yeah. I mean, if there's anything that's going to be done, it's going to have to be like something that's hugely bipartisan. But I think, yeah, the closer and closer we even get to July and people start leaving town to really focus on their reelections, I wouldn't, I wouldn't guess that there would be a lot more that would get done except for what absolutely has to be done in the election year. And then, you know, depending on what happens post election, if the Democrats do take over, you know, there, there will likely be an onslaught of legislation coming forward by the Republicans before they, they officially lose the chamber. So that's something to look forward to and plan for as well.

[Kailey Leinz]

All right, Kristin Hahn and Sarah Chamberlain, thank you both.

[Joe Matthew]

Stay with us. On balance of power. We'll have much more coming up after this. Pro drivers live for race day, but for small business owners, every day is race day. That's why going pro with Lenovo Pro matters one on one advice, IT solutions and customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra processors. Keep your business on the right track. Business goes pro with Lenovo Pro. Sign up for free [e-mail] Pro.

[Bloomberg Host]

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.

[Joe Matthew]

It was quite the story yesterday when it dropped in Axios here in Washington. Everybody woke up to the same thing, started texting each other and it sent a shudder down the spine of K Street. The warning that came from the partners at Villanovo, this bipartisan group in Washington that everyone's talking about today. The subpoenas are coming. We talk about midterms on a daily basis around here and the seasonality that is at the Democrats back the possibility of winning both the House and the Senate now with a favorable map, a favorable narrative when it comes to affordability. What would happen if Democrats took over? There's your question. Would they try to impeach Donald Trump again? Would they go after the files? Would there be another Jack Smith that emerged? And of course, it's just a little bit more complicated than that. I've got the note here to clients that went out that I mentioned. The subpoenas are coming. How companies, that's the key word here, should prepare for next year's congressional oversight blitz, a note almost made for the audience at Bloomberg, Tucker Eskew and Matthew Miller. The latter is with me in studio right now. The Partners at Vienna vote. Of course, you might remember Matthew Miller, who you saw and heard from on a daily basis here on this program when we would play cuts of him as the State Department spokesman, the man who stood behind the podium in the Biden administration. It's great to have you with us. Welcome. Welcome to Bloomberg TV and Radio.

[Matthew Miller]

Thanks.

[Joe Matthew]

Great to see you in person.

[Matthew Miller]

Yeah, Great to be here.

[Joe Matthew]

So it's going to be so much worse than they expect. The line that you gave to Axios. It's interesting as you write here, two key changes in the Democratic mindset on Capitol Hill are going to result in a different look when it comes to oversight hearings if they win in the fall. How different?

[Matthew Miller]

Yeah, I think that's right. So look, one thing that will remain the same, Republic, companies are used to changes in oversight priorities when Congress changes. Republicans have had one corporate oversight priority, for example, they have tried to investigate companies for DEI programs. Democrats have much different priorities. And so that's always been true. So every time Democrats take back the House, you see them open investigations to drug pricing or consumer fraud or other alleged practices that are traditional core Democratic priorities. What's different this time is that, number one, a lot of Democrats on the Hill looked at the way the president has managed his relationship with corporate America over the past year and sees alleged corporate abuses or corporations aiding and abetting the Trump administration's biggest abuses of power. And so there is an increased demand among Democrats on the Hill to try to go after some companies that have either cut what they see as corrupt deals with the White House or have yielded to pressure from the White House. Look at the demands you've seen from the Hill already to investigate Paramount's transactions. Look at what's happened just in the past 48 hours at CBS. Those are all types of things that Democrats want to look into. The second key change is Democrats are very aware of the experience they had in 2019 and 2020, the last time there was a Democratic House and a Trump White House and they came into office with all these plans to investigate the White House, investigate various cabinet agencies, and you saw them launch major investigations in the first months that they held gavels. And all of those investigations met with a stonewall, where in usual practice, White Houses and cabinet agencies would negotiate with Congress over what documents they would give, what they would withhold under executive privilege. This White House said no. And gave nothing. And forced Democrats into court. And what the White House, I think, figured out was you could put off those demands for years. And in many cases, executive branch documents weren't turned over until Trump was already gone. And so Democrats know that this time, if they want to actually get documents, it doesn't make sense to send a subpoena to the White House where you might get documents in three years when Trump is no longer president, when you can send it to a company and get documents and just go to the.

[Joe Matthew]

Other side of the transaction.

[Matthew Miller]

Exactly right.

[Joe Matthew]

And an executive who is not even going to consider being held in criminal contempt of Congress, where the White House says, I dare you.

[Matthew Miller]

Yeah, I dare you. We can, we can run it out. And an executive, either one, can't afford the potential criminal risk.

[Joe Matthew]

Yeah.

[Matthew Miller]

But also can't afford the reputational risk. Dragged. Dragged through the mud.

[Joe Matthew]

Give you the guidelines that you need. So this is going to be ballroom heaven. Right. Every company that donated to the ballroom will be brought to Capitol Hill to answer questions.

[Matthew Miller]

I think there could be some over the ballroom, although the ballroom is a much more traditional. You see, company, companies contribute to various projects over time.

[Joe Matthew]

They're going to want to know what they got.

[Matthew Miller]

Yeah. I think when you look at some, some of the things that are more concerning to Democrats, look at the, the crypto deals that you've seen at World.

[Joe Matthew]

Liberty Financial going on today while you and I are talking in Palm Beach. You've got the head of Goldman Sachs down there. Does David Solomon get an invite?

[Matthew Miller]

I don't know. Members of Congress are going have to make those, those decisions. But you've seen alleged transactions that are enriching members of the Trump family, enriching members of the Witcoff family. When you look at law firms who back last year, in the spring of last year agreed to the President's demands, Democrats have made clear they want to know what the law firms have given up in exchange for that, what kind of services they're providing to the executive branch of Indy. They have all these different initiatives. They've said they want to probe and they want to do it very aggressively.

[Joe Matthew]

Media companies, you just mentioned what's gone on at CBS in the last 48 hours. Could be a field day.

[Matthew Miller]

CBS could be a field day. You've seen Democrats raise questions about ABC settling a lawsuit that put money into the President's pocket when every libel lawyer told you that they could win that lawsuit easily. Despite. This is something that happened back in the very early days of the administration. And of Course, the way that Paramount settled the lawsuit over 60 minutes, one that they again according to libel and defamation lawyers, would have won hands down, but said they chose to settle at a time when they had transaction interests that were before the executive branch. All of those things Democrats want to look into.

[Joe Matthew]

Fascinating. With that said, how far do these go beyond the hearing room and to what extent you mentioned reputational damage, to what extent can it go further than that if you've still got a Republican White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue?

[Matthew Miller]

Well, the thing, two things about that. First, the reputational damage is real and it's not just the hearing, although having a CEO come down and have to testify is the biggest escalation thing that's most damaging to a company. But the process of turning over documents, many of which can be embarrassing if not criminal or if not showing actual wrong doing, can be hugely embarrassing. And unlike when you turn over documents to the executive branch and they generally keep those private, Congress has no incentive to do that and usually they don't. So there's a massive reputational cost. And then when it comes to actual costs beyond that, I think one of the things that Democrats believe is that corporate America has behaved as if there's never going to be a change in power either on the Hill or potentially in the executive branch. And of course that's not true. And the statute of limitations when it comes to criminal behavior, and this is not to say that most if any of these corporate activities are criminal behavior, but when if the Democrats were able to expose actual criminal behavior, statute of limitations for those types of crimes runs beyond the extent of Trump's four year term.

[Joe Matthew]

Spending time with Matt Miller from Vienna. On balance of power. Bloomberg government talked Dan Goldman earlier this month about potential oversight targets. Producer James just put this in front of me. A new Air Force One plane from Qatar, Trump family involvement with crypto. You mentioned energy companies, knowledge of the early January Venezuela military operation. That in itself could be quite a saga.

[Matthew Miller]

Yeah, it absolutely could. I'm a little skeptical that the, the oil companies actually knew anything about that. Really seemed to be, they seem to be completely surprised. Look, I don't think I'm going out a limb here to say that lots of times the things that the president said, it was the president who said that he talked to the oil companies. Sometimes he's a little over his skis and says things that aren't exactly accurate. I'd be surprised if they, if they had any real detail, although it wouldn't surprise me if the administration consulted with him and said, what are the conditions under which you would be willing to come back in and invest in Venezuela? So, of course, those are things that the, the Congress might look at.

[Joe Matthew]

I want to go back to your time behind the podium for a moment at the State Department, because this is a very different political world that we're living in. And before you joined us, we were talking about talks to potentially end the war in Ukraine that you spent a heck of a lot of time working on in the Biden administration and the potential for strikes against Iran. This David Sanger column has my attention this morning. That's talking about the duo at the tip of the spear here, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Neither of them are diplomats. Are they the two men who can prevent a war in Iran and end one in Ukraine?

[Matthew Miller]

So I have never been concerned about the fact that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner lead negotiations. I think there's no reason that you can't have someone from outside government come in and lead a negotiating team and get results. What has always concerned me, however, is the fact that they have conducted most of these negotiations without any support from experienced diplomats. And the problem when you come into that situation is you don't know what you don't know. So when Steve Witkoff goes to Russia and meets with Putin, sometimes one on one in the first case, without even having an American translator in the room, let alone a seasoned American diplomat, and Putin unleashes this spiel that he has about decades of grievances from the west, decades of grievances from Ukraine. Witkoff doesn't know the back and forth. And at times, you heard him come out and then repeat some of Putin's. You heard him do this in a Tucker Carlson interview afterwards, where he came out and repeated some of Putin's propaganda. He clearly didn't know that some of it wasn't true. That is actually dangerous because you're not in a position to negotiate from a level playing field. And that doesn't make sense for the United States that you wouldn't go in with all the benefit of decades of experience in the United States government of dealing with Putin, of dealing with Russian diplomats, of dealing with Iranian diplomats and Iranian interests, that you wouldn't go in with some of that experience in your back pocket to advise you on what's possible and what's not.

[Joe Matthew]

This column, headlines, Trump Bets on Diplomacy Without Diplomats, reads that some Russians have taken to calling the duo Witkoff and Zayatkov because Zayat is Russian for son in law. The Iranians also have a nickname for Mr. Kushner, using the Persian word for for son in law. Damad Trump again defining Kushner's influence by virtue of his marriage to the president's daughter, Ivanka. That is incredible. In a remaining moment, how important is it that we are not getting official readouts on many of these meetings?

[Matthew Miller]

It's extremely important. And it's not just important that we, the public, aren't getting readouts. From what I hear from talking to people inside the government, other senior national security officials aren't getting readouts of what's happening in these meetings. They're held in a very tight circle, which again can be okay. If you're making progress, you need to do it. But there is not a give and take between the people doing the negotiating and the people inside the government who could advise them on what's true and what's not.

[Joe Matthew]

I'm really glad you can come spend some time with us today. Don't be a stranger. Matt Miller, Villanova and the Warning to K Street thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington, D.C. at noontime [e-mail] there's no championship league for small business owners, but if there was, you'd be at the top of the standings. Because going pro with Lenovo Pro means you've got the winning formation. One on one advice IT solutions and customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra processors help you stay ahead of the competition. Business Business goes pro with Lenovo Pro. Sign up for [e-mail] Pro.

[Christina Ruffini]

Lenovo.

[Matthew Miller]

Janice Torres here and I'm Austin Hankwitz. We host the podcast Mind the Small Business Success Stories, produced by Ruby Studio in partnership with Intuit QuickBooks.

[Kailey Leinz]

We're back for season four to talk to some incredible small business owners.

[Matthew Miller]

The big thing about working at tech is that it's ever evolving, ever changing. Everyone's a rookie. That's how fast the industry is changing. So what I'm really excited about is to be part of that change. So listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.