Sound On: Ukraine War Evolution, Big Tech Regulation

it's just hard. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Ukraine braces for the Russian onslaught in the east just as heavy artillery from the US arrives. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics and an important conversation ahead about the war with retired Navy Admiral James Devrita's former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe with US on this program his take on the David and Goliath fight that

is unfolding. Later, we uncover one of the most underreported stories of the week, a bipartisan effort to reign in big tech. We'll talk about the anti trust bill that emerged this week in the Senate with Jenrie of Bloomberg Intelligence Our Panel today Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic analyst Genie Chanzano alongside Matt Gorman of Targeted Victory, former communications director

the National Republican Congressional Committee. President Biden's thirty three billion dollar request for Ukraine this week would provide military support through September, so clearly the administration is girding for a much longer conflict, months longer. Remembering the Pentagon thought Ukraine could follow the Russians in a matter of days. But Ukraine's military has proven to be formidable and creative to the point where now the US sees Ukraine actually winning

this war. That is where we begin with retired Navy Admiral James Stefrida's former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, one of the most experienced voices we can bring you here on Bloomberg. Admiral, it's great to have you and thanks for coming in. How has your view of this conflict evolved in the last week's watching Ukraine standards ground first and foremost, we have to give enormous credit to the fighting will of the Ukrainian ze, utterly personified by their

fearless President Vlodomir Zelinsky. He's become an international hero and I have deep respect for him. And as someone who has been in war and been a student of war, leadership matters, spirit matters, will matters. Um Number two. The incompetence of the Russian Army is breathtaking lack of ability to conduct logistics, war crimes right and left, UM, a terrible battle plan that spread their forces too thinly, bad

generalship in every level. And third and finally UM, the world increasingly sees this as a conflict where Ukraine must succeed if the oocracy is going to succeed, And therefore the Ukrainians are receiving the armaments they need. Were given

them the tools, joke, they'll finish the job. Ukraine's use of technology, especially drones admiral, has proven deadly for Russia, the ultimate example being the sinking of Russia's flagship in the Black Sea UH Admiral Ukraine apparently swarmed the ship with drones to confuse its systems and then sank the boat with a missile strike. Are they are they proving that billion dollar weapons platforms are becoming irrelevant? Uh? Not

quite yet. What they have proven is that if you deploy a billion dollar platform in a foolish way, if you are overconfident, if you underestimate your opponent, you can be defeated in the moment by real technology. Look, I went to Annapolis. The first thing they teach you is don't get your flagship blown up. What we mean by that is you don't take a worship, particularly your flagship, and put it within range of these kind of systems.

That's the big advantage that chips have. So bottom line, Uh, this is but one example of how the Ukrainians are using the technology we're putting in their hands in order to decimate Russian forces. Not just let see, of course, Joe, but as sure as well, where hundreds and hundreds of Russian main battle tanks have been knocked out, each of them worth millions and millions of dollars, being taken out by a drone that costs a hundred thousand dollars. It's

a remarkable, remarkable economic story. Your colleague and co author Elliott Ackerman was eloquent about that on Bloomberg recently, and it's something I had to ask you about. But of course we're heading for a different fight. They say in the don boss, assuming this actually turns into the fight that that Russia is promising here, our heavy artillery is just now apparently arriving in time for this, uh, this stage of the war, Admiral, Will the rest get there

in time for Ukraine to make a difference? Yes, And I'll tell you why, because if you look at the failures of the Russian army thus far, you can't just wave a magic wand and assume that because they've concentrated their forces suddenly all their problems will go away. I would believe they will continue to have logistics challenges. They certainly are going to face a well equipped Ukrainian army, one that, as we know, can use technology very creatively.

Number three, Um, it's a logistics race and we are going to win it, we being the US and the West, putting the weapons in the hands of the Ukrainians and for it. And maybe most importantly, even if the Russians could fix all the technology problems and all the logistics problems, Joe, you can't surge leadership onto a battlefield. It's pretty clear the Russian soldiers don't believe in this mission in the way the Ukrainian soldiers do. So I wouldn't bet against

the Ukrainians. Could a lot happen, Could the Russians have some successes that they ramp up a larger attack. Sure, but I wouldn't bet against the Ukrainians. When this is all said done, Russia wants to cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea to connect the dots there along the southern coast. How dangerous would that be for Ukraine? If they complete that mission? It would be very dangerous. Again, we're on bloomberg economically, this would be a dagger pointed

at the heart of the Ukrainian economy long term. They export, particularly their agrarian products, wheat, corn, potash, all of that through those Black Sea ports. If the Russians were stopped at Crimea and in the Russians somehow held onto Mariopal up to the Don bast but Ukraine held the remainder of the sea coast to the west of Crimea. I think that's survivable for the Ukrainian economy because Sa, the largest ports city of all, the real crown jewel of

the northern Black Sea would remain in Ukrainian hands. That's really the fault line I mentioned your co author earlier. Admiral you both co wrote the book, a novel of the next World War in which a series of miscalculations lead to a global conflict. How likely is it that miscalculations by the US, or I guess more likely Russia uh spread this war beyond Ukraine's borders. Is that what keeps you up at night? It certainly keeps me up at night. But my assessment, Joe, is that this war

will remain confined largely to Ukraine. A couple of reasons for that. One, Russia is not seeking to get into a full on conflict with the United States her NATO.

We would militarily defeat them, and they know that. Number Two, Um, I think even the Russians would hit pause before they would use a nuclear weapon that crosses a line which would lead directly to the kind of war I mentioned one moment ago, and then third and finally, Putin still has enormous capability militarily, so I think it's unlikely he would use nuclear power nuclear weapons when he's still got significant conventional capability. Having said all that, Joe, war is

the most unpredictable of human activities in US. We ought to worry about it. But the best way to approach. This is to continue to arm the Ukrainians. They will get this job done. Does your view on on Putin actually tapping the brakes when it comes to nuclear weapons suggest you believe Vladimir Putin is of sound mind. I think he is angry, frustrated, bitter and disturbed, but I don't think he's crazy. This is not mad King George with nuclear weapons. That's not where we are. We can

push him back with our conventional power. He's rattling that nuclear sword at us. But we need to not be scared of our shadow here. We have to continue to do what we're doing, put the weapons in the hands of the Ukrainians. Well, with that said, what is Ukraine need that we have not already provided? And I ask you that through the lens of what we're discussing here on the southern coast, are there, for instance, UH naval assets that we could give them to help them hold Odessa?

Very perceptive question. And the two things that I have consistently advocated for our large scale surface missiles that can reach out deep into the Black Sea and take out Russian naval assets. And the second thing is in the skies above Ukraine. We don't want to put up a NATO no fly zone. That's going to require direct confrontation with Russia, but we ought to be doing every we can to move mid twenty nine heavy jet and attack aircraft. The polls had them, a couple other NATO allies had them.

We had to work to get those in the hands of the UK. That was my next question for you. With the MiGs have made a difference. I think the MiGs would absolutely make a difference. They wouldn't change the complete course of the war, but they would be highly additive. In the bottom line, we have given the Ukrainians absolutely everything they've asked for. The presidents now asking for thirty

three billion dollars. That's all good. Um. These naval missiles and heavy aircraft, I think would be the the cherry on top of the Sunday that the administration has already built. Retired Navy Admiral James Debrita's the conversation that you will only hear on Bloomberg, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral I've been looking forward to this and I

do appreciate your insights today. Thanks Joe. Coming up, we assemble the panel for more on this with Bloomberg Politics contributor and Democratic analyst Genie Chanzano today alongside Matt Gorman of Targeted Victory, former calms director at the National Republican Congressional Committee. They're in next on the Fastest Hour in Politics. I'm Joe Matthew in New York. This is Bloomberg. This

is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio. We've been briefed on the evolving war in Ukraine by retired Admiral James de Gritas. Now we turn it over to the panel the Bloomberg Politics contributor and Democratic analyst Genie Chanzano alongside Matt Gorman of Targeted Victory, former communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee. Thanks to both of you for being here. Genie. The conversation about technology in Ukraine is

really something. As we consider this thirty three billion dollar request that the President has made the Congress. We hear a lot about the howitzers and the javelins and some of the well even the MiGs that the Ukrainians have been asking for, but the progress they've made in holding off the Russian military using more creative sort of David and Goliath. Uh, concepts like drones, like guerrilla tactics has been incredibly effective for them. So far, are we sending

the right stuff? We seem to be. I mean, I was just thinking back, you know, if you we were you know, two months ago, could any of us have imagined that they would be have been successful successful rather at holding off the Russians as they have been. And certainly much of that is due to what they've done on the ground and how creative they have been, but also what the NATO allies have done in terms of

giving this kind of assistance. And so you know, as we see this sort of change in terms of the war and we see the need for more heavy weapons, we are seeing sort of a shift, if you will. And and certainly, um, they have you know, done a remarkable job so far, I mean so much that you know, the United States can now talk about you know, making sure Russia can never do this again, rather than talking about keeping you know, uh, you know, sort of our

more limited aims early on in the war. There's been a real shift mad in the conversation here to Genie's point, the Pentagon thought that Ukraine could fall within days. Now

that weeks and weeks have passed. We're hearing people all the way up to the Secretary of Defense say, we think that Ukraine can win this, not just hold off Russia for a period of time, but actually beat the Russian military here based on what we've already seen so far and white what might come next, and with the battle for the Dune Bust though looming, and knowing that Russia is regrouping, could the tide shift again. It's certainly possible.

And I think we as we all know, one thing Russia has liked to be is embarrassed, right, and they clearly have been embarrassed. As you said, we were talking about how it's going to beach the matter of days before Ukraine fell, and every every night it seemed like there was going to be a new advancement. And look, I think it also, uh, you know, laid bare the fact Russia's military had been hollowed out. They have lots of planes and ships, but they're old and they're not

as effectual. Um. And the way I kind of always think of it was I almost think of it very similarly as you described it to what the Americans did against the British in the sevent hundreds where it was. It was a guerrilla war that they did and and and ended up winning obviously against a British that was old and was really a kind of out of date. And I think that's in a way the Ukrainians have done a similar type of strategy. Many parallels there, Genie.

But the worry, of course, is that the tactics change in the east, that this becomes a tank battle. This is this is traditional battlefield warfare. No place is to hide. This is not city urban warfare. It's there, it's not forested the way the area surrounding Kiev is. I know we've been training or trying to train them on our howitzers and and try to work with our intelligence to give Ukraine and upper hand. But do you worry about the tide shifting here with Russia in an area that

might be more favorable to their ability. I do, and I think we have to be concerned. Number One, this looks like this is going to be a long drawn out war that we are not going to be out of here. You look at the thirty three billion the president saying that's for five months at least, and most

military experts say this will be longer Um. I also think with the change in the United States tone and message, there's a real concern that Russia starts to pit this against the United States more directly than Ukraine, and that is a big concern. They could use tactical, nuclear and other kinds of weapons, and as you mentioned, the change in the war as they moved to as a move sort of could really benefit Russia and play to their strengths. Um, we don't know at this point, but I think we

have to be concerned. But I think that's why the presidents ask to Congress is so critical at this point. In terms of that ask, Matt Gorman, thirty three billion dollars that's already talked about, what will be attached to it? Uh, following your time in Washington politics here, what do you see Congress managing some COVID funding, some Title forty two, maybe border funding or does this need to be passed

as a clean bill? I think you're certainly have going to have folks on both sides see an opportunity to essentially put their own priorities on I think both sides recognize and you can hidle about a dollar amount, but certainly both sides agree that there is a need for Ukraine Aid to pass, and that because it is a equivalent of a must must pass bill, focusing to try

and get their priorities on it. And I think the balance is what we've seen with with certain must pass bill, whether they be dead ceilings or government UH funding bills, is once you open up the Christmas tree, so to speak, everybody gets to hang an ornament. And so I think there's gonna be a push whether it's Schumer, McConnell, and and Pelosi can agree to very much limit uh any amendments,

any other priorities to get attached onto this. But being said, it's a matter of what the dollar about it is, and it's a matter of how many votes can they get for whatever dollar the band up settling. Sure, yeah, well it looks like ten billion for COVID down from the request of twenty two billion, Genie, does that get finally a home in this package desperately needed? I mean, the reality is both the thirty three and the ten billion for Ukraine and COVID are desperately needed. You know that.

I am um skeptical that they can get through cleanly and quickly. Unfortunately in this Congress, so tight but they're both desperately needed and and and God willing they get through quickly, because you know, both for our purposes and for the sake of Ukraine, this is money that's got to get out the door. It's not the only thing that's cooking on Capitol Hill right now. And we're gonna spend a little more time with MATC. Gorman and Genie Chanzano after we get into this anti trust bill coming up,

a bipartisan anti trust bill aimed at big tech. It's gaining momentum in the Senate. We'll talk about it with Jen Reid of Bloomberg Intelligence coming up next on Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. Glad to say we're joined in studio by Jen Ry of Bloomberg Intelligence, who specializes an antitrust litigation and has been writing a lot about this big tech antitrust law that probably didn't get as much reporting as it deserves over at the last week.

Jenet's great to see you, thanks for coming in, Thanks for having me so Amy Klobish are on one side the Democrat Chuck grass Lee, long time figure in Washington, iconic Republican pushing this forward it's got a lot of support apparently on both sides of the aisle. We can call this bipartisan. Sure, yeah, absolutely. In fact, the co sponsors.

It's even crazier because you have five Democrats and five Republicans and they really span you know, they're not just sort of the moderates, but they spanned to the right into the left. So this definitely has a strong backing, bipartisan backing. Let me ask you how it actually works. People have been talking around this. It's called the what Innovation and Choice joy. Yeah, it's a it's a name that you have no idea what this does. But we're

talking about the fang companies. These are big tech. This is Apple, right, this is Facebook. What would it do? Yeah? So it has a number of measures, but really the basic, the basic thing this law is trying to do is to stop these platforms that are gatekeepers from using that gatekeeper power to advantage themselves or to disadvantage their rivals. Right, because they're competing with the companies that are on their platform.

Apple is Amazon is It's really easy to understand that example, where it sells products in competition with others that sell on the Amazon platform. So there are a number of measures that would basically try to level the playing field, make them all play fair and not discriminate against their rivals and not self preference, not use that position to to preference themselves. They also have to promote their competitors products on those platforms. Well, it wouldn't be about promoting,

it's more about being neutral. I mean, I think back sometimes to the early days of Google, and when you do a Google search. Before Google had a lot of verticals like travel and Google shopping and all that, and the best response based on their algorithm would come up. And and now what you have instead are a lot of ads. You have Google's response, you have the Google products that would satisfy your search that are coming up first. May not be the best. They may be the best,

but it's not necessarily a neutral algorithm. And I think what this would require is more neutrality in that kind of an activity. It's fascinating that this is happening against the backdrop of this Elon Musk Twitter story, because that's got the attention of a lot of Democrats. For instance, um this particular bill of fascinating to hear a Republican come out against it in the name of former Senator and former Ambassador Scott Brown, who we talked to earlier

this week. Uh. They have the Competition Coalition that is supposedly a light touch regulation advocacy group. Uh. And he was sending a message to his Republican colleagues, and look, Chuck Grasslely, I respect you, but you've essentially been misled that this is not about censorship, this is not about the issues that conservatives have with big tech, that this is actually an answer to what Democrats are worried about. Is he close to the truth? Well, I think he's

right about that. And it could be that you know, a Chuck Grassley, for instance, isn't really being misled, understands what this is about, but would simply like to punish these companies. I mean, that could be part of what's behind it. There's no doubt that the Democrats and the Republicans, and there are exceptions, but generally speaking, generally are coming at this from two different angles. The Democrats simply don't

like the power that these companies have amassed. They think antitrust enforcement has been lax, and they think they need to be curbed there, they need to be contained. The Republicans on the other hand, really see them as left leaning organizations that push left ideas and sensor conservative viewpoints, and they'd like that to stop, but they'd also like

to punish that conduct. So this doesn't do anything about censorship, You are right, And I think part of that is part of the reason it might actually have trouble getting the sixty votes it needs on the Senate Floria to become law, because I'm not so sure you're going to get the Republicans you need because that's not what it does.

And you also may have a few Democrats that are not behind this, because the California Democrats don't all necessarily like it, and some have expressed some concerns about the unintended consequence of harming companies in their own backyard. If this became law, it would impact the books, right, This would have a meaningful impact on earnings. Right. I think that it would. And I think it differs but aggressively

their own products in the same style. I presume this comes out on the other end, right, absolutely, Now it's going to be different by company. I mean, obviously I think this law hits Apple, um um, Google alphabet, I should call it um and um Amazon more so than Facebook, let's say, because you know, Facebook isn't necessarily promoting its own products on its platform, so it's going to hit

them all differently. And it depends on actually how it's administered by a judge, because you know, it's pretty vague and it actually has some defenses. And in my mind as a lawyer, what that means is it's just going to go to court. So they're going to engage in conduct. Someone will say it violates the FTC or DJ will say it violates the law, and they'll say, well, we have defenses, and it's going to be hashed out by a judge. So this builds a whole new layer of

litigation around big tech. Came out of committee, right, What are the chances this gets to the floor soon? Well, I have to get it to the floor soon to get it done because of the August midterm elections, and I think if it doesn't get to the floor before that, it's probably August recess. The August recess. I'm sorry, Can they get it done in a midterm election here? Though you just that slip was actually an important one. I'm

not really sure that they can't. I'm one of the skeptics. Now, I'm hearing a lot of people say, Oh, this is it, this is going to happen. It's bipartisan, it was voted out of the committee. I think sixteen six it's going to happen. I'm skeptical that it will Apple alone, Google alone, Any of them must have monster lobbying efforts underway now, right, Oh, absolutely, dumping cash to will that have an impact? I mean

that's how you appeal off a couple lawmakers, right. I think it could have an impact because you have fence sitters, and when you have fence sitters, you have those politicians that aren't sure, maybe they don't even understand exactly what this does because they don't understand the tech behind it, and you have that kind of money to lobby, you may pull those fence sitters over to your side. So yes, I do think that that has an impact, particularly where

it's so tight. You know, you need those sixty votes in the Senate, which means you must get all Democrats and some Republicans, very difficult. That group I mentioned, being run by Scott Brown, says that this is what China wants. This will actually help China compete more in the big tech space. Is that true? Well, I think it does because it forces these American companies to do business with any takers, right. It forces them to be neutral and to allow any entity that wants to do business on

their platform to do that business promoting Chinese including that. Now, there are, as I said, there are defenses, and so they can take actions based on privacy security things like that, and so they could there could be denials of let's say, a Chinese entity on the on that basis, but it really does sort of force them to open up and work with any competitors out there. You do such great work at Bloomberg Intelligence. I'm a huge fan. I really

appreciate your sharing your insights today. Jen Ry with us on the Fastest Hour in Politics. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio. Thanks for being with us on the Fastest Hour in Politics. As we reassemble the panel, Genie is with us. Jennie Chanzano, Bloomberg Politics contributor, joined today by Matt Gorman of Targeted Victory, former communications director at the n r c C. Great to have both of you here as we moved to

anti trust here. That conversation I just had with Jen Ri from Bloomberg Intelligence raised a lot of questions about this ever really even seeing the light of day. But Genie, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. You've got Amy

Klobsher and Chuck Grassley on the same issue. That's got to be worth some then, right, it should be, um, But the reality is in our country we have really not passed comprehensive regulation in the tech space, I mean ever, So the idea we've had a couple of narrow, too narrow tech bills, if you will, but nothing comprehensive for twenty five years. And so the idea that this would pass in a Senate fifty fifty in a house this close,

I think is again an uphill battle. So I agree with Jen on that you know, we keep hearing uh. And I've said it myself here, Matt, that it's it's one of the few things that Republicans and Democrats can agree on. They've got trouble with big tech. The problem is they've got different trouble with big tech. Right, You've got censorship allegations concerns on one side. You've got uh,

you know, too big to fail. On the other side, if that's the phrase that I should be reaching for here, Democrats think the size and scale is a problem with these companies. If the aim is the same but the more devation is different, can you still make legislation? Well, I tend to agree with Jen as well. You know, it is bipartist, but the key is it's not by camerll in that there is not as much House agreement

on a bill UM. And so with I think Republicans poised to take the House, I wouldn't be surprised if you saw, um, you know, House Republicans say, you know, let's pump the brakes on this a bit because there will be a chance for us to make our own legislation. Um. And you know, if it passes, it passes, it doesn't, it doesn't, but they want to be able to shape it in their own vision. So I think that is the sticking point here. And look, I think to your point,

big tech is an issue. I think that's really been propelled up from both parties being really kind of anti big tech in different ways in the last five years. He didn't talk about this five years ago. It's been a shift. Well, I don't know genie if this is moving anywhere, but it might prompt a conversation that leads to several competing bills. I mean, if this one doesn't make the grade, is it possible, if there's so much motivation to do something here, that maybe once we get

through the mid terms there's another crack at this. I think there's gonna be another crack at it. I would guess it's going to be likely, as you said, after the mid terms. Um. And you know, this is not unusual in the history of the United States. You look at regulation and railroads, for instance, took a long time. Part of the reason is, as you talked about, there's

different motivations. You know, do do congress people want to protect consumers, absolutely, but there's also this question of you also want to encourage this really important sector of our economy, these tech companies, to grow, and those two things can often clash. And of course it's Washington, d C. So you've got a ton of lobbyists and you've got a Congress that doesn't do much these days. So all of those things spiral to make it a really difficult path forward.

I think we'll get there at some point, but I don't think in a real tough mid term election here, we're going to see a bill like this get through. But you know, you give Klobish or you give you give the two of them grassly real credit for pushing it this far. Well, it has gotten out a committee. We'll see if it moves beyond this. The other one, though, that is uh is not moving very quickly. Is this China Competes bill. And I realize they actually managed to

vote for a conference committee yesterday. That's a big move forward, I suppose. But this has been going on for a year now. Another example of Democrats and Republicans agreeing, right, we need to better compete with China, but they have different ideas of how to go about doing that. Matt, do you see this finally coming together the House and Senate versions cooked into something that can become a law.

I hope so. And I think you know, normally when we talk about conference committee, it's an encouraging step, and it is in this case. But the problem is Congress committees are usually maybe a dozen people from from all the chambers combine this. This is roughly a hundred. This is there's so many stays here because there's different opponents. The bill, and everybody owns a different portion, so it's

really like getting it through another legislative branch. Um. I certainly hope, so, you know, and I feel like with a lot of these sorts of things, it's not gonna happen, not gonna happen, not gonna happen. And then all of a sudden there's a lot of momentum, and it does. And I think when you have the votes, you vote, so I wouldn't be surprised if you hear it's the end is near, uh in a in a negative way for a while, and then all of a sudden, it

just that's momentum. It shoots right through a hundred people, all with different priorities. Genie, Yes, this this has really taken some time. Could it actually happen before the mid terms? I want to say yes so badly, Joe. I mean, if not, this is gonna die on the vine, right. Gina Romando has said other countries are gonna woo these chip makers to go set up foundries there and they're

not going to come to the US. That's all right, And you know the problem is not just a man or of what's in the bill, and and and the differences in the bill, which is difficult in it of itself, and the different ideas that legislators are bringing to it. There's also a matter of timing. When you look at the calendar of Congress before the mid term, they have

limited time to get this stuff through. I mean, if we think that by say, you know, Memorial Day or July four, that everything turns towards the mid term, do we really think that in September Congress is going to come back and work together. And I agree this is critically important, but you know, and I would just add, you know, this is a bill that they can't even agree on the name of it, quite frankly, so I'm not so certain they're going to get the bill through.

But that's another story. Well, that's a lot of capital blown on an idea that seemed like a pretty good one to everybody. Matt, what's the lesson here? I mean the lesson is, even among something we all agree on in principle, it's still really hard to get things done. We all agree that we can do me to take on China. We all agree that ship manufacturers and it's states. Uh. But as I said earlier in the show about how everybody starts hanging their own priorities on it. This bill

went from fairly narrow. Everybody started getting their priorities on it. Everybody wanted the piece of pie, and it becomes pretty unwheeldy. So that's the really tough part about this, and that's why it's uh becoming tough tough to legislate in this environment. In our remaining moments with Genie and Matt, I want to ask you about the White House Correspondence dinner tomorrow. Nine. Dr Faucci is not going people all in one room.

I'm doubting there are many masks. Joe Biden is still going though, and I realized they're messaging through his actions here, Genie, if you're encouraging people to get back on subways and go back to the office and start living your life again, the president needs to lead by example. Is this the example that he should be showing? You know, I don't think so. And I have to tell you. I know, I know it's not a popular view, but my you have a vice president with COVID, you have a president

of his age. I granted that he is, you know, vaccinated four times apparently, but you know, I'm not so certain. If this was an important policy meeting something and critical for the American people, yes, by all means go, I'm not so sure the White House correspondence there is important enough that we risk it with the Vice president with COVID. Imagine if they both have COVID. That that concerns me. That's almost a national security issue, Matt, I don't know

if you agree. I believe the White House, though, has a laid out protocol for how that would work. They say even if the President did test positive, he'd still be able to get his work done. But it's messaging here, right. We saw him walk into the House Chamber unmasked for the first time for the State of the Union. Is this the proper follow up to that? And if you remember they did that State of the Union right before,

they recommended you don't need to wear masks inside. And it's funny how they tend to change the rules right around when it benefits them. And look, I'll be at some events surrounding. It won't be the dinner itself. And look, I don't mind the factory out wearing a mask. I don't mind that Joe Biden's going to be there. That's his you know, prerogative. But what I do mind is when they are then challenging the mass on airplanes rule, or when they're taking other steps that that seemed to

be incongruous with how they act in other situations. That's what I have the issue with Mac Gorman, Genie Chanzano. I hope the speech is funny at least if he's going to such risk. Thanks to both of you for the insights. As always our panel on the Friday edition of Sound On, We'll see you back here on Monday. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg