Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Joe and I always have our eyes on what's happening on Capitol Hill in the way in which a legislative path forward for Congress, together with the Trump administration, is shaping up. It was actually at this hour yesterday that we were joined by Republican Senator Bill Haggerty of Tennessee, and Joe pressed him on whether or not it was the Senate or the House that was actually going to take those first baby steps. This was his answer.
We know the American public expects us to address the tax package, and where we're going to do that. We have a number of other issues that we're trying to address at the same time. How we do it from a process standpoint, I'm much less concerned about. I think the concern is that we get it done quickly, that we get it done efficiently, and I'm optimistic that we will get it done despite the procedural back and forth
between the House and the Senate. We're going to get it done, and we're very focused on it.
We bring in a member of the Republican Conference in the House now, Congressman Frank Lucas, Oklahoma's third district.
It's great to have you with us.
Congressman, thanks for joining here on Bloomberg TV and radio. Our viewers and listeners should know that you have represented that district since two thousand and three, and you've been through a couple of funding battles here and I realized the concept of reconciliation is nothing new.
So give us your voice of experience on this.
The idea of marking up a reconciliation bill this week in the House appears to be out the window.
How is this all going to work? Is it one bill or two?
Well, first of all, I actually go back to nineteen ninety four. I was here for the last seven months of the old Democratic forty year majority. I was a part of the revolution of nineteen ninety four. I think the question becomes, do you want to base hit or you want a home run? The issues that are being talked about, my brethren and the other box would be basically be a base hit.
It's the tax.
Policy questions that really matter for the long term economy. If we run one belt, we get it all done, that's a home run. But I'm practical enough to know whatever the leadership decides, I'll be a part of because I want to make sure we don't let a massive tax increase take place immediately.
Well, Congressman, I guess the question is whether this is really up to leadership or if this is more about what is going to take to appease the Freedom Caucus.
Well, we have a two seat majority in the United States House of Representatives. In the Republican Conference. Soon we'll have a one seat majority. That's about as thinly as you can slice. It makes the sentence three seat majority look like a huge majority. And we have factions within our conference who have various agenda items. But the bottom
line is this. If we don't extend the Trump Tracks relief from twenty seventeen, if we don't do the border issues, if we don't address the whole package, we're going to pay a price for it on down the road. I know the Senate's a different place. I respect him greatly, but I know in the House we need to do it. We need to do it one time and be done with it because of the environment we're in over here.
We've got a funding deadline six weeks away. Congressman, are we going to be in a world a month from now where we're talking about another continuing resolution to kick the cans?
So all the rest of this can be written. I hope not.
I wanted to finish funding out the government to last December and not go through this gyration again. But funding the government is much like passing the budget resolution, much like dealing with budget reconciliation. We have a force that is available to us that we haven't had in a long time. It's called President Donald Trump. And when he engages on any or all three of these issues, I have to believe that my naysayer friends, and there's one or two of them in the conference, we'll see the
light and we'll move forward together. Because if we fail, it makes it more difficult for the president, and President doesn't accept failure. We all know that.
Well.
I do wonder to what extent this is really just about President Trump and about you and your colleagues in Congress and the executive and legislative branches working together. If this ultimately is about budgeting and spending in the US government, what role is Elon Musk playing in these conversations, considering how quickly he has been trying to move at DOGE.
I think all the factors are moving together, and DOZE is a classic example of trying, in the spirit of Trump forty seven, to make a dramatic difference. Anyone involved in business knows that ever so often or ever so many years, no matter the size of the corporation of the private enterprise, you bring in the efficiency experts, you look at everything, you sort out all the cobwebs, you make adjustments to keep the enterprise moving forward. I see that as what DOZE is all about.
Now.
There's been lots of discussion about what DOGE has access to, and I was in a conversation with a number of other members with the Secretary of the Treasury on Monday evening, and it was made quite clear to us that that those people have the ability to view lots of things, they don't control those things.
So as long as it's a read only status, you're comfortable with Elon Musk not having been confirmed by the Senate, not being an actual government employee, having access to that information.
Even if it does not involve stopping payments.
I'll just say that Elon has the confidence of the President. The president clearly on election, they had the confidence of America. And I believe that my Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate need to be very respectful of that situation. Will we agree with everything he does? Will everything he proposes, I should say, actually become law. No, this is the legislative process. But he's going to lay out before us. I believe a set of issues and circumstances that need
to be addressed. Again, just like any good consultant brought in in a business enterprise to make sure it's running efficient.
Well.
And as you say, Elon Musk has the confidence of the president. Should he also have the confidence of the people in Oklahoma's third District who may be wondering about Elon Musk and those close to him seeing their personal, sensitive financial data and information.
Well, the people in the third District of Oklahoma overwhelmingly, not unanimously, because that's not the way this country works. The people in Oklahoma have tremendous confidence in President Trump. And again we'll see how this process evolves. As long as it's viewing, as long as it's making recommendations, as long as it's not turning the switches on and off.
How can you argue with trying to make things work better? Now, along that lines, I'm a part of a task force dealing with the federal reserve system and Trad's reason liquipment the issues to try and make sure those issues work more efficiently.
Okay, if it involves closing a federal agency, however, and that could be us AID or the Department of Education, where it's told is the next target, Congressman, does the House of Representatives? Does the legislature need to have the final say on that?
I'd say, ultimately we will have the final sale on whatever happens, because all of the actions so far have been challenged very aggressively in court. All the executive orders, that's regular process, that's regular order. We'll work our way through that. Ultimately, good recommendations. Even if the courts stop the executive orders, we'll still have the ability to legislatively address that. Now we have a simple majority one seat in a few days, maybe back to three seats or
four seats by the summer. The Senate still has that sixty book culture rule to deal with again. That's why we need a budget resolution and reconciliation and not just one, but maybe three reconciliation bills in this calendar year to move legislation. This is not a checker game we're a part of. This is a chess gain and we have to be prepared to move the pieces carefully to accomplish what needs to be done.
Three bills would certainly be something to behold. Congressman, you mentioned that you are leading this new task Force on Monetary Policy and Treasury market Resilience. Have you had a chance to speak with FED Chair J. Poweller? Will that wait until he testifies before the Financial Services Committee next week?
Well, I'm having ongoing conversations a lot of people on a regular basis, and we are working with Chairman Hill, who chose to create this, and I appreciate the opportunity to lead it and the members who've been named to the committee. As we work through all of this, bear in mind it's not just a review of monetary policy and the Federal reserve system. We're not going to argue about interest rate setting. It's the policies and the laws since nineteen thirteen that make this process what it is.
But we're also looking at Treasury's ability to keep the debt, the bonds, the bills, the notes moving. And in the last what twenty thirty years, we have half as many market makers as we used to have, but yet we're moving eight times as much paper. One bad treasury sale sets off repercussions that my folks back home don't even have a clue who what the net result will be. That's what we're looking at, making sure does not happen. A fluid, liquid, rational market and government securities.
Well, we look forward to hearing more about how that work develops. Republican Congressman Frank Lucas of Oklahoma joining us live from Capitol Hill. Thank you so much. And I believe kind of throwing out a new number in the reconciliation bills, not just one or two three bills.
We'll be here for it if that happens.
Yeah, and our political panel will be as well, our signature one at that Rick Davis stone Court, Capital partner in Jeanie Shanzino, Senior Democracy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Rick is we're all here playing the one to two games. Should we be throwing new numbers into this equation?
Yeah, this was a bit of an interesting interview there, guys. You know, first Republican in the House that I've heard who chairs a committee that we should pay attention to, saying that he's probably going to see multiple reconciliation bills. I know that committee chair on ways of me wants one big beautiful bill, and the Speaker wants one big
beautiful bill. So it'll be interesting to see if anybody in the leadership here's this interview and calls up Frank and says, hey, what in the world are you talking about three reconciliation bills. Look, I think that the House Republicans are on their heels. They he aptly described the fact that the margins are so thin they can only govern with one hundred percent of their majority towing the line, and they don't have it.
I mean, they're not even close.
They're you know, many, many dozen votes probably short of being able to do one big beautiful bill. So my guess is they'll struggle with that continuing through the balance of this week. The Senate will continue to push their bill through. They've got a little more comfort, as Frank mentioned, and you're going to see the Senate sort of take over the agenda here and start pushing their two bill strategy that is highly likely to succeed, certainly in the Senate.
What we heard from Congress and Smith, let's hear from the Chairman was on Bloomberg's surveillance this morning. You want the view of the House, at least we thought it was here you go.
The House is focused on one big, beautiful bill. It's the Senate that continues to say that they're going to do two. But I would just remind all of my colleagues look at history. It has been thirty eight years since two different reconciliation bills were signed into law in the same year. We have smaller majorities in the House of Representatives now than in the history of Congress. Why do we think we can defy those odds is beyond me.
Well so, Genie, based on what we just heard from Frank Lucas and what we have heard from John Thune and those in the Senate, is the call coming from inside the House or not?
Please tell me that some great Bloomberg reporter is on the hill right now replaying your interview with Lucas. For Smith, and we can get his reaction of his head blowing off when he it's worse than two now, in fact, it may be three. At this point. I happen to think he is right when you look at the history here, which is all we can go on in these predictions with a majority this or a margin this small in the House, the idea that they could do this more
than once, you know, really defies history. The idea that they could do it twice maybe, but three times it's gonna be really, really tough.
And they know this.
I mean, this is what Mike Johnson signed up for. He still has the hardest job on the hill trying to negotiate this forward. But the problem is, as we look at these numbers, they are still very very far apart when you look at what the conservatives are saying, you know, sometimes four to five trillion versus what we're hearing from the moderates, which is a much more moderate as you'd expect, you know, five hundred billion to a trillion. So can they do this, yeah, but it is going
to take a lot of work. And the problem is, as usual in the House and the Congress as a whole, the calendar and really the clock doesn't work for them while.
Here well, and this is just on reconciliation, let alone keeping the government funded beyond mid March or raising the debt ceiling, which is going to be required in the next few months here, Genie, Historically you would probably see bipartisanship and Democrats playing ball on those things. Is that going to happen this time around.
It's such a good question, Kayllie. I was just listening to Kristin Gillibrand talk to some of her constituents, and I have to say, now, you know, this is not a broad swath, but just you know, people talking to her, they are very critical the base of the Democratic Party for Democrats going with the White House even on some
of these nominations. So when you talk about supporting them as they try to keep the government open, I think Democrats are going to have a very tough time doing that, given that the President is going whole full hog in shutting down programs they care about, and what he has done in the last two weeks. So I think the pressure is going to be on Democrats not to go along. They're going to say, Republicans, you're in the majority, you do this on your own.
You own it.
And then of course the numbers don't work for Republicans. They're going to have to negotiate and they're going to have to give Democrats some of what they want. But you know, you're hard to press to see how that can happen at this point.
So, Rick, does all that make a shutdown in March more likely?
Hard to tell.
I mean, I think it's a little bit premature. I think there will be a Senate bill, and I think that it'll be interesting to see whether or not Republicans can can hold their cauc escape together.
To do it.
It may require House Democrats to go along, and what the what are the givebacks for that? And we've certainly seen bipartisan reconciliation bills in the past, and so the question is is one in the mix here? But look, I mean, you know, sure, Chairman Smith's right, I mean, like, we rarely do two reconciliation bills, but we used to rarely do reconciliation bills. So like, where's the regular order that the House leadership promised us as part of their
slate to get elected in leadership? How many of the appropriations bills are currently being worked on for next year. I mean, you know, it's just we're going to extend the do nothing Congress from last cycle to this cycle. Trouble is, they're party out in power running for reelection in a year, and if they don't get their act together, they better plan on having other alternative employment.
Then the least dephonic makes it one. Right, they'll be a majority of one. Rick Davis and Genie Shanzo our signature panel back together against Today, guys.
Thank you so much.
As always, Rick's partner at Stone Court Capital or Republican strategist, and of course Genie is our democratic analyst. S Bloomberg, politics contributor, political science professor at Iona University. Project twenty twenty five came up a couple of times over the past twenty four hours here with regard to what the Doge was doing, whether this alliance or not.
We're going to talk ahead with one of the authors.
Yeah, the president of the Heritage Foundation is on his way into the studio, Kevin Roberts. We'll be here with us next on balance of power. Have a lot of questions for him now that we're a little over two weeks into this administration. And that's straight ahead right here. On Bloomberg TV and radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn on Apple.
Cocklay 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 eleven thirty.
Keeping in mind, it has only been sixteen days since Donald Trump was inaugurated as the forty seventh President of the United States, and very quickly, through executive orders and other means, has gotten to work on things he promised on the campaign trail, that's sure, and some of that not just executed by the President but by those close to him, including an unelected unconfirmed by the Senate, Elon Musk in the Department of Government Officials.
What are they calling it?
A special government employee, Yes, which gives you a certain period of time to do your thing. But he has not, been, of course confirmed by the Senate, which is why we've been asking some folks if maybe that should change, considering the level of access that he has. We've also heard the Project twenty twenty five come up a number of times. The thought that it was a roadmap for what we are seeing now, because this was a team that was ready to talk about flooding the zone.
Hundreds of eos.
He's going to sign another one later today, not to mention some of the sort of proposals that we've heard the president float here. Which is why it's a great opportunity to spend time with Kevin Roberts. He is back with us here on Bloomberg TV and Radio, the president of the Heritage Foundation, one of the authors of that document, the Pride of Lafayette, Louisiana.
It's great to see you. Welcome back.
It's kind of you to say that, and kind of hell back.
By all means.
So I'm curious to hear a lot of from you today. Number One, how you're dealing with the fire hose, the shock in awe here, is this what you foresaw? And to the extent that you're kind of squinting your eyes looking at the campaign and looking at the new administration. The document that you crafted has quite a bit in common with what we have seen over the past couple of weeks, hasn't it.
I look at this as a historian. I was educated as an early American historian, and I'm hard pressed to think of another American president who has started with this pace. It really is from a conservative policy point of view, to your question, Joe Shock and Awe. To be clear, President Trump and Vice President Vance deserve one hundred percent
of the credit. It is those two men and the great men and women they've assembled, I think what will be the greatest cabinet in modern American history, who deserve all that credit. I think the conservative movement, to your question, understood that we needed to be much better prepared in serving this president than we were the last time. And to the extent that any of us, you know, whether it's us at Heritage or a million other conservatives, had
some tiny role in suggesting a menu of options. That's fine, We've done that at Heritage for forty five years. We'll do it for the next one hundred and forty five. But Trump advances your credit for this moment.
Has anything, though, that we've seen take place in the last two weeks and change not aligned with that point of view, with the American leadership picture that was outlined in those nine hundred something pages.
The real thrust of the work that we do at Heritage, as you know is to articulate an aspirational vision for revitalizing self governance, restoring freedom to American people. As President Trump said in his inaugural a revolution of common sense. And there is no exception to the fact that everything that he has done up to this point is going
to do all of those things. Heritage stands ready, not just to help with these executive actions from the outside, obviously, but very importantly considering another aspect of our work, and as you've been covering in your show, making sure that our legislative leaders pass the necessary ten legislation to amplify the successful executive orders that have happened up to this well.
Connecting the dots there is going to be an interesting challenge, and I'd love to hear more from you on that, but it sounds like you're happy with what we're seeing from Elon Musk, this individual who has been thrown in the middle of this whole thing. A lot of people in the first Trump administration and now the second said they voted for Donald Trump because they wanted somebody.
To come to Washington to break it.
I don't know if that kind of creative destruction or whatever you call that sounds like the right answer to you. What is Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, the got to do it.
Creative destruction is precisely what Washington needed, and we're celebrating at Heritage the first phases of the unearthing of the grift and corruption that has happened in this city. That of course is bipartisan, but a bipartisan problem, but also is something that for all of us who want transparency, regardless of our politics, it's a good thing that happens.
And I think that in addition to the creativity that Donald Trump himself brings to the office, the innovation the Vice President brings to the office, that having someone with the success of Elon Musk to be a partner in this is really good. And I find it sort of comical not suggesting that you were saying this, Joe, that all of the chatterers say from House and Senate Democrats about Elon being unelected, never was observed about George Soros
or Alex Soros. And they, of course, with their creative destruction, have actually destroyed American institutions. The Trump Vance revolution that's two weeks in is actually restoring.
Those except that there is congressional constitutional roles and things like appropriations that it does seem Elon Musk might be stepping on in his blanket, say, push to unauthorize USAID, get rid of the agency, or move the agency, which is something that usually would take a congressional act. Do you not see lapses with what is in keeping with the US Constitution and what has happened here?
No, I don't see lapses. In fact, I see the opposite. I see that what Musk and Trump and Vance are doing is correcting what have been lapses by the radical left. Actually worse than lapses, I dare say, intentional desires to totally ignore the Constitution by creating a fourth branch of government, the administrative state, that sees as itself more important than any president of the United States. And all of this
is a corrective to that. But to the heart of your question, there also has to be a legislative season, and that legislative season is going to be much more successful if the House incented, as we heard from on your show, from one important figure here, Jason Smith, gets going on the substance at Heritage. We're agnostic about the
number of bills it takes to get this done. But the sooner they can deliver on closing the southern border, on ending the ridiculous over regulation of the American economy, on extending the Trump tax cuts, I think the more that we will see these dots to being connected.
How about cutting spending in that reconciliation plan. We had heard a Freedom caucuss that wants two to three trillion dollars to emerge out of this bill. Steve Scalize came out of a meeting last night saying it's one trillion. Are you about to be disappointed on this number? With a Republican majority of one in the House.
I think that's a very difficult mathematic problem. Yeah, in two ways, as you know, not just the budget itself, but also the math in the House, and Speaker Johnson and Leader Scalies have their work cut out for them. Having said that, the most important math problem that the American people have is that as the government continues to spend more money than it possesses under both Republican and Democrat administrations, the American people, with their own dollars, are
able to afford less and less. That's the number that that heritage and all of us are focused on. There we understand that it might take a couple of bites at the apple in order to get this done. The first bite at the apple needs to be the most aggressive so that we can actually change that overspending trajectory.
Russ vote, who, of course, you know quite well. Tomorrow night is expected to be confirmed by the US Senate to be the new OMB director. And given what already has taken place at the OMB in the last week and change the lawsuits that have followed from confusing messaging around of funding freeze, are you worried that he's inheriting a bit of a problem right when he steps into the job, around that ongoing lawsuit, around the needing to
navigate with Elon Musk and the Doge as well. What is he walking into?
Great question? I know russ vote very well. He's one of the great statesmen of our age. And I've never seen any problem, any dilemma that Russ is not up to the task. For having said that, I think what he's walking into is a tremendous opportunity to correct the over regulation, the overspending, particularly of the last four years, but also of the last several administrations. And not only
is Russ up to that task. But I think, as I would argue, members of both political parties in Congress see Russ and his team in action, they will see that all they're doing is delivering on the will of the people with a sophistication and intellect that probably has not been in that office until the last time Russ was omb.
Doronter has he been talking with Elon Musk? I wouldn't want to have to fit in the same room as Elon Musk. We've already seen an executive order stopping federal grant's Federal Aid. People at USAID have been put on leave. If you're running omb, don't you need to have some say in this?
I assume that they're talking about that. There's no doubt in my mind that Russ will have say in that. That's all the more reason that he be confirmed.
As quickly as possible.
I want to ask you about something else that took place at the White House yesterday, which was a meeting between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a joint news conference that followed, in which the President suggested that the US take over Gaza, that the Palestinians currently there be moved and essentially the US and US troops help lead what would be a redevelopment project. And I do wonder what your view is on US involvement
in the Middle East in that kind of way. When we heard the President on the campaign trail repeatedly saying he doesn't want to see forever wars.
Contrasts what Trump said yesterday and what have been related actions by his administration with the utter incompetence and fecklessness of the previous administration. I say that not as a partisan, which I'm not, but as a historian of American politics, and the contrast could not be more beneficial for free people on the planet, all free people on the planet,
Palestinians included, absolutely. And I think what we were seeing from Trump with this comment yesterday about Gaza is the reinsertion of the American presidency and of America generally as having moral clarity in that region and around the world. We trust fully the details that President Trump will come up with regarding what we do with the Gaza strip with the Middle East generally, And I think over time passing days, passing weeks, as more and more people across
the world enjoy peace because of Trump's moral clarity. We will understand that that kind of courage is precisely what's been lacking over the last four years.
We only have about a minute left. Kevin.
You must shudder at the thought of what it would cost, however, for the US to take over the Gaza strip, clean it out, rebuild the entire thing. If we're at a moment now where we're trying to enter a period of austerity, how do you have both?
Yeah, I shudder at the two hundred and fifty billion dollars that we've spent on Ukraine for a ward that the Ukrainians could never win.
Well, we were being lied.
To by the deep state in Washington, d c. Which is probably financially.
Confroming less to go around now, though, doesn't.
That that's exactly right? And that's why I say, if you think about comments that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said today, they're going to get the details on that. Right. If you look at Trump's track record regarding foreign policy and America's leadership in the world, it is robust, but it's also not expensive.
It's great to have you with us, Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation President, with us back at the table, here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Don't be a stranger, come back again, Thanks, Kaylee. Fascinating conversation. As we wait to hear the latest from the White House on this, we're hearing pushback from world leaders on the idea of taking over Gaza, but also a White House that has yet to kind of detail the plan.
Yeah, we'll see if we hear more from the President. He'll be exciting executive orders later this afternoon, so we may have an opportunity for further clarification and we'll get more into this next with Natasha Hall from CSIS Straight Ahead. Here on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast ketchs live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern.
On Alma Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
On the Wednesday edition Here on Bloomberg TV and Radio, I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines as we try to answer some of the many questions that were raised following President Trump's news conference last evening when he suggested that the US didn't suggest he said the US will take over the Gaza Strip, raising questions about how some two point two million Palestinians would be moved from that area, whether they would need to be moved forcibly, what it
would cost to clean up the massive destruction left by the war between Israel and Hamas the unexploded ordinance. Then, of course, the idea of developing what Donald Trump calls beautiful waterfront property.
Here's how it went in the East Room last night.
The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too. We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site. Level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out, create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area. I don't want to be cute, I don't want to be
a wise guy. But the Rivi era of the Middle East, this could be something that could be so bad, this could be so magnificent.
The Rivie era of the Middle East. It's on that note that we turn to nato Asha Hall, senior fellow with the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here with US on balance of power Natasha. As Joe outlined, we have many questions around this proposition, but I guess to begin with where I assume this would need to start. Before the US can go in and redevelop Palestinians would need to be moved out of Gaza.
Do you see the Arab countries that Donald Trump has suggested, Jordan and Egypt agreeing to take in those millions of people.
Well, they've been unequivocal to date. They will not. This is a non starter for both Jordan and Egypt. And previous presidents understood that invested quite heavily in the national security of Jordan and Egypt. Forcibly displacing two million Palestinians into those territories would create an enormous amount of upheaval, not just in those countries, but in the region and
possibly internationally as well. And Saudi Arabia has also sounded the alarm and said that they would not agree to such a plan.
Isn't that enough to stop this?
The King of Jordan will be at the White House next week stop this idea. Not that anything is in motion here. Knowing Natasha that there was a hope to rekindle talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia that wouldn't be possible at the same time as a development like this would it.
Yes, I mean, given this announcement and the hindering of USAID, I think next week's meeting with King Abdullah will probably want to be one of the most awkward with a stalwart US ally and recent memory, I do suspect that President Trump is probably trying to push Jordan and Egypt, as well as Saudi Arabia into accepting far more than they thought they would be willing to when it came
to the Palestinian issue. President Trump might also be throwing a bone to Netanyahu's far right coalition who have been against the ceasefire from day one, and hopefully this moves us into the second phase, but it still is an unprecedented statement that is I think significantly throws international peace and security in jeopardy.
Well as we consider a second phase here Natasha, knowing that this initial forty two day ceasefire is going to be expiring just weeks from now, is phase two going to begin or are these negotiations that are essentially going to have to restart along with a resumption of hostilities.
So that's the big question. Netsagna, who in sort of the press conference yesterday, didn't seem too optimistic about Phase two, but one would hope that it starts immediately. We need to start to continue to see humanitarian aid coming in, but also heavy machinery. There is, you know, thousands of tons of rubble in Gaza right now. There are at least ten thousand bodies underneath that rubble. There needs to be some kind of operation in place to get to
get the Strip moving again. Regardless of this forced displacement plan that President Trump announced yesterday, I think the foremost priority is getting the hostages home and safely those that are still alive, and really continuing to funnel humanitarian aid into the Strip.
Conventional wisdom is Benjamin et Yahoo does not want to reach a phase two. Will he convinced Donald Trump to believe the same.
Well, it seems like with the press conference yesterday they were in lockstep. You know. Prime Minister net Yahoo was smiling throughout President Trump's statements. It did not seem like he was optimistic about a Phase two. The Phase two would obviously be more aid, but also again the return of Israeli hostages, which the Israeli people want, and so I think this really puts them in danger at this stage and really throws the security of that region in
danger as well. And we've heard from Israel's ambassador to the UN that Israel does not plan on reoccupying the Gaza Strip, has no plans to do so, but also does not want Hamas to be in control there, and they certainly are still in control there. So there's a lot of details to be worked out, a lot of loopholes that I think the United States and Israel could exploit. Unfortunately, it just remains to be seen what that will actually look like on the ground.
So what is going to be the role here is This was obviously President Trump who was speaking about this, but he has Steve Witkoff who's a special envoy to the region. There's Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, who I would presume is going to be involved in this as well. Who are the kind of power players here, if you will, that will be helping push this narrative forward?
Yeah, I mean that kind of remains to be seen. Many of the people that we thought would be in the administration are not going to be But clearly Witkoff will play a major role in this, as he has with ceasefire negotiations in the past. Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, will also be moving things forward, and I assume Mike Huckabee, who is you know, will be the Israel's ambassador there as well, will be pushing many of
these things forward. The question is, how is any of this going to happen when US eight has essentially been shut down, which is sort of the other piece of this puzzle, when US funding to ANUDWA has also been shut down as well, because that is essentially part of the second phase and the third phase of the ceasefire arrangement.
Much has been said in the last twenty four hours following that New York Times report about Iran trying to advance its way to an atomic weapon. Will there be a preemptive attack against Iran's nuclear program?
So many sort of security analysts are saying that the window to do this when Iran's air defenses are down is probably about eight to nine months. So I think if we do see some kind of premeditated, sort of preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear program, it would happen within
that time frame. So many of us are holding our breath to see if that does, in fact happen, because it is the potential is definitely there with the maximum pressure campaign that President Trump just ordered restarted, and with this recent meeting with Netanya who as well well.
So if the pressure is there in Natasha, do you see a greater likelihood that that happens under this administration Compared to the conversation we were initially having with the Biden administration encouraging Israel not to preemptively attack in the wake of Iran's second attempt to hit Israel directly.
I think the potential is much higher during this administration. I think President Biden wanted to avoid any kind of Israeli US attack on Iran. But with this administration, really, who knows. I mean, every day we're waking up to
a new reality. It could be just President Trump's bluster in order to get a new deal with Iran that is more advantageous to Israeli in US interests, But that remains to be seen, and undoubtedly, I'm sure it creates a lot of vulnerability for the Iranian regime at the moment too.
President Trump said yesterday in the Oval Office that if there were an attempt on his life by Iran, it would result in total obliteration. What is the purpose of saying that out loud?
I mean, I think it's the same purpose as he's been saying many of these things out loud. You know, I don't think Iran would ever try to assassinate President Trump at the end of the day. They are a pragmatic actor despite their errors. But you know, I think that this was essentially saying that everything is on the table if Iran tries to do tries to do something, and that the US would you work with allies in the region to inflict maximum punishment on Iran if necessary.
Why he alluded to the assassination I have no idea. Maybe just speaking to his base and his audience.
Well, when we consider Iran specifically in those who have aligned themselves with Iran or at least do have a relationship, thinking here of China Russia as well, I guess is typically included in what's frequently described as this access of
evil by people we speak to on this program. Natasha, how do you think other adversaries like China and Russia are watching the way in which Donald Trump navigates the Middle East and the kinds of things that he is saying about what is going to happen in the future.
Well, back to my original point on international peace and security, the way that President Trump is talking about Gaza right now parkens back to colonial days, and it certainly gives Russia and it gives China an excuse to go after
its colonial ambitions. So the near abroad for Russia, including Ukraine, and for China Taiwan and the South China Sea, and so I think that that is the danger of using this kind of rhetoric, even if he doesn't plan to actually implement it in any way, it's quite dangerous for the world order, more generally, the world order that the United States was instrumental in creating after World War Two.
If we go away from that and towards just real estate deals, I think it portends a very scary future, indeed for all of us.
He was asked if he plans to visit the region.
President Trump said that yes, he would like to visit Israel as well as Gaza. How would a presidential visit be treated on the Gaza Strip, Well.
I think poorly. There would have to be probably unprecedented security for President Trump, It's unclear why he would do that. I would welcome him to go to the Gaza strip and see the kind of destruction that is there, but also talk to the people that have suffered through that
destruction as well. He said that, you know, Gaza as hell and it's unlivable and all of these things, but there's a reason for that because of over fifteen months of devastating war, and so, you know, there needs to be reconstruction, but there needs to be reconstruction for the people that live there as well. And so you know, I suspect there will not be a warm response for President Trump and Gaza, but I do hope that he actually, you know, connects with people on the ground.
Natasha, It's always great to spend some time. Natasha Hall, Senior Fellow with the Middle East Program with the Center for Strategic and International Studies c SIS. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at Bloomberg dot com.