Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Amocarplay and then Roun Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
The clock has started now on a sixty day ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hesbela in Lebanon. The deal, of course, was reached yesterday, and it required weeks of shuttle diplomacy from those in the Biden administration. Obviously, this is a big deal and important news for those who have been affected by this conflict, as many can now return to
their homes. But it's a big deal for President Biden as well, who has been pushing for this very hard, pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza as well, and he actually announced this from the Rose Garden at the White House yesterday just after the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi net and Yahoo spoke in Israel.
This is designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities. What is left of Hesbalah and another terrorist organization will not be allowed, well, our emphasize, will not be allowed to threaten the security visual again. Over the next sixty days, a Lebanese army and State security force will deploy and take control of their own territory once again.
I am determined to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.
I'm mult people.
I have said many times that a good agreement is an agreement that is enforced, and we will enforce it.
So for more on this agreement and what it means for the region more largely, we turned to Jonathan Panicoff. He is Atlantic Council Director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative. Welcome back to balance and power Jonathan to seize on the words of President Biden. There, he suggested, this is a path to something permanent, but ceasefires often are temporary in nature. In this initial period is only sixty days. What will it take to make this a permanent cessation of hostilities?
Good afternoon, Thanks so much for having me back.
Look, I think it is true that it is a sixty day cease fire, but it's supposed to be sixty days, and if all the parties implement the required steps, then it will become permanent. In other words, it's not sixty days, and then Israel at the end of that is supposed to the Israeli forces is supposed to go back to Israel. It's sixty days, and step by step, as the Lebanese Armed Forces redeployed to the south of Lebanon, then Israeli
forces will move out. And the goal is that at the end of sixty days, you'll have no more Israeli forces in Lebanon. You'll have only the Lebanese Armed Forces undertaking the security that frankly, they were supposed to have been undertaking back in two thousand and six when you and Resolution seventeen oh one was implemented.
The hope is that this will actually.
Be different this time because of the parties involved in the structure, and that it will lead to obviously a.
More permanent ceasefire.
Whether that's true, we'll obviously have to wait and see. Both sides are going to be inclined to say there's violations. The goal will be for the US and France, who are now more involved, to be able to say, look, we have to move forward.
The violations we can be dealt with.
We need to ensure that we retain the ceasefire that we've sought to establish.
Well, how able what haslet even be at this point to violate this in a materially threatening way, Jonathan, considering, we understand that the reason this was able to come together is in part because Israel has so materially weakened hasbi laed by decapitating its most senior leadership, by taking out a lot of its military capability.
That's certainly right.
Look, I think about probably sixty to seventy percent of Isabella's missile inventory, on his rocket inventory, it's drone inventory has probably been destroyed by Israel over the last four months or so. And obviously Hesbela's command and control is incredibly weak right now. Israel has taken out and killed not only the most senior leaders of Hezbala, but even the second and third level commanders, and that's incredibly weak
in the organization. But Isbela still does retain a significant amount of rockets of shorter range weapons that can reach northern Israel. At the end of the day, the fundamental goal for Israel. Israel was to be able to ensure that the tens of thousands of Israelis who have been displaced from their homes for over a year now could return to that if Hezbala is able to start refiring the rockets that has remaining in inventory, that obviously would create a challenge for the ceasefire.
But clearly they are fully weakened.
And in a much weaker position than they were even four months ago.
Well, and arguably, Jonathan, the same thing could be said of Hamas after more than a year of fighting with Israel in Gaza. There was much conversation yesterday about whether or not this ceasefire agreement with Hesbola would be a step toward reaching another ceasefire agreement with Hamas. Obviously, these are fundamentally different conflicts in many ways. There's a massive question about what the day after would look like if an agreement is come to you between Israel and Hamas.
So give us a reality check here. How much closer are we to a resolution there now that this currency is fire and Lebanon is in place.
I think we're probably a little bit closer, but not much, to be honest. Look, the Biden.
Administration has put a lot of emphasis that if you could create a situation in terms of resolving the conflict with Hesbela, it would cut the link between Hesbela and Hamas and might create an opening for a new negotiation between.
Hamas and Israel. That is possible.
There was enough official just today who went to the cutteries US and Egypt and said we were ready to negotiate under serious terms.
The difference is the circumstances.
Haven't significantly changed when it comes to Israel's position or Hamas's position. The reality is that is degraded as Hamas is, they still hold a significant amount of leverage because they're still holding one hundred and one hostages. And even though we know most or at least some of those hostages are probably no longer alive, that still means that there's dozens of them remaining. I think that creates a different impediment to getting to a ceasefire deal than you had
with Hesbaalah. For example, Hamas is going to want a much higher cost in Israel without a day after planning, as you mentioned, isn't quite ready to give it.
I wouldn't think well, And I wonder if that's also in part because Israel knows a new US president is coming fifty four days from now. It will be Ronald Trump that is the commander in chief, and is helping
to dictate or dictating entirely foreign policy. So I do wonder your sense of the timing here that yes, maybe this ceasefire in Lebanon was able to be accomplished under this administration, but all of these parties all throughout the Middle East and other allies involved in this, no when new administration's coming in.
I think that certainly play into plays into it from Prime Minister Netyak, whose perspective. Look, I don't think it's any secret that Prime Minister net Yak, who was strongly preferring that President Trump president elect Trump win the election earlier this month.
At the same time, the President.
Elect has actually been very very clear this may be one of the few areas that he and the Bide administration are on the same page, that he wants to see the conflict ended before, if not very very soon after his inauguration. It's hard to believe that you'll see has significant change and circumstances on the ground that would really change the totality of what the parties are negotiating
over between now and Trump's inauguration. And so I think, look, it is true that I think President Trump will probably have a little bit more leverage a new administration and an ability to control Net and Yahoo in a way that I think President Biden has struggled to do. But ultimately it's still going to be a fundamental challenge, and without the circumstances on the ground changing, I'm not sure that it's going to make a huge difference in the end.
Well, we know that there are some common denominators in terms of what the incoming Trump administration would like to see accomplished in the Middle East and what the Biden administration has been pushing for, inclusive of a normalization in the Saudi Israel relationship. Jonathan and our final moment here, what needs to happen is a prerequisite to that normalization.
It's a great question because over the last year the Saudis have moved consistently in terms of their demands.
When it comes to the Palestinians.
It started quite quietly that they just wanted to see a ceasefire, and then it became a question of a clear path through Tuesday solution, and earlier this month you saw the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammed Ben Salomon, come out and say no, there needs to be an actual Palestinian state.
Look, it's gonna be hard to move back from that. In a multi polar world.
The Saudis see themselves not only as the key pole in the Middle East, but they see themselves as the voice not just for the Saudi population but the Pan Arab population. That doesn't mean that it can't happen, but I think in order to get there, you're really going to need a heavy push by the Trump administration and a broader deal that includes not just the Saudis and the Israelis and the Palestinians, but probably more of the region as well.
All Right, Jonathan Panakoff of the Atlantic Council, thank you so much as always for joining me here on Balance of Power, and we'll have more ahead on the book.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live week days at noon. He's on Applecarplay and then Roud Otto with a Bloomberg business ad. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
So as we consider motorists, especially as many of them take to the roads for this Thanksgiving, they are paying some of the lowest prices of the year at the pump. Right now, the triple A average for a gallon of gas is three dollars and seven cents. But how quickly could that ultimately change? That is a question I now post to Patrick de'han he is head of a petroleum analysis at GUS Buddy joining me here on balance of power. Patrick,
welcome back to the program. If we could start firstly with what the actual translation of a tariff like this would be to the cost that consumers see at the gas pump, you know, post it on the board at the station. If it's a twenty five percent tariff, what does that translate to in terms of sense per gallot?
Well, yeah, well, you know, as Bob had said, I mean, this is going to be a significant impact. And a lot of these refineries in the Great Lakes, the Midwest,
the Rockies processed Canadian heavy oil almost exclusively. So right now Western Canadian Select, which is one of the benchmarks at about sixty dollars a barrow, that twenty five percent tariff would amount about fourteen or fifteen dollars, which break it down to a gallon of gasoline, and the raw input would be about a thirty three to thirty four cent a gallon.
Impact, and so this is not nothing.
I mean, this is an over ten percent impact, and this is the baseline, would be about thirty five cents. Keep in mind twenty five percent tariff. If oil prices rally, you're going to see that tariff go up and up and up, and it's going to be more of a squeeze as that happens, especially into the summer months.
Well, that's a very good point. Of course, this kind of policy can't actually be implemented until at least January twentieth, when Trump takes office, which is just over a month. And I guess two months from now, just a little bit less than two months, where are we going to be into terms of gas prices by then? Patrick, considering the trajectory we are currently on, which has been pretty steadily lower.
Well, I think most consumers are going to feel that bite very significantly, because over the next couple of months we should see gas prices saying it relatively low levels.
We still should have half.
Of the country, if not more, seeing average gas prices below three dollars for comparison's sake, gas But he counts about thirty states today below three dollars a gallon, and though there may be some volatility and prices depending on the balance of global supply and demand, depending on Russia and Ukraine and the Middle East, there may be some minor fluctuations, but the seasonal low should stick around right through inauguration debt, and if we see that tariff implemented,
it's going to be a rather abrupt pinch of the pump for those areas that are going to be affected.
Would that theoretically, and I understand we're playing in hypotheticals here, but would that lead to a just as abrupt drop off in demand, Well, it probably would.
To such a drop off.
I mean, Americans only really have their car to drive, whether it's an EV, then they're insulated completely from this. But for those that are still driving around an internal combustion engine vehicle, there's not a whole lot of alternatives here. Nor are there really alternatives for the refineries that have for decades been relying on Canadian crude oil. This is upsetting the status quo that's been established really for probably
the better part of one hundred years. These refineries that process Canadian oil almost exclusively, and they're going to be the ones impacted the most, and they really have no alternatives. As Bob has said, these inland areas Illinois, Michigan, Ohio refineries in this region just really don't have alternatives.
Well, so explain that to those who might say, hey, Donald Trump has promised to deregulate American energy to make it easier for them to build that new infrastructure to increase their production capacity. That's going to mean we produce more and potentially that means prices go lower. Why is that not true when we think about the need to potentially directly replace some of these imports.
Yeah, I mean absolutely. I mean you're talking about a huge change in the status quo. I mean a president that would potentially on day one levy massive tariffs is not something we're used to a president seeing. And so you know, I've heard folks say, well, how can the president have such a vast impact? Well, because presidents typically don't upset the status quo in such a huge way. And you know, these refineries have long, for as I mentioned, decades,
been set up. They've been configured specifically to process more of this heavy Canadian oil, to have additionally units coking units, desulfurization. I mean, they have decades of experience processing Canadian oil and specifically designing their refineries around this type of oil.
Keep in mind, the largest refinery in the Midwest four hundred and thirty five thousand barrels a day down in Whiting, Indiana, that's Northwest Indiana in two thousand nates that three and a half billion dollars, essentially making itself more reliant on processing more Canadian crude oil. So, I mean, that's just how reliant these refineries are. There's been a SETI supply of Canadian oil and increasing amount for decades and decades.
We're now receiving four million barrels of Canadian oil a day. So this is a drastic and sudden potential chef.
Well, so when we consider the refiners, obviously we have to take into account refining margins here and as we consider tariffs especially, we have heard this notion propagated by Trump and those who think similarly to him, this idea that not all tariffs are necessarily a direct cost that the consumer will pay. Companies could eat some of this.
For example, could we see instead of it being passed on to the end consumer at the gas pump just a shrinking of refining margins, or are they likely to want to pass all of that additional cost on well.
Refinery margins are already at some of the worst levels we've seen in multiple years. I mean, refineries probably in this region are only clearing a few dollars a barrel, So you know, can they absorb some of it, maybe, you know, in iota of it, But for now refining margins, I mean, this is the time of year that they
are very much challenged. And keep in mind the irony here is the only way that these refineries have been profitable is because Western Canadian crude oil generally comes to the US at a pretty big discount because of its
landlocked status. Now, the interesting dynamic here that few people are talking about is at the same time these terrafts could be implemented, Trump may again greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline, which ironically could give Canada exactly what it wants is it wants another market besides the US refiners, and so if the Keystone XL is suddenly greenlit, that could essentially give a huge win to Canada, allowing a lot more of that Canadian heavy crude ol to be exupported, and
it could further inflict more pain on refineries down in the US which are already dealing with razor than margins.
It's really valuable information as we consider what could come in this second Trump administration. Before we get there, though, I do want to ask you quickly about what's happening this week, which is of course the Thanksgiving holiday tomorrow and hence a lot of people taking to the roads. For those who are on road trips, where in the country can they find the cheapest gas.
Well, you can see that map behind me.
Generally the South, the Gulf Coast, the areas with low gas leade taxes and with proximity to large refiners are those that are benefiting the most. Areas like Oklahoma City, some stations down to two ten or two twenty a gallon. But you know, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, the Deep South generally the place to be when it comes to lower prices,
whereas the West Coast the place not to be. California is still struggling with prices that are well over four dollars a gallon, although many of California's neighbors are quite a bit lower than that, so we still have quite
the extremes. You have the lowest price state averaging two forty a gallon, and you have the highest price state averaging two dollars a gallon more in California, where prices are four forty four, so a massive spread for those especially traveling for Thanksgiving, crossing those state lines is still a danger zone for seeing a big fluctuation in prices.
All right, Patrick Dehan, head of petroleum analysis at gas Buddy, thank you so much for joining me, and a very happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emocarplay and then Broun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Here in Washington. Over the course of the last three weeks since the election, we've talked at length about the speed of this Trump transition. He has wasted no time at all in naming names to his second administration, including two new ones last night, Kevin Hassett and Jamison Greer,
to serve key economic roles. But what has moved a lot slower is the paperwork part of this transition, the signing of pledges around ethics and transparency that help facilitate the existing government agencies and the handover to the incoming administration.
The delay has actually been unprecedented, but at least for part of it, the delay is now over, the incoming Chief of Staff for Donald Trump, Susie Wiles, announcing yesterday that they have signed memorandums of understanding with the Biden administration, so that will clear the way for this flow of information between those who have been appointed to lead these agencies be involved in them, and the existing people inside
the agencies to be sharing information. It's an important step and when we want to reflect on with our signature political panel Rick Davis Stonecourt, Capital Partner and Republican Strategists alongside Democratic analyst Ghini Schanzeno, who of course is senior Democracy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Rick, first to you, it took a
while for this to happen, much longer than usual. Now that it has, is there enough time for everything that needs to happen over the course in the next fifty four days happen?
Yeah, I think so.
You're right, it did delay itself. These agreements should have been executed back in early October, so it took a couple of months to get this done. But it's not like they haven't been pumping out announcements on cabinet members and sub cabinet members of their administration. There were affiliate organizations like the Heritage Foundation and America First Policy Institute that have been working on transition ideas for a year. So it's not like they aren't going to be prepared
to run the government when they come on board. It's the activity now that they will be able to get non public information from their counterparts in these agencies directly and get a feel for what the current issues are that are going to meet them when they come into office. So the landing teams now will be given access to the agencies and the employees of government and that will smooth things and plenty of time to make all that work.
Well.
What they still aren't doing, though, is accepting funding an office space from the General Services Administration. They're relying instead, Genie on private donated dollars. Susie Wilds did say yesterday that they will be publicly disclosing those donors. But that does that give you concern?
Still, it does?
You know, I think it's very important that they signed the MoU with the White House, and as Rick was talking about, those landing teams got to love the D Day reference can now embed.
With those agencies and begin.
To shape them to reflect Donald Trump and what he hopes to achieve there and the facts that they get some of the non public information.
But it is deeply concerning.
That they have not ceded to these FBI background checks. And it's concerning and should be concerning to all Americans because this becomes an issue of national security. Transition times are important and they are also a moment of great vulnerability for the country.
That is why.
Congress has stepped in and taken a role in trying to smooth the transition process.
And so they are not, at least at.
This point, going to allow the FBI to do those background checks. And so any sort of idea in terms of who's being appointed that the FBI would be able to flag somebody who may be vulnerable can create a kind of national security risk for all of us.
And then of course there's the ethics component of this.
Who is contributing to this transition and how much. And it is concerning to many of us that while they say they're going to release this, they haven't.
Yet and what is the hold up on that?
So I think action by Congress to require this transparency, I think going forward would be important, but as of now we have to just wait for them if they choose to release it.
Well, I want to talk about another security risk that the FBI is actively looking into now. They're investigating bomb threats and swatting incidents that have targeted Trump administration nominees. We got a statement earlier today from Caroline Levett, the spokesperson for the transition team, that said, in part last night in this morning, several of Trump's cabinet nominees and administration appointees were targeted in violent, Unamerican threats to their
lives and those who live with them. These attacks ranged from bomb threats to swatting rick figures. High profile political figures have unfortunately not become or have become a bit used to swatting in this American political era. These threats are actually troublingly frequent, and I wonder your reaction here and how concerned we should be about the security risks to those who are about to take very high level roles in this government.
Yeah.
Look, I mean this is pretty pernicious behavior by people who have an ax to grind. We saw a lot of this spike at the end of the twenty twenty elections when Republicans were saying that the election was stolen and this was happening to election workers and people who oversee the certification of the elections. It hasn't gone away since then. Look, I mean, I think we got to
create a standard in our country. And I think it starts with the White House, not just the incoming White House, but the current White House, to talk about how disruptive this behavior is. It puts the law enforcement officials in a difficult position, It endangers the lives of people who are affected by these kinds of swatting episodes, and minimizes the use of the police.
And fire for people who really need it.
So I think, I think that this is the kind of thing we want our elected officials to set a standard on. And I think the more of them come out and say, look, this is unacceptable behavior. People who do it are gonna be punished for it. And and and as a society, you know, we we expect more of our people than to play these kind of games that could put people in harm's way.
Well, so, Genie, to that point, I know President Biden is currently on Thanksgiving vacation in Nantucket, but do we need to hear from him on this?
You know, I don't think so.
I think that the FBI and law enforcement officials can absolutely handle this, and by all account from Levitt's statement, that has happened, and the transition team expressed gratitude to the FBI and public officials. In my mind, it brings up a frustrating reality of the rhetoric coming out of Donald Trump and the Trump transition team.
You know, I understand his longstanding.
Distrust of the FBI and officials.
That is what.
Fuels this type of behavior in part, and of course you have to be very careful about that kind of rhetoric.
And so we were just talking about the transition.
We're not going to get proper FBI vetting because of that distrust. We are seeing these kinds of unacceptable to Rick's point, points of aggression and all this, you know, threats to people who are trying to act as public officials coming into the new administration, and we rely on law enforcement and we have to trust them to do
their jobs. And you know, this lack of trust in these institutions has been in part fueled by Trump and this team, and so to me, I think I hope that as they get into office themselves, they take a second look at that and are grateful to our great law enforcement officials for keeping us safe and doing their jobs.
Of course, a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the election, just the general political environment is circulated on social media, on platforms like X of course controlled by Elon Musk, who is getting set to take this role in the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. I do want to mention something that Musk posted on X about today. He suggests that we should quote delete the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because he says there are quote too many deplicative
regulatory agencies. Maybe this is part of trying to cut down the price tag in the government in terms of the budget. Rick, we know that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has not been popular in many ways since its inceptions after the financial crisis, certainly with Republicans. Should we be surprised by this, Rick, and what are the odds that a deleting quote unquote could really happen.
Yeah.
Look, I mean this was one of the agencies that sprung out, as you said, of the two thousand and eight financial crisis, in order to protect people from predatory lending habits and other things like that. And look, I mean you really have to question whether or not these agencies are worth the price that taxpayers pay for them. And I have no doubt that that's the kind of thing that Elon Musk and vi Vek Ramaswami and the DOGE team are going to be going after. Some of
these things are based in statutory laws. The creation of agencies are usually done, you know, with laws passed by Congress, and which means the only way you get rid of them is by passing another law that says we're going to take them out. And really, I mean it's a very difficult position to put members of Congress in to say, hey, we're going to get rid of an agency that protects
people from predatory lending. I mean, that's a I don't know what politics you might be thinking about, Elon Musk, but that's a hard sell to a member of Congress has got to get re elected next year. In two years. So yeah, it's worth the debate.
It's worth talking about the efficacy of government.
Its efficiency should be top.
Of mind for people right now. The meteoric rise in government post financial crisis, post COVID needs to be cut back and everything should be under the scrutiny of the DOGE team to take a look at where we can do that effectively.
All right, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzino our signature of political panel here with me on Balance of Power. Thank you so much.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern onmocarp and then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We're just over sixteen hours into what is going to be at least a sixty day cease fire as agreed between Israel and Hesbela in Lebanon. This, of course, a deal that was just reached yesterday or approved yesterday by the parties and announced at the White House by President Joe Biden, as well as spoken about by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This is designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities. What is left of Hesbalah and another terrorist organization will not be allowed well, I emphasized, will not be allowed to threaten security visual again. Over the next sixty days, the Lebanese Army and State Security Force will deploy and take control of their own territory once again.
I am determined to do whatever it takes to prevent Ron from attaining nuclear weapons. I multiple I have said many times that a good agreement is an agreement that is enforced, and we will enforce it.
So as we consider this agreement and how far into the future it will be able to extend, we bring in Jane Harmon, chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, and President am Emerita of the Woodrow Wilson Center, former Democratic Congressman from California, as well here on.
Balance of Power.
Jane, welcome back to the program. Thanks for being with us here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Obviously, much needs to happen in this sixty day span in order for this to lead to a permanent ceasefire. What is your degree of optimism that it will.
Well, it's a very good start and several things are going to happen in the sixty days. That give me optimism. One is civilians will start coming back into southern Lebanon and northern Israel, so the stakes are going to be higher as this resumes. Two is that Hezbollah has been seriously degraded. They're the ones, I think now who pushed for this more than than even than the Israelis did UH and that's good news. That's the most potent of
Iran's UH terror proxy groups. Third is Levanon has a chance to form again a really serious solid UH democratic government, which it had in the olden days. I mean, they root was the Paris of the Middle East, or maybe Paris was the bay Root of Europe, but it was a beautiful city destroyed now by all of this uh UH terror and and and collapse of government.
And finally Iran is hemmed in more.
They're threatening to advance their nuclear capacity, but their their biggest weapon, which was these terror groups are losing ground, including UH fortunately in Gaza, which I hope will be next on the list for a ceasefire, return of hostages and passed towards state solution.
Well that's exactly what I wanted to ask you about, Jane Obviously, there has been a lot of expression of that hope that a ceasefire with Hesbela could pave the way for a ceasefire with Hamas. Considering it's becoming more and more clear that neither Hesbela or Iron really is going to be coming to the aid of Hamas at this stage of the conflict. So how much closer has this agreement drawn us to that potential?
One?
Do you think this is still something that could be accomplished while President Biden is in office?
I don't know.
Certainly, kudos to his team for four years of working on all this and one plus year of working on Gaza since the illegal invasion by Hamas. One major factor is who would govern Gaza. That is unclear. The palestinating authority at the moment is not in charge of Gaza and is a weak and a corrupt government. I mean,
there has to be something stronger there. Secondly, just maybe Biden, building on an accomplishment of the Trump one administration, can revive this deal among Sunny States and Israel, which must include a path to two states, and that could help push some competent government into Gaza and generate some interest in rebuilding Gaza. I mean, that's the other thing. It's essentially destroyed. So I think there are a lot of IFFs.
I think Biden deserves a lot of credit. And as I said, it was Trump who started with the Abraham Accords, this notion of a not just a truce, but an economic arrangement among Sunny governments and Israel. And if that can be developed starting now and continuing now and then continuing into the Trump administration, that's good news.
Well, Gane, as you give Biden a lot of credit for this. The question is, as he is preparing to leave the White House just a few weeks from now, how much credit historians will give him. How important was reaching this ceasefire agreement in Lebanon to the shaping of his ultimate legacy.
Well, it's important.
But the unknown unknown, I guess, is where are we going with Ukraine? I would say he is was late to permit the transfer of very lethal weapons into Ukraine, and sadly very late to give the Ukrainians permission to use them on Russian soil against military installations and against the influx of North Korean troops. Fortunately this has happened. He's also pushing another appropriation of twenty plus billion dollars before he leaves.
But what I worry about is not.
To change in mission, but the way we left Afghanistan on Biden's watch and the way we may leave Ukraine will seriously erode US leadership in the future. I don't blame it all on Joe Biden. It was Russia that invaded Ukraine. And certainly Biden has restored and revived enhanced NATO and the NATO Alliance, and he leaves that behind too.
I hope Trump won't degrade that again.
But you know, legacies take a while to form, and it would be great if this leads to a ceasefire in Gaza and it leads to a real serious advance by Ukraine against Russian forces before he leaves.
Well, if we could just continue this discussion on Ukraine. We learned about an hour ago Jane that Donald Trump has nominated retire General Keith Kellogg to be a special Envoy for Russia and Ukraine. Kellogg had written for the America First Policy Institute that in order for people to come to the peace table, if you will, the US should make it clear, as well as other NATO allies, that they are willing to put off Ukraine joining the alliance, and then that may be a key component for Russia
to come to any kind of agreement. I wonder what your thoughts are on a that idea, but be the role is ultimately going to play well.
Note that he's a special envoy, he's not nominated as ambassador. That's again to avoid confirmation by Congress. But note two that Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell, who is the outgoing Senate leader, are strong proponents of aid to Ukraine.
So let's see how this plays out.
I worry about taking joining NATO off the table because what is the insurance policy against Russia agreeing to some form of settlement and then advancing in the future. Let's understand that in nineteen ninety four Russia agreed that Ukraine was a sovereign state before Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. And let's understand that Russia is a charter member of the UN, where every member is supposed to respect the sovereignty of every other member, And there were other agreements along the.
Way, all of which Russia violated.
So I'm still worried that with that NATO without NATO membership as an insurance policy, that Russia might feel emboldened to move against Ukraine soon and to move into Europe. And again to remind the Trump administration, we are a member of NATO. Article five guarantees would put us in a war if that should happen.
Jane, as you chair the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, I want to turn to something that happened last week that I don't think got very much attention. But it was a speech that the incoming Senate Majority leader John Thune gave on the Senate floor in which he quoted directly from the commission's final report, specifically the line that says the Commission finds the US military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident and can
deter and prevail in combat. He went on to say that as a pretty damning statement. He was using this as a way to reinforce the idea that the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA does need to pass. That's something on there to do list before the year is out, Jane. But as he gets ready to take control of the Senate majority, Mike Johnson of course going to have continued control we assume over the House. In Donald Trump, the presidency.
How do they need to be considering the US defense position.
Well, let's start with the fact that this commission, which I was fortunate to chair, composed of four Democrats and four Republicans, was unanimous, bipartisan, and unanimous.
In the conclusions we reach, one of which.
You just cited, and we think that the world is more dangerous and more complex than any time since World War Two, and we are under prepared. Yes, soon is right to add to make sure that the National Defense Authorization Act passes before Congress adjourns. It's already late. It's always late. It's been late every year since at least twenty eleven. But this is crucial to protect the US against threats around the world, not just threats from one location like China.
At any rate, I hope that happens.
What we've also urged, though, is maybe language that says, before the next National Defense strategy is prepared, that the National Security Strategy, the overlying document, directs all these smaller strategies to focus outward, because we think in order for the US to deter threats against US in the future and prevent wars, which is what everybody would like, we need to use all elements of national power, not just DoD DD does need reforms, but I would urge that
if if it's decapitated and the top level of military leaders is taken out, it will really undermine God's authority. And if it's misused for purposes that are inconsistent with the posse commatatis policy, that's another way that d D will not perform better than it has been and as well as it needs to be.
So a final note on this Jane, as we get ready for just the NDAA authorization but also the funding battle Congress still needs to sort out before they have more funding battles in the new year and try to
reign in spending. What is this ultimately going to mean for what the defense budget needs to be, especially as you have the likes of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswami saying they want to cut two trillion dollars in federal spending and just by basic math, that would have to include at least a portion of defense.
Well, we say in our report that some legacy systems should be canceled and that would free up some funds to spend on the right assets. We said that building hardware only is not a good strategy given what the weapons systems are that are veered against us that can take that out.
And more software based, iterative tech based.
Weapons are the future. Think Ukraine. Ukraine's making those itself and using them effectively on the battles like drones. But at any rate, that's that's what we said, those things are less expensive.
On the other hand, we.
Pointed out that the Defense Department is way below targets set years ago, and that we do need to increase defense spending on the right things. And it's not a zero sum game. We shouldn't increase the Pentagon budget and decrease the State Department budget because robust soft power is a huge part of all elements and national power.
So let's see what they do.
But we call for raising revenues to cover any increases in defense and reforming entitlements, which is a place they will maybe go. And certainly I've been in favor of that all my years in Congress and now, and I was there, you know, one hundred years ago in nineteen ninety seven, when members of Congress on a bipartisan basis voted successfully to balance the federal budget.
All right, Former Congressman Jane Harmon, now Chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, joining us here on Balance of Power on this Thanksgiving Eve. Gene, thank you so much and a very happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't all right to get Apple, Spotify.
Or wherever you get your podcasts, and
You can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.