Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then Prounoto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube in Washington.
Welcome to the Monday edition of Ballots of Power. I'm Joe Matthew. We'll have Kaylee Lines with us next hour here on Bloomberg Radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube, where we invite you to join us every day. We're live on YouTube right now search Bloomberg Global News. That's what all the kids are doing. Kind of amazing to see senators working on Super Bowl Sunday.
It actually happened.
They weren't there during the game, but they showed up when you were probably getting your Guacamolean chips ready. And they did advance this bill. It hasn't passed the full set, but they had a procedural vote and it went pretty well for those looking to help fund our allies in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
Sixty seven twenty seven.
A lot of folks think this could pass the full Senate, and that would happen no later than Wednesday, and we're right back to where we were on Friday with the same.
Question what happens when it goes to the House.
I guess it's a good thing though, that they didn't have to, you know, get up early and go to work today, as I read on the terminal that this is one of the least productive work days of the year because of the football game. Jack Fitzpatrick came to work.
He's with us now from Bloomberg Government. You saw the game, you came in right, I'm here, They say, even those who will because sixteen million people will skip work today, the rest of us will be much less productive, apparently because of the choices we made last night.
I hope you're feeling okay.
And yet the Senate is actually going to work late. They can't vote until eight thirty or so, so they're working hard on Sunday and then.
They get to sleep in day.
That is kind of a big deal, though, for Chuck Schumer to pull everybody together on a Super Bowl Sunday to make this happen. Would that suggest that it will pass the full Senate?
I mean, the fact that they've gotten sixty seven votes on two procedural votes. At this point that may be more of a ceiling than a floor. People still could get upset if they don't get an amendment vote. They were seeking that kind of thing. But clearing sixty twice on two key procedural votes, I mean clearly this is moving slowly because there are members who won't give unanimous consent, but they look like they can get this through the Senate.
The question then is also how much momentum does it have going into the House. Sixty seven is not eighty or ninety. The House issues are still there fair.
Enough before we move to the House.
There were questions last week about amendments, how that might slow things down, whether there might be some border related provisions that are added to this, And then there was a man named ran Paul who wanted it to block this or slow it down to the extent that he could. Is that why we're not getting unanimous consent?
Yes, Ran Paul is at least one reason why we don't have unanimous consent. If you've got one person saying he's not gonna agree, it's kind of a moot point. How many people aren't agreeing, so they're going through step by step. Chuck Schumer has still said he would like an agreement on which amendments could get votes. But if there's not a unanimous consent agreement, it's unclear what the path forward is other than it's going to be slowed
down and then they can force a final vote. It looks like Wednesday, So you know, do they increase support between now and then? Is there a rallying cry? Are there further amendment votes? Anyway to improve it? From members' perspectives, That's what's unclear because usually when they have an important bill, they find a way to get unanimous consent and get everybody to agree on the slate of amendment votes.
But that is not happening here, not going to happen, and when it goes to the House, knowing eighteen, I believe Republican senators voted yes in this last round?
Is that last one?
Check?
Seventeen? Okay?
A discharge petition in the House requires two hundred and eighteen. I'm I'm comparing apples and oranges here.
But you talked about momentum. You get eighty or ninety. Are we in a.
World in which a discharge petition? I know this is wonky. Stuff could actually work around Speaker Johnson if he doesn't want to bring this to the floor and supporters who back it do.
I mean, first, a discharge petition usually is useful if the leadership wants an excuse to end up supporting something, if you force their hand, and then they can say, oh, you force want hand. The fact that there's been some pushback or at least skepticism. We talked last week about Mike Rogers, the House Armed Services Chair, saying if we don't have an immigration deal, and we don't, it's not clear how you can move this forward. There's not a huge push in the House right now from even the
most supportive members. That's the big issue because if the leadership aligned and sort of neo conservative hawks of the party aren't making a major push, the options for a discharge petition are an uphill battle.
It's entirely likely this thing passes the Senate and it just goes nowhere after that, then, right.
That may be the most likely option. It's hard to make a prediction here. Again, how much momentum it has coming out of the Senate, how much pressure is put on leadership, on key committee leaders like Mike Rodgers and other people's people who are supportive of this kind of bill. That's the big X factor here. But it is a much heavier lift in the House than it has been in the Senate, where it's you know, sixty seven isn't
way more than sixty They need sixty they're getting sixty seven. Again, it's not eighty or ninety.
Three weeks to my account, till the government shutdown.
No one's talking about it.
I keep asking people about it, like, oh, no, they're gonna figure it out.
But then it's gonna be two weeks. Then it's gonna be one week, and what's gonna happen.
Yeah, it's easy to lose track of time because that is March first, for the first partial shutdown deadline, and then March eighth. I've been asking consistently the subcommittee leaders who are supposed to write the bills to get this done. Generally they say it's going pretty well, but the big hurdle is there's not a grand agreement to set aside
major policy fights. Usually when they get an omnibus or some sort of means of funding the government, initially they say, all right, we're not going to legislate on abortion, access or immigration or any of the other many really tough issues. We're just going to do our best to agree to funding levels. They have not had that kind of conversation, so any number of really tough issues could trip them up.
But what I've heard from members is they have not gotten tripped up yet and they're being productive.
All right, Optimism still alive. Great to see you, Jack, I hope you find a chance to recuperate at some point today. They're working late, Like you said, a thirty to night. Jack will be with them as always at Bloomberg. Government Congress reporter and a frequent voice on this program, Balance of Power. Let's add the voice of Bill Hoglan.
We wanted to go to the Bipartisan Policy Center for a bit of a reality check and what's happening here because the two chambers don't agree, and of course we can get inside divisions within the individual caucuses as well. But Bill's been watching this for a couple of minutes, you might say, following his experience in the Senate.
And it's good to have you back. Bill. I hope you've recovered from the game.
Not too often you see senators at work on a Super Bowl Sunday.
Were you encouraged.
Yes, this was the first one. I believe it's the first time they've ever worked on a Super Bowl Funday Sunday. But of course they journed in time to at least see at least second half of the Super Bowl, as I understand.
Well, God bless him. Now they've got some real work to do this week. Do you see this bill following the procedural votes that have already occurred, and I know there are more to follow. They have to get the Shell Bill and do some other wonky stuff. But when this reaches the floor, will it pass?
That Senate will pass this supplemental likely it'll have to go all the way to Wednesday. They're still trying to work out a set of amendments and maybe not have any amendments. But the thirty hours post the vote on Sunday run out on Wednesday, and by then they will pass it. There it's clear it's going to go over to the House. Now, the question, as you've raised in your earlier comments, about what will happen in the House
is still very much up in the air. I think mister the new Speaker is trying to figure out himself as to what strategy he wants to pursue. I believe that there are clearly if it was put to a vote in the House of Representatives, it would help overwhelmingly pass. So there are various approaches he could take, but I
mentioned one of them, which was a discharge petition. I think there will be the votes there for discard petition, subject to whether or not the Speaker has an alternative that he wants to bring it to the floor, but it will get I'm truly expected to make it to the floor at some point now. The other option is for him to simply strip it all out and send back the send it back to the Senate, and the
Senate amend it, and then it comes back. So yeah, we'll get there, I believe at the end of the day, though it's going to take a little bit of a struggle. And of course, the Senate goes out here after they pass this on Wednesday or whenever they get around to passing it, and they'll be out until after for another
week and a half. And then of course this House is out for present day recess starting next week for two weeks, so there's there's not a lot of time here to to get this done, but I am I'm an optimist on this one today.
Well, this is a familiar feeling, Bill Hoagland. He's with us from the Bipartisan Policy Center. I hope you can hear me a little bit better now, Bill, because I want to ask you about Mitch McConnell. Really something watching him try to push this legislation and also cope with reality at the same time. And his frustration is pretty clear, as he said to Lament the commitment that has underpinned the longest draft of great power conflict in human history.
This is idle work for idle minds, and it has no place in the US Senate. He's talking about what he refers to as how it's become quite fashionable to disregard the global interests we have as a global power. Is Mitch McConnell going to be disappointed at the end of this bill?
The election is a driving factor for policies decisions right now an election year, it always is difficult to get policy done. But I'm rather discouraged, as an old Senate staffer, that we're letting politics play such a big role in such things as the immigration bill last week, which was a bipartisan effort on the part of some good senators in the United States, both Republicans and Democrats, to bring
something to the floor. I'm a little discouraged about the degree to which the potential presidential nominee, mister Trump, is having such an impact upon policies right now when actions should be taking place and we should be legislating and putting off at least until after the election as to what the next policy should be.
You think we're going to have a government shutdown next month.
That's a good question. I do think that we hit We've already run out of time here. As I said that March March first date is coming very quickly, at least on the four bills that have to be done by March first. At this particular moment, I'm beginning to anticipate, since it's very little that's happened in the way of actually acting on those bills in the House and the Senate, that we're probably looking at another kicking of the can, both on the March first and the March eighth. Or again.
I'm one of those who really believes that a government shut down, particularly in an election year, benefits no one a no political party, and so I do think we're looking at another continuation resolution at least until the end of April, when certain things start to really happened under the new Fiscal Responsibility Act that was adopted last year, which means
across the board cuts beginning in April. So I do think they're going to try to get these bills done, but they're not going to get them done by March the first. Right now, given the schedules that recesses and the president's recess and other things that are going on.
Donald Trump has had a heavy hand over these negotiations without even being on Capitol Hill. Build To what extent do you think he'll impact a final product here when it comes to Ukraine specifically.
Well, I think we've already started to see the impact that he has had on such things as the immigration
bill last week that was brought to the floor. I believe that post Super Tuesday, when he should have if mister Trump does at that particular point to the former president have the requisite number of electoral bologists votes, lucked Delegate luck in that it will now become basically his policies for the rest for Republicans that are towing to his re election, it will really make it very difficult
to get any bipartisan work done here. Keep in mind that we also have a situation here of course, as you know, we have an election tomorrow and mister Santos's position being up for election, that is, last time I looked at the post would indicate that that might flip to a Democratic seat, which would really change the model, change the make it even more difficult for mister Johnson
to get work done. So I want to be I want to be I want to be an optimist, but I can tell you right now that politics are really starting to dominate this whole agenda for legislative agenda for the rest of the year. And as one who still believes that we have to legislate even in an election year, this is very disappointing to me.
Yeah, it's hard to ignore. Bill Hoagland. Great to see you. Bill.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roun Oo 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 Interesting reading the write ups on the Trump NATO comments this morning, shutters. I read across Europe the way the Washington Post put it tremors the word they chose across Washington and in European countries already worried about America's reliability as an ally and a potential second Trump administration. This was in South Conway, South Carolina, where the former president made the remarks about countries paying their fair share.
If I can use that phrase to NATO, and he took it a step further here he is from South Carolina.
Let's listen.
I said, you got to pay up. They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said, you didn't pay your delinquent. He said yes, let's say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever.
The hell they want, whatever the hell they want. The line that is still echoing across Washington and European capitals as we assemble our panel, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzeno or with us Bloomberg Politics contributors. Genie is great to have you back. We missed you the end of last week. This is the kind of stuff that Joe Biden is talking about. But if you read the polls, voters would suggest to you that this kind of talk doesn't matter. We saw this side of Donald Trump in a first administer.
It doesn't seem to bother a lot of Republicans about a second one, does it.
It doesn't so far. But first of all, can we just clarify that NATO is not some kind of golf course where you pay dues, So right there, he is factually wrong. I'm not sure if that matters. Number two, the irony of this coming from a man who famously doesn't pay people in his own businesses and his vendors. So, you know, so much of this just rings narcissism, But you get to the reality of the facts on the ground.
And this is what he has been saying and promising for some time, this threat of moving us out of NATO, of weakening NATO. And that's why so many people, including the Wall Street Journal editorial page, are responding so forcefully. Because, of course, from our founding, we have depended on allies to help us achieve our national security and economic goals without those allies, how do we combat China, for instance, in the China Sea, How do we combat the Hutis
in the Middle East? You know, we depend on allies, and of course how do we combat who And as he tries to move into Europe, so we do have to take him at his word, even though factually it is wildly incorrect what he's saying.
Well, I have to be honest with you, Rick, I wonder if he even said it right. This does sound like somebody who's showing off at a party trying to impress his friends. Yeah, I said, whatever the hell they want. I don't know what version of it was said. But when you draw response from the Secretary General at NATO, you know you're rattling cages here Again, Stoltenberg says, any suggestion allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US.
What's your reaction.
Yeah, Look, I think yeah in Sultenberg has the right approach. Look, and I wouldn't worry about it so much. The side of hyperbolic things that Donald Trump says, except for the fact that he actually acts on them, I mean you know, when he was resident, he did cuddle up to his favorite dictator, Vladimir Putin, And everything we've learned about him is that he puts our enemies ahead of our allies, and this is just another example of that, and he
does it in tangible ways. So yeah, I mean, maybe it's just quote like he likes to use locker.
Room talk showing off at a cocktail party.
But the reality is it's borne out by our experience. And this is a lot different than in the old days of complaining that the UN doesn't use our funding successfully and that we ought to withhold it until they're more efficient. This is a security program based on all our self interests. The countries within NATO protect one another and the other. They are a much more significant force
than any of their individual economies or militaries. And so maybe he just doesn't understand the basic concept behind NATO. But the problem is if he doesn't understand it by now, after being commander in chief for four years, then why in the world will we think he would abide by it in the future.
Nicki Haley was asked about it on Bloomberg this morning.
Genie.
She said, it's a mistake for Trump to side with Putin over our allies. Isn't this a big opportunity for her, as his former UN ambassador to draw contrast?
It absolutely is. And you know, Joe Matthew, I'm surprised you don't believe that some leader of a big European country didn't stand up and say, dear Sir Donald Trump, do you believe this? I mean, you know, from start to finish this stake story is amusing if it wasn't so serious. And to your point, Nikki Haley does have
an opportunity here to make it clear. And this is what I think is missing in all of this is Donald Trump as usual is reflecting the view of a good segment of the Republican Party on the far right that has long been isolationist. And you can talk to people today. They don't, you know, know about how much who owes what to wear, but they do have a question as to why, when we're suffering at home, our
money should be going abroad. And that is something that Nicki Haley and others in the Republican and Democratic Party, including our President, have got to explain. Why is it in our interest to send this money to help Ukraine in this fight, and they can start with the simple fact that NATO has like, what over fifty percent of the GDP in the world, you know, so there are
facts on the ground to support what we're doing. It's in our interest, but you can't expect people to know that if you don't explain it.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emo CarPlay, and then freud out with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
It's been a week over the last week in which we've been very focused on domestic politics, but specifically the Senate's efforts in the last over the course of last weekend, even through the first half of the Super Bowl to try to pass an aid package that's going to have funding not just for Ukraine but also for Israel at a time where we're seeing things getting perhaps a little bit more contentious between Israel and the Biden administration with
their handling of the ongoing war with a moss in Gaza.
We heard from Benjamin dat Ya, who on Sunday morning, which was illuminating now as the IDF turns to the south and they go to Rafa. You remember we're talking a lot about the Rafa Gates.
That's right on the border with Egypt.
That's a critical area and that's where a lot of civilians had evacuated too.
Right, and where they're going to member AID through.
Absolutely right, because the bombing was happening in the north. So this is creating a potentially deadly situation. I guess dozens of civilians are said to have been killed already, but I haven't seen a hard number on that from the government. I mentioned Benjamin Dettanya, who we was on ABC News ABC this Week with George Stephanopp is talking about the action in Rafa and the urging from the Biden administration, the urging for restraint.
Here's what he said.
Well, Rafa is a very small percentage of Gaza, and I think it's about ten percent or fifteen percent.
I mean the estimates.
We are very north of Gaza that has already been cleared.
Well, there's an estimate one point four million people in that area right now. And as the as the German Foreign Minister said, they can't can't they can't just disappear.
Where are they supposed to go.
No, well, the areas that we've cleared north of Ralfa are plenty of areas there, but we are working out a detailed plan to do so.
This is where we begin our conversation with Higgarshamali, founder of Greenwich Media Strategies and a voice of experience in the White House as former director for Syria and Lebanon of the National Security Council of Guard.
It's great to see you.
I wonder how concerned you are now about this new direction that the IDEF is taking to the south. Is it possible for them to protect civilians or create new health minetarian corridors at the same time.
It's difficult because they have a very short amount of time and what they want to do in Rafa. The reason they're going to Rafa at all is because they weren't able to complete the operation that they foresaw in han Yunis. Hanyunis is a Hamas stronghold in the south
of Gaza. It was believed that that was likely where Hamas leaders were hiding and they didn't find them, particularly y Yahya Sinhar, who's one of the top Hamas commanders and who's believed to really be the mastermind between behind October seven, and so that's why they want to move on to Rafa. But the problem is they have as you as you've reported before, one point four million. I've
seen numbers up to one point five million. That is a significant number of Gazans when you're talking about the total population of Gaza being two point two million individuals, So that means that the vast majority went into Rafa squeezed down there. As it is, situation there is very dire. They are in very in conditions that are really not clean, not sanitary, not safely, not healthy for children and families.
And when you're talking about pursuing an operation and they need to pursue those operations quickly, they've already started as we've seen today, you don't have time really to move. It's a nice talking point to say, don't worry, we're going to move everybody north, or we're going to move them to designated areas. The designated area that I saw in Israeli press reporting was the size of Bengorian Airport.
But there's no way that one point four million people can move easily to that area and fit in that area and be taken care of in a dignified way, and so I'm very concerned that this is going to cause chaos. And the US government has said that. Both President Biden, the US and ambassador have come out very clearly on this.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. It seems Biden has sharpened in many ways his language around Israel and what it should do in recent days. And yet it doesn't necessarily seem that Bibi Netanyahu is hearing that message. We heard from him on the Sunday shows over the weekend. He also said those who say that under no circumstances should we enter Rafa are basically saying, lose the war. Keep Hamas there is that effectively what the administration is telling.
Israel no what the you know? And and I see when I heard that, and I thought that was not fair to say publicly, because the Israeli government knows exactly what the US government is saying. And what the US is trying to say is, listen, you have to prioritize your threats and is this threat worth going after? And that's how, by the way, that's how the US pursues war.
Is the threat going worth going after? Given the collateral damage you expect to happen, given how many number of civilians you know will die, or given how what it will be like for these civilians who've moved there to uproot yet again and to go where exactly. I heard the Israel government. I heard b Natziaho come out and he said today I believe that that he agreed with the Americans. But again, I mean, I have to have to he agreed on it's very much public talking point.
He said, he agreed on the protection of civilians, and therefore they would continue going to Rafa, but that they assured everyone they would set up something very solid and stable for those civilians there. But there is a reality to this, and that is that it's one point four to one point five million people. It's no joke, and they've already gone into Rafa. And so the US what they're trying to say is is this threat really worth?
And I'll give you an example of that. When we had our war against ISIS and we defeated isis that nobody can can can question that ISIS fighters still exist. We know that it doesn't necessarily mean you have to go every single after every single cell, after every single fighter or battalion to defeat to actually have a tactical victory, and you have to weigh the pros and cons and the benefits of each of each operation. And that's what the US is saying, is that this one has to
quote President Biden, was over the top. That's exactly what he said, and that's what he meant.
Regard to Israeli men who were held hostage for well months at this point, going back to October seventh, were rescued last night. That headline seems to have been obscured by the rest of what we're talking about. I wonder what that tells you about the potential for other Special Forces raids like this to get other hostages out if there is no ceasefire.
You know, I'm glad you mentioned how that news has been drowned out because there are a lot of headlines will have been focusing. They'll say there was this operation where dozens were killed, and a lot of the headlines are missing. That there were two hostages released in this in this raid in an apartment where they were found, which is just fantastic news. It's great news that they found them and that they released them, and it boosts morale and hope for a lot of these families, of course,
and for the military to pursue similar operations. The fact is it will be hard to release the remaining and there are about one hundred and thirty estimated to be about one hundred and thirty, and we saw news last week saying that about fifty have have have likely died, and that's coming from the Israeli government. It would be
very difficult, unfortunately, to release the remaining in raids. If you just look at the history, they were only able to release actively release one hostage before this, and the other hostages have gone through the prisoner or hostage prisoner swap. And now now to that point, those talks continue even though you saw headlines last week saying that Netanyahu rejected Hamas's latest counter offer. That's typically how these how these negotiations go Israel.
So you still have hope that a deal like that can be made despite Israel's pushback.
Yes, I do have hope for a few reasons. First, because the talks we do no continue. In fact, Hamas sent a delegation to Cairo to continue to follow up on their counter proposal, so that's that's one. And their counter offer did not include a demand for a permanent ceasefire. It would include a permanent ceasefire, a demand for a permanentcy's fire to release all the hostages. But anyway, I digress.
So that's one reason talks continue. The second is that the Hamas and the Israeli government face a lot of pressure on both sides domestically, on the Israeli side to prioritize the release of hostages and on the Hama side to end this war altogether. And most Gosins have said, or at least those that we've seen who have been in the streets saying just release the captives. They tie the two together, and that is a correct assertion to
tie the two together. So they're both facing this ongoing pressure, and you've seen them in the past agree to the principle of a ceasefire and hostage prisoner swap, so there's
no reason it can't happen again. But you have to understand that from the Israeli government side, they do believe and a lot of US generals agree with this, that this continued, the continued aggression and what you're seeing from the Israeli side, this brutal campaign, that it also further increases the pressure on hamas to move toward a deal, and so that's also why you see that strategy from the Israeli government side the Guard.
It's great to see you.
She's the founder of Greenwich Media Strategies at Gar Shamali. We appreciate your expertise always when you join us here on Bloomberg. Nick Wadhams is with us now as we add the voice of our National Security team leader. He's with us at the table and it's good to see you.
Nick. Thanks for joining.
Did you see Donald Trump in South Carolina over the weekend.
I did, Oh, we did that.
Yes, I'm gonna I'm going to let our listeners and viewers have a taste and we'll have you respond. This is the comment on NATO, of course, and whether our allies are paying their fair share or something like that. Here's Donald Trump from South Carolina.
And I said, you got to pay up. They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said, you didn't pay your delinquent. He said, yes, let's say that happened.
No, I would not protect you.
In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.
Encourage, yes, not just allowed, actively encourage Nick is something else entirely. What has the response been in the national security community here in Washington to this.
The response has been, as you would predict, some exasperation, horror. I mean, listen, though you do. There are a couple of things about this that we have to take into account. One is is this actually true? Did this conversation actually happen? Which is not one hundred percent clear. I mean, we know that Donald Trump for a long time has been
extremely skeptical of NATO. There was a big NATO meeting in twenty eighteen where he made a lot of threats and really threatened to blow things up, but then came around. But certainly we'd never heard anything like this before. But we are still in the process of trying to figure out whether this is an anecdote where he maybe went a little bit too far to whip up.
The crowd, or he would never do I you know, even.
You know, we there were a lot of things we thought would never happen that did end up happening. So we're still trying to sort this out. It feels a little bit more of a campaign thing than something that Donald Trump would actually encourage Russia to do. But you know, there's a lot of concern around his what he's saying around Russia and Ukraine, and this certainly feeds into that bigger narrative.
JHN Stoltenberg is acting like he said, But you know, maybe that's not the point. The language in the coverage I find interesting sent shutters across European capitals, tremors across Washington.
This is Donald Trump. What did people think? They're right?
I mean, well, that's the other thing. And I think you will find that, yes, there is anger, unease, exasperation in European capitals. But they have known for some time that he is the front runner among Republicans. They know exactly what he thinks about NATO. They also know that if he wins, he would not be there for more than four years, which is an interesting angle because it makes you think, well, it could he be you know, could he well, you know, that's a whole other question.
You can get into that, you can get into that tomorrow. But would he four years is something that they could potentially endure if they're not looking at eight years of Donald Trump and this kind of thing. It's like, well, if we put our heads down for four years, and let's not forget that he was a real ally in a lot of ways to places like Poland. US troop presence in Europe actually increased in some places during his presidency. So it's a mixed track record.
Finally, Nick, just in our last ninety seconds with you, we also got some news over the weekend that the Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin is in the hospital again. He actually announced it this time, but he's in critical care now for a bladder condition. Do we have any idea how long he may be out of the mixes we deal with all of these gudi political conflicts around the world. Because Kathleen hitch is in charge right now, right.
Right, he transferred authorities, we do not have any sense, you know, they're the real question we're trying to figure out here is obviously, when he the first go around, when he was hospitalized for two weeks, he did not disclose it. He did not He was very opaque, wanted to guard his privacy jealously. It created a huge amount
of concern. This time around, we're still trying to figure out how serious is it is this something that could be a bigger health issue that would really affect his ability to do the job, or are they just being very careful and making sure that you know everybody in the full transparency and stuff like that. We're trying to
sort it out. But certainly if he's going back to the hospital, that suggests that the health issues he had in January have not been resolved, and that's going to present a great many questions.
We hear a lot about chain of command.
I'm sure the Pentagon had its briefings, will be emphasizing that point.
That's right today thirty two thirty, Well, I sent fun of questions for pat ryder I.
Exactly because the timing here is everything, Kayley, which is I'm sure why you asked it, considering the fact that we're involved in repeated air strikes now against foreign entities, never mind what's happening in Israel, and this is a real.
Story, absolutely, and of course we're seeing perhaps the Secretary learned his lesson from last time about making sure we all know that story as it's happening, versus learning the details later.
Nick wadhams, we'll get a day off someday. He runs our national security operation. Here in the Bloomberg Bureau. We always know he's here, which is why he joins us here on Balance of Power. We thank you Nick. As always, I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines. This is Bloomberg. Thanks
for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.