You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
So I didn't think we're going to be starting with this today. Didn't seem like it would be that big of a story. But how about this headline out of Georgia, the Atlantic Grand Jury releasing a twenty eight page document. This just made public today. I hold in my hands. This is the grand jury that, of course already indicted Donald Trump and eighteen others. Well, they had bigger plans. At one point, the grand jury also recommended indicting Senator
Lindsey Graham. We have learned and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn feel like if they were indicting Jake Sullivan here in the current administration. And that is not all. By the way, David Purdue and Kelly Leffler, former US Senators Republicans from Georgie, along with Cleta Mitchell, the former Trump lawyer, participated in his perfect phone call. So what happened to all of them? Are they talking with prosecutors? That's where we begin right now in a breaking news Friday.
We also have news out of California that we'll get to with Wendy Benjamin Sin Nancy Pelosi is running again, who says there's no news in the dog days of summer in Washington. Wendy's with us right now, and Happy Friday, Wendy. I want to your insights. Let's pick through both of these. These names jumped off the terminal when we saw them, Senator Lindsey Graham. What does this suggest about their station
in life right now? From a legal standpoint, if they were not indicted, what are they doing well?
They certainly are celebrating that they dodged a legal bullet. Not a real bullet, obviously, but a legal bullet in escaping criminal charges. It could mean one of two things. And I just want to say off the top here, I am speculating. I haven't talked to anyone about this yet, but it's possible they were already cooperating and Fannie Willis,
the prosecutor down there, decided not to indict. More likely, considering they were one is a sitting senator, the other one was a high ranking White House official, and the other two were senators that she just decided it wasn't worth the hassle, if you understand what I mean, because she would have if they were acting in their capacities as federal officers at the time, which is something that Mark Meadows, this former chief of staff is arguing right now,
then the case would have to be moved to federal court. And once it's in federal court, there's you know, it's obviously more complicated for a Georgia prosecutor to do the case. And the other interesting point about this is that the special grand jury, That's what came out today, the report of the special grand Jury, which recommended charges. They also did not suggest that these should be charged under the Rico Racketeering Influence of Corrupt Organization Act that Fawnie Willis
eventually did charge them under. That is a set of charges and approach to charges that she uses against gangsters, drug dealers, once against teachers, and now against Trump and his cohorts. So they were just thinking obstruction of justice or other related charges.
Well, we haven't heard from Lindsay Graham or Michael Flinn yet. I suspect we will. I'm waiting for an emotional appearance potentially on cable news. But we'll let that breathe. It's just interesting, Wendy, because Fannie Willis was being accused or criticized maybe a better word of overreach, that this was not as an efficient approach to the case as special counsel Jack Smith had taken here in Washington. But we understand now she could have actually bitten off even more.
The other big breaker I need to ask you about. Maybe you saw it coming, Wendy News from California. Nancy Pelosi, She's running.
Well extremists push a national abortion band and undermine privacy rights. I'm fighting for reproductive freedom and marriage equality. I'm running for reelection to continue our fight to improve people of lives and defend our democracy. And I respectfully seek your voute.
Thank you, I respectfully seek your vote, says the former speaker. That's from a video presentation that went up on her website a short time ago. Wendy, A lot of folks thought she was about to pack it up. A recent story from Jonathan Martin at Politico would suggest that they were just about done, that she and her husband were not interested in pursuing, for instance, an ambassadorship to the Vatican, which had been floated for her. Are you surprised by this?
Not as much as I might have been a year or so ago. But remember her husband was viciously attacked in their home in San Francisco by a guy who was trying to you know, is a crazy ather guy trying to get to her and ended up beating her husband with the pipe or some large object. And you know, she's maybe three, he's in his eighties. So that wasn't
that wasn't great. The other I think she also does feel like there's room for Democrats, although in her district there's no question another Democrat would have taken her place. But I also think this has to do with Dianne Feinstein, the eighty nine year old senator who is clearly having memory problems, who is clearly having trouble focusing on her job, and Nancy Pelosi's position through this whole will Dianne Feinstein
retire business or not? Is that it was sexist to suggest that Dianne Feinstein should retire, even though she's eighty nine and clearly infirmentally. Nancy Pelosi said, you would never suggest that of a man, which was proven wrong last week by the FUREA around Mitch McConnell. But I think Nancy Pelosi is saying, yeah, I made, I'm a woman, and I'm running again because you know, look around, I'm in the mid range of age for members of Congress for these days.
That's quite a statement. Wendy, this is great. Appreciate the clutch analysis here, Wendy Benjaminson, who we've turned to so frequently on this program for insights. Thank you, Wendy, and have a great weekend. Bloomberg Washington Senior editor. You know what else I've got my eyes on today is the price of oil, and you probably do too, as we inch ever closer back to ninety dollars a barrel, WTI. Charlie Pellett just told us eighty seven fifty roughly right now.
And there are a lot of questions about what's going on here with supply and demand as Saudi Arabia starts to turn the screws here a little bit more to try to keep prices sustained, and maybe they're about to go higher. We know that we have a forty year low meantime on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and crude oil is at sixty something dollars a couple of months ago to we just miss a huge opportunity. You know who's
back to talk is Bob McNally. Always love talking with Bob, the founder and president of Rapidan Energy, Former senior White House policy official. Bob, it's good to see you. Welcome back to reality post labor day. What are we in for here with crude prices in the weeks ahead?
Hi Joe, you know, I think we're moving higher. We've been predicting that one.
Set something on our end here. I can't hear.
Bob testing one too.
There we go, take it away, my friend.
All right, Okay, yeah, Hi Joe, Yeah, we see prices going higher. I don't think we're the only ones. We see big deficits here. You don't need gangbuster. Demand is just resilient demand. China is pulling in oil to store it, and its demand isn't that bad. Sixteen plus million barrels today, US decent demand growth, gangbusters, No, India pretty strong. The
monsoon's messing things up a little bit. So you got resilient demand, and then you have these these big cuts by Saudi Arabia, especially in Russia and OPEC plus Core OPEC plus, So we see deficits. Deficits are going to show up in inventory draws, and the markets see it to believe it mode right, They're like, now, we're not going for this. We got head fake last year with Russia.
We're not buying it.
There's a lot of China risk, macro risk.
Fair enough.
So the market wants to see the whites of the eyes of stock draws, and they are seeing those now. And so we're moving higher, and we think there's higher to go. Still, we'd be well into the nineties. Wouldn't be surprised at all if it touches one hundred, and if crude price at gasoline prices natural average, you know, get back to closer to four dollars than the three eighty they are now. And this is you know, Joe, this is double jeopardy for President Biden. I worked in
a white House. No president, republican Democrat likes higher pump prices, and any president owns it and suffers from it.
This is bad enough.
Approval goes down, Consumers are angry. But now the price increase threatens to do rail the soft landing that everyone was hoping for this summer. So there's even bigger steaks than normal, So the stakes couldn't be higher from the for the White House.
Here we're at eighty seven and a half today. This is doubdti crwed. We topped out just above ninety two dollars a barrel in October, and we had a low in the mid sixties that was in March sixty six dollars of barrel. Did we miss a huge opportunity to refill the SPR, Bob or is it not as simple as that. I know, we have to go through a bidding process and you can't just start buying barrels.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, the DOE was an apartment of energy, was limited somewhat logistically. They're working on caverns and they have to repair them and so forth, so there were limits on how much it could physically take in. And you got to remember Congress in its wisdom I say, you know, not too seriously, but in his wisdom was ordering stock draws. We were selling off the SPR, and you can't fill the SPR until you stopped selling the SPR. So look, I'm not a fan of the big one hundred and
eighty million barrel draw that President Biden did. However, to be fair, they only really could start filling in the summer, they did so, so they did it on a limited basis, and then prices now got away from us and they've stopped the refilling. So we had our moment and unfortunately really couldn't fill faster.
Jennifer Granholm told Congress, I believe it was back in March, if not April, that it would take years to refill and in fact wouldn't really be happening until a second Biden term. Is that how you see it?
I think so, and I hope, who knows if we'll ever refill it. You got to remember, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, wanted to sell the thing off. We were drawing it down to pay for non energy expenses, and to really fill back up to the top, you'll need to appropriate new money. You have to ask Congress to actually vote on new funds, right, and that is very unlikely.
I mean, there are a lot of other.
Competing needs for that, and there's a lot of folks on the Republican side and the Democrat side who think we don't need such a big spr We don't need seven hundred million barrels. We're a net exporter now of total oil. We have for the largest producer of oil, So it's not like the eighties. I'll be surprised if we ever do refill it.
I have to.
Say, that's remarkable. You know, all the while Vladimir Putin and Crown Prince Mohammad Bill Salmon are praising joint efforts to stabilize the global oil market, are they laughing at us right now? No?
I you know, I know there's this narrative out there that, oh, Saudi Arabia isn't like Biden, and you know, certainly Putin doesn't, and so they're going to jack up oil prices and kick them out of office. You know, I don't buy it. I don't think that's their motivation. I do think oil prices are moving higher. Look the Saudi's, you know, playing games with the market, trying to jack up the oil price, putting in a deficit just to you know, for political spie.
If political reasons is very dangerous. It's sort of like you don't like the guy next door, so you start a fire in his apartment, but then the fire could burn your apartment down too. If they got an oil price spike, a sustained large spike above one hundred I don't think they want that, why because it would send then oil prices down, spikes lead to collapses and busts. The oil market is you know, they take it very seriously. I think the reason they're cutting is they're afraid of
a repeat of two thousand and eight jo. They're afraid of like one day, we're a one hundred and forty dollars a barrel. Everything's fine, then a bank goes poof and suddenly we're at thirty dollars a barrel, and you know, there's a collapse, and a lot of folks are afraid about that. So I think they're taking out insurance against a sudden implosion in economic activity, probably due to financial contagent.
They're going to wait to see these stock draws that'll show them that the market's not experiencing that demand to collapse, and then I think they're going to put the oil back in and prices should moderate. At that point, I think we go higher. But I don't think they're all about, you know, playing political games here. It's just too dangerous with the oil market. The Russians, if they could, they'd probably try and do it, but not the Saudiast.
Yeah, sure, though you are suggesting that we could hit one hundred dollars a barrel, so that may be out of everyone's control. If that's the case. If we do hit one hundred, does that then lead to massive declines this year? Is that the rest of your forecast?
Well, we do see it coming down a little bit into next year. So we think we're gonna we're gonna get to the mid nineties on a quarterly average for Brent, so easily to see one hundred, you know, print here and there right, and then we think OPEC plus will begin to add the supply back to the market, and assuming a healthy economy and so forth, and we're gonna get some more US supply. We're gonna get some more guyana,
you know. We think the market could stabilize maybe in that eighty to ninety range next year if all goes well, but I think we're gonna have to go higher.
First, fascinating news, always great analysis, Bob, Thank you so much for being with us, and don't be a stranger. Bob McNally at Rapidan says we could hit one hundred dollars a barrel again, gas prices could get closer to four dollars a gallon we'll keep tabs on these. Of course, as Joe Biden heads for the G twenty something, we'll talk about a bit later, the panels coming in next.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the.
Bloomberg Business App.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg.
Eleven thirty So, the grand jury in Atlanta that initially investigated allegations of election interference by Donald Trump and those who became his co defendants, had recommended that it be made public, that their recommendations to the DA be made public, and it took a bunch of news organizations, including Bloomberg,
to make it happen. It has been unsealed today, twenty eight pages made public, and by the way, as I hold them here in my hands, you can read the full unsealed grand jury report right on the terminal if you want to play along on your home game here. We weren't sure if this was going to be terribly new, but the names that we're reading certainly are. This is
the first of two grand juries. They recommended indicting Senator Lindsey Graham and Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor to Donald Trump, along with others including two former US Senators, David Purdue and Kelly Leffler. This is where we start with our panel today. Very curious to hear from Jeanie Shanzano, Bloomberg Politics contributor, Democratic analyst, as well. Joined today by Mara Gillespie, the founder of Bluestack Strategies, former advisor to
Speaker Bayner, and Congressman Adam Kinsinger. It's great to have you both here. Mara. I'm going to start with you on this one. I just wonder your thoughts when you see names of Republicans like Lindsey Graham coming off the page here and what this might mean for the way Americans and Republicans are looking at this indictment now.
I truly do think that Republicans, especially some of those who support the former president, but even some who may not say it publicly, are a wondering, you know, is this pushing me on the bounds and wondering, you know, how far this, how far reaching this you know, indictment process, it's going to go because is it, you know, is the goal here to have accountability and hope people are responsible, or is the goal here to get to Trump and you know, kind of compel people to flip on him.
I'm not sure, but I think that's Republicans will probably you know, see this and think that it's pushing, pushing a bit too far, because again, you know, with I believe an interview Lindsay Graham had, he talked about the questions he was asking, and I think people are going to remember when Stacy Abrams was asking similar questions about the election and should we be looking at, you know, the Georgia election system, so that the kind of objectively, I think people are going to be a little uh
miffed about this.
I would say, well, it's interesting, Genie, because Fannie Willis was accused of overreach or criticized of biting off more than she could chew. Apparently she could have bid off a lot more. Here is this going to end up being a story of judicial restraint.
It's crazy to think that with nineteen people indicted, that she's going to be shown to be somebody who has restrained in her approach. But that is one of the stories out of this. And you know, I think it's also important to remember that in Lindsey Graham's case, he tried to say that he should not have to go before the grand jury because of the speech and debate clause. That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court, although they did say there were certain things he could not be
questioned about. So I think for Fawnie Willis, as she looked at in terms of who they were going to indict, indicting somebody like Graham would have raised constitutional questions and to Wendy's point previously, it could have expanded this, it could have thrown this thing into the federal courts. That's not something that they want to see happen. And so I think she felt like she could get what she wanted with the nineteen and it is fascinating. I am
just looking through this now. It is a fascinating read. Although I don't suspect it will have much impact for many people on the ground, because not many people are going to sit down and read these twenty nine pages.
I have to get to the other breaker today that we did talk to Wendy about before, and would love your take on Nancy Pelosi's political future here more. Apparently you will have the former speaker to kick around for a little bit longer. A lot of folks thought this was it. I have to admit I'm still I'm not really clear on the motivation as a former speaker to join the rank and file. And of course she's got the ear of Hakim Jeffries, but she's getting in line
at the cafeteria now like everybody else. Why would she do this again? And what does it mean for the balance of power on Capitol Hill.
Well, I kind of think it prevents the Democratic leadership from really setting themselves up to be the new leadership. You know, when she stepped down and handed things over to Heckem Jeffries, you know she's still there. She's a looming presence, and I don't know to your point, I don't know the motivation. I can tell you that Speaker, former Speaker John Bayner certainly be doing so and is pretty happy to not be on Capitol Hill at this moment and pretty happy to be retired. So I don't
know what the motivation is for for Nancy Pelosi. She's has an impressive career and I think it you know, in some of these cases, again, like a Diane Feinstein, you kind of wonder, why wouldn't you just take, you know, a step back and enjoy, you know, your retirement, enjoy your eighties and be you know, be be present in your life and not be at the forefront or trying to be at the forefront of this political sphere. You know, hang your hat on a good career and and bow gracefully.
Yeah, I think I'd be buying the house in Italy if I were Nancy Pelosi. Right in this case, Genie, what do you think what's the motivation for her to run again and to endure the criticism that comes with the job. There's there's something that's keeping her in Washington here, I think so.
I think part of it has to do with the fact that California has seen the shift of power to go to the Northeastern states. As you look at it now, I think, for the first time in modern history, if not American history, the Democratic Party in Congress is controlled by New Yorkers. And of course, if Nancy Pelosi was to retire and not seek another term, this would be
an enormous loss for her city. They've already seen the loss of Barbara Boxer rather, Dianne Feinstein is not going to run again, and of course if Nancy Pelosi was to leave, that's a lot of clout for San Francisco in California to lose, and at a particularly difficult time for her city. I also think there are questions about succession in her own see. And then of course she's been intimately and personally involved in what is happening with
the seat of Dianne Feinstein. So I think for a lot of those reasons, not to mention, she's doing this with the work of the current Minority leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, because she is still a prolific fundraiser for the Democrats, and they are going to need all of that money she brings if they hope to take back the House. So I think for all of those reasons,
she is going to stick it out another year. She is putting off the move to Italy, as you say, even though that had to be a really hard decision on her part.
Oh God, sign me up. I don't know, Morrig Gillespie. I'm just I'm struck by the irony here that your former boss, the Republican Speaker John Bayner sales off into the sunset promoting cannabis, and Nancy Pelosi still wants to show up for work every day. What's going on around here?
I again, I think that when Bayner, when the forestier left, you know, he was proud of what he had accomplished. He ticked boxes that he had hoped to tick, and it was time to hand the gabble over, you know. And I think that he set up Paul Ryan by cleaning the slate for him and doing the tough things that Republicans didn't want to get done and that needed to get done for the go to the country. And you know, I personally am very proud of him for that.
And he deserves to have his retirement and this set back from the political inviting on Capitol Hill. He deserves to have that break from it, truthfully, And I think Nancy Posi does too. I just wish she would take it, I bet you do.
What does this mean for Hakim Jeffries Genie? Is this a plus or a minus for someone who's trying to make his own name here as a leader. She's actually done a lot to help him so far in his career leadership.
Yeah, they work very closely together. I think this is a help to Hakim Jeffries. Again, she is a very prolific fundraiser. She is the most powerful woman elected in American history, certainly the most powerful speaker we have seen in the modern era in the Congress, and so she has been helpful to him. If she wasn't being helpful, and you'd got to give her credit for stepping out of leadership and helping the person after her. If it
wasn't that way, she wouldn't be staying in this. Nancy Pelosi knows this game better than anybody else, and so so for Hakeem Jeffries, this is a benefit at a very tough time, by the way, in his own state. And I know we're going to talk about that, but it is a tough time for Democrats in New York, and so he needs all the assistance he can get.
Well, there's a lot to consider there as we go into an election year that will apparently include Nancy Pelosi. I can only assume that she will be a strong surrogate for Joe Biden. Jeanie, that's your expectation, Yeah, that is.
She is going to be out there, she is going to be fundraising they have been working together and she is going to be helping them hopefully for what they want to do is take back the House. There is a possibility they can do that. It's going to be very tight, but she is going to be there and trying to help the Democrats do that. They can't afford any missteps in California, because in my home state of New York, they had some last midterm and it cost
the Democrats the House. They can't afford that again.
Well, we're going to talk next about your home state of New York as Genian Morris stay with us here. Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, of course, says the migrant situation that is currently gripping New York City will destroy the city if it doesn't change.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
The Bloomberg Business App.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
With an eye on New York City, where they have spent one and a half billion dollars so far one point five billion in the last fiscal year on housing and services for migrants now one hundred ten thousand strong on Manhattan Island. How much has the city received in federal funds in that time? I'm one hundred and forty
million dollars. And that is why Mayor Eric Adams is starting to question, literally question the future of New York City's economy, the city as we know it, with scores of migrants, their friends and family joining them there, and they're of course being held not only in shelters, but
in hotels in downtown Manhattan. Eric Adams says he's not getting what he needs from the federal government or from the state government for that matter, and let his feelings be known in a town hall that was set up on the Upper West Side this week.
We get in no support on this national crisis, and we're receiving no support. Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an end in two I don't see an ending to this. I don't see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City.
Let that settle for a moment will destroy New York City, says the Mayor of New York City. We reassembled our panel with Genie Shanzano, Democratic analyst, Bloomberg Politics contributor. We also have Mari Gillespie with us today. Republican strategists found were blue stack strategies. Jenny, you're a New Yorker and you know Eric Adams. I'm wondering your thoughts on this
right now because he's upset with Democrats and Republicans. What does it mean when the mayor predicts the end of New York City.
Well, he is reflecting the views of most New Yorkers. A Siena poll just recently, eight out of ten New Yorkers said this is a crisis that must be handled. And that is not just in New York City. That is in the suburbs surrounding New York City, where Democrats suffered enormous losses in the last midterm on the issue of crime. They now have one hundred and ten thousand migrants who have fled to the city. Come to the city. They were either shipped or they came on their own.
Because the city has a right to sh shelter provision, and that is what the mayor is rightly responding to the city does not have the money, it does not have the services in place to support this influx. And so what are they trying to do. They're trying to get help from the state, They're trying to get help from the federal government, rightly so, and they are saying this is a crisis, and he is right about that.
You know, the school year here just started. You've got, by some counts, twenty thousand plus young children enrolled in these schools, and the schools were not equipped for these just a few weeks, if not months ago. So it is a crisis. It's something that has to be addressed. And every Democrat I have talked to here agrees that that, including people like AOC and others. So he is not alone. But of course he has been screaming this out to the government and at the state and federal level with
very limited response at this point. And he's going to keep making this case because he's right to make it.
We spoke yesterday on Balance of Power here on Bloomberg with Nicole Malia Takis, congresswoman from New York, a Republican, who dropped the statistic I had not heard, suggesting only thirteen percent of the migrants currently in New York City were actually sent there bust there by the likes of Greg Abbott and Texas Ron de Santis whatever he's up to in Florida here, and if the rest have simply followed them, friends, family, others looking for relief in New
York and Malia Takis had some pretty strong thoughts on this. Here's what she told us.
Chuck Schumer won't pass our border security bill, which we passed the House in May, that would actually resolve a majority of the problem and actually give the Customs and Border Patrol Agency exact tools that they said they need to do their job, both from a training perspective, from a technology perspective, and from a policy perspective. Just allowing
them to do their job. And our mayor has exacerbated the problem, is incentivized people to come to New York City by misinterpreting New York City's right to shelter law.
So, Mara, if you agree with the congress woman, this is a confluence of problems on both the state level, the city level well and all three the federal level.
Here.
If you think that this is in fact stemming from the administration's border policies, how do you fix all of that or is this just that I told you so moment for Republicans.
You know, immigration has long been a wedge issue for both parties to scream out from the rooftops but not
actually do anything about, right. I mean, we obviously see this as a crisis, and one of the number one concerns for the American families catching table issues is the economy and safety and security, and this really hits at both of those things, right, because you just laid it out the number of you know, the money that has been spent to accommodate this influx, and I think that Republicans are going to hit that obviously, not only the money being spent, but the lack of security now only
on our southern border, but our northern border. They've been
harping on that as well. But at the end of the day, like we have a great amount of jobs openings, but we need high skilled workers, so there has to be some sort of you know, how do we safely resolve this issue but also still keep you know, the land of the free and the land of hope and opportunity and what you know, my grandfather came here, Both my grandfathers came here as immigrants immigrated to America to seek a better life for themselves and for our family,
and so, I you know, we want to still be that beacon on the hill, a shining city on the hill, but we want to have security and safety. So how do we we reconcile those two things? And it's a question that legislators and the president and beyond need to really actually do something about and not just talk about to get a few votes.
I don't know where this is going here, Genie. This is not going to be fixed overnight. Obviously. Is it appropriate, though, for Eric Adams to be invoking the destruction of New York City on the eve of nine to eleven.
Yeah, I mean, it's such a good question, and it is, you know, so devastating to think about what happened in nine to eleven and the idea that he is using such charge language today. Their reality is is this is what people in New York City today and New York State and the surrounding areas are really feeling. And as mayor, he does have an obligation to make that case. I do hope and I suspect he will also be holding memorials of what happened on nine to eleven, so I
think he can do both at the same time. And to your point, what's going to happen. What's going to happen is what has always happened in election cycles. Nothing unfortunately on the immigration crisis on both sides of the isle, and that's the unfortunate situation we are in. It won't get past this year, and that's a devastating reality for all of us.
With the question still where else will they go? You remember Eric Adams suggested Riker's Island. That didn't go over very well. So we'll keep you posted on what happens here. It's reaching a boiling point.
You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
The Bloomberg Business App.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
It's great to see you, Kaylee. Happy Friday. As we look abroad this weekend, President Biden is touchdown in India, left late yesterday and I guess he's looming large over this g twenty. There's no she, no Putin, and it's open season for the American president.
Huh Yeah.
Trying to shore up alliances, talk about support for Ukraine climate as well, a lot of issues going to be on the agenda, and he really got right to it. He met with Prime Ministern RNDA rodri Modi of India. Yeah, pretty much immediately upon arriving. Of course, the India relationship also is one that has proven to be very important for this administration.
It's been pretty remarkable. As we bring in John Sidlities in our conversation, a principle at Trilogy Advisors and a consultant diplomacy consultant at the State Department. John, great to have you with us. You have to smile for the camera now and sound on. Thank you, Thanks for being great to be here. Absolutely if you want to join us, by the way, on our YouTube simulcast, we invite you. Get to YouTube and search Bloomberg Global News. Join us
here in studio, be part of the family. If you're listening on the radio or satellite radio for that matter, we welcome you. As always. There's been a lot of questions about the goals for Joe Biden, at this gathering here. All the while, India is advertising on billboards that hey, not only are we back, but we're stronger than ever. We're hosting the G twenty. We are something to be
reckoned with. There's a huge opportunity here without Vladimir Putin or President she in the room for Joe Biden to embrace mody to Kayley's point, and get some traction here. Can you do it this week?
Well, he's certainly going to give it his best.
There are probably four larger goals here, I would say for President Biden on this trip. One is clearly to enhance the US India relationship. This is not going to be an alliance, but it's going to be one of the most important strategic partnerships for the United States on the global stage. And he received Prime Minister Narentomodi quite well here at the White House not too long ago
and is being reciprocated now. I think also President Biden has to make sure that he's able to rebuild American relations with the so called Global Souths, especially after the COVID lockdowns. Many of these countries feel that they were marginalized by the US and the West, and these are countries that are going to be very important in multilateral institutions, especially the United Nations in dealing with the US China
competition and the Russia Ukraine War. Third, obviously, President Biden wants to counter China's growing influence with the global South and look to present the US and the West as the viable alternative for technology, for infrastructure, and for a clean network, all at of the Trump administration's policies that have pretty much been carried over into the Biden administration. And fourth and lastly here I would say to try
to expand the pro Ukraine coalition. Most of these countries outside of Europe and say Japan and South Korea and Asia have largely sat out the Ukraine War. They see it basically as an intra European Intraslavic war. They're indifferent to what's happening in Ukraine for the most part because they depend on Russia for oil, coal, gas, food, fertilizer.
And frankly weapons.
And remember, Russia has military cooperation agreements with twenty countries in Africa alone, So these countries are not going to risk this very valuable relationship with Russia over Americas and Europe's stents in Ukraine, so tall larder. He's got a number of objectives and we'll see what you can pull off in the next forty eight hours.
Just on the subject of Ukraine, I have to wonder, as Biden is trying to talk to other countries, try to show up shore up arms, ammunition, just support in general funding, if his credibility is hit by the conversation around Ukraine funding that's happening domestically in the government that he sits at the helm of he sits in the Oval Office, obviously is asking for more support for Ukraine, north of twenty billion dollars in a supplemental and yet
down the road on Capitol Hill, there's no guarantee that they're actually going to give that to him. What does all that noise mean and how does it influence his messaging to other countries.
It's a tough one because he has to be able to, as you say, project power and decisiveness. But at the same time, the United States operates as a democracy, and so we have checks and balances, and the Republicans control the House, and a large part of the Republican base
is concerned about additional aid to Ukraine. On the scale of hope we've done over the past year and a half, and I think actually you start to see this as some of the more sort of pro left media that they're also beginning to wonder how long this level of eight can be sustained. But right now it is mostly the Republican members of the House. So this is the
upside and the downside of democracy at play. But it looks like most of the Republican leadership, especially in the Senate, from Mitch McConnel on down, are in favor of supporting the President's next trancha of Ukraine aid. But it's just the nature of the business. Is There really not much you can do to get around it, except to say that he's doing his best and if he prevails, it'll be a sign of strength in favor of the president.
Part of our approach to Ukraine is of course starving Russia. So what extent can Joe Biden turn Mody away from Putin in the conversations that they'll have this weekend.
My own sense, it's going to be extremely difficult. First of all, we not only are failing to starve Russia, but Russia's GDP will grow in twenty twenty three. They have figured out a way and they've dealt with other countries, rogue countries like Iran and Venezuela, how to circumvent American sanctions,
financial sanctions, energy sanctions and the light. But I think also what you see happening right now is that a country like India has had long standing, decades long relations with the former Soviet Union now Russia again on energy, hydrocarbons. It's actually ramped up its oil and coal purchases more than almost any of the country in the world since the war began. Also long standing weapons relations. The Russians are exceptional arms merchants and the Indians have been one
of their best clients. And I think also for India, it's important that they be seen and they want to be an independent party. They don't want to be a junior partner of the United States. They have to balance their relations with Russia with China, even though they have these very difficult tensions, border clashes, and India is very much concerned about the Chinese Navy's ability to project power in the Indian Ocean in the years to come. But they also do not see themselves as a junior partner
the US, as would be say Japan or Germany. They want to assert their rise to regional powers status in the years ahead, so they're going to balance all of these interests and trade relationships very carefully.
Just to your point on the Russian economy, within the last hour, we got their macroeconomic forecast from Russia. What they policymakers in the country think GDP is going to do. They think it's going to grow for the next three years,
despite the sanctions, despite the war. So certainly interesting. I want to return to the point you were making earlier about the global South and how this is going to be a big effort on the part of the Biden administration at this summit, and a lot of this is related to financing, right, reforming the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, providing sources of funding to these emerging economies that aren't belted road right, This is what that's about. How hard is that to accomplish?
Well, First of all, this is long overdue.
I mean, we're playing catch up with the People's Republic of China that has issued a better trillion dollars worth of loans and different forms of credit assistance to about one hundred and thirty countries for infrastructure projects worldwide. So we're talking now about I think two hundred billion dollars. Is that the figure that's being talked about in term of World Bank and IMF available additional funds. But it's also a matter of the kind of process that's used
to help these countries develop. We actually have, we believe, higher quality infrastructure and telecommunications products and services in the West than what comes out of China. They tend to export their labor, they tend to extract natural resources. It's not really a beneficial arrangement for many of these countries.
Besides many of these white elephants that are built. And so I think one of the difficult messages for President Biden to be able to sell to these countries is that you have higher quality, even if it's a little bit more expensive, higher quality, and it's less corruptive a process, so that you don't have the kind of corruption that China has fostered through the Belop Road initiative, because the Chinese money comes with no conditions, no pesky lectures about
human rights or environmental or labor standards or anything along those lines. And it's not just the president, I think also our European and G seven partners have to promote this idea that long term trade and security in economic development will advance far more healthily in relations with the West than with the country like China, which is more of an extractive country than a cooperative country.
I'm spending time with Johnson ladies from Trilogy Advisors. I'm not trying to provoke you here, but I will. If President She President Putin are not at the G twenty, what is the point exactly of the G twenty? Why not just have a NATO meeting?
Well, because many of the countries that are there have nothing to.
Tell me that.
But if they're not moving a needle on these relationships, Joe Biden's going over to shore up support for Ukraine, isn't he That's really the primary goal here, which is something that he's done in any number of NATO meetings. But if the G twenty is not fully represented, does that weaken the body?
It depends on what the outcome is here.
And I think there's a lot of diplomatic energy that's being expended and trying to forge a joined communicay, especially on Ukraine, and they're finding great difficulty there because China will likely back Russia are most of the language debates, but there is still very much of an important global
platform that's being played out here. And this really is, if not a merger, at least coming together of the advanced industrialized countries of the West and the global South is becoming more and more prominent as a player on the world stage.
So this is more important than it was, not less.
I would say, in many ways, the G twenty process is more important today than ever. These countries are where most of the population growth will take place, most of the energy demands will take place in the years to come, and where there's going to be tremendous economic development. I mean, there are emerging markets that are already at four or five six percent growth rates for the next half decade or so, far greater than anything in Europe to speak of.
So I think we need to engage these countries well. We need to make sure that they do not become partners of China in ways that are inimical for their
own development and for global diplomacy. And so I think it's very important that President Biden is there as many countries from the advanced industrial North or West are there, as well, and to look to see how they can come together are many of these issues, and to see where someone like Prime Minister Modi is able to serve or to position India as an effective bridge between the West and the South, which is where he's looking to position India again, to keep it independent, not be an
alliance partner of the United States, but also not necessarily harm relations with China or Russia in any ways that are animmical to India's own tremendous growth potential. So a very very complex array of interest and objectives at play here.
Well, and one of them is on climate. I mean, we talk about India and China, these are huge global emitters, and you were talking about the difficulty of finding agreement on the language and the Communica. Our understanding based on a reporting here at Bloomberg, is also that China has taken issue with some of the climate measures involved in that. I imagine this is going to feature pretty heavily at the
summit as well. How hard is that climate issue for these countries to navigate, given that outsized roles are played by India and China, I.
Think they are going to be far more difficult than we would like to see first of all, China I think talks a good talk, but doesn't really put up when it comes to climate I mean, right now, they were able to finagle for themselves a carbon emitting role where they're not going to peak until twenty thirty. And then we'll see to what extent they actually do begin to change their regulatory framework to bring carbon emissions down.
But they're still a developing country into the World Trade Organization, and they claim this as a privilege to be able to grow their economy as they need to. And they're still putting out coal plants about an average of one a week, even as they continue to advance on electric vehicles and wind and solar power. And India also will likely become or remain very hydrocarbon dependent for as long as they feel it takes to get their economy to
where it needs to be. New with the number of other countries around the world where they feel that their societies are being affected by climate change, there'll be a negotiation here. But how much capital is they're really available? In the United States, We're soon going to have trillion dollar debt pay every year, trillion dollars, So how much are American taxpayer is willing to transfer over to South America and Africa and South Asia for so called climate
resolution policies that are completely untested. So I think it's going to be a very very difficult, tangible process. There's going to be a lot of great rhetoric here and
a lot of shared goals. But again, I think India will play a very important role here because they need to be able to develop their economy as cleanly as possible given where they're starting from at this point, and if they can promote climate policies is part of a multilateral solution process, they'll have achieved a major victory here.
Now we have less than a minute. It's interesting when you consider our trade relationship with China, the second largest economy in the world, as we're reminded, not our top trading partner. However, we do more business with Canada and Mexico. You look five years down the road, where will China be on the food chain there? In terms of trading partners.
With the US.
First of all, it depends I think that.
Are lower than where it is now.
I don't know I can forecast, and I'm not sure anyone safely can. I mean, there's already a lot of sort of long term gloomy prospecting about China's economy. I don't know how much of this is short term and how much of this is long term. We'll have to see what happens there figure this out right now. But the bottom line is I think the US, you know, most Americans undervalue the relationship that we have with Canada and Mexico. There are peaceful neighbors. They need to be
as prosperous as possible. We need to ramp up those economic trade ties.
I think that's the point that we take out of this conversation. John, thank you so much. He is a diplomacy consultant for the State Department, and he's all ours today on Sound On a conversation you won't hear anywhere else with John Siddalities alongside Kaylee Lines. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. Thanks for being with us. Thanks for listening to the Sound on podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you
get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com and