Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Roun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Friday edition of Balance of Power here on Bloomberg Radio, on the satellite radio and on YouTube. You know the drill search. Bloomberg Business News Live will meet you here in the studio as soon as you log in. With a lot to talk about here, guess it could be a newsy weekend on this Friday, the thirteenth. We hope for a lucky deal here to emerge this weekend. House and Senate leaders they say they're coming close to a
stopgap that'll bring us into either February or March. Sarah Chamberlain last evening interesting saying is looking more like February. The question is what we will get for disaster relief funding, and that appears to be the reason why we don't have a deal yet. Could be beginning of next week they'll kick the can and then we'll have a big fight early next year. But I have a lot of things, including this that I want to talk about with Terry Haynes.
We're at a very important inflection moment right now. And the latest note from Terry, he's a poet, you know, this is why we like to have him on, refers to the bonfire of the regulatory vanities that's taking place here as part of the transition that we talk about every day. He is the founder of Pangaea Policy. Terry Haynes, Good Friday. It's good to see you. This is lucky, right, Thirteen's lucky for you.
I don't know, you know, I'm personally agnostic on it in my life anyway, but you know that one size fits all right hopefully.
So yeah, good, Yeah, I will my you know, I feel like it's been a good day so far. There was no traffic. I got out of bed realized it was Friday the thirteenth, and that the government was set to shut down a week from now. Are we going to sleep walk into a sh shut down, Terry? Or they're going to get this done the next couple of days.
Yeah, I think they get this done. You know, as you pointed out at the top, they're pushing around on disaster funding. Likely a couple of other things, but you know, the bottom line is it's in no one's political interest to have a shutdown over Christmas, and so they're very very likely not to do it. So I think at least we won't have to talk about that much longer.
Well, there's a neutering that's about to take place, as I read in your note to clients, the immediate bonfire of the regulatory vanities. You say to make regulators neutering on January twentieth, an immediate markets positive economic boost. This is largely why Wall Street has been so excited about Donald Trump, because we can, right, we can debate, and they've got new numbers out here from Miya mcguinness's group showing that the tax cuts might actually mean very little
economic growth in the end. But the idea of cutting all this red tape and eliminating some agencies, terry, is what has the market in a ladder here, right?
Uh yeah, a lot of it, you know. And uh, you know I wrote that, uh recently, and the Wall Street Journal chimed in on it about a day later, very very similarly, if not as poetically. But the uh you know, yeah, they markets get way over their skis on deregulation. I always you know, and and I always cautioned them to to to too have some have some realistic expectations. How about that? Uh, you know, the whole doge thing is is you know, is largely a mirage. Nothing against the people pushing it.
Uh.
As I've said to you on earlier programs, I think I'm I'm in favor of half of what Musk and Ramaswami want to do. And I don't even know what it is yet. I mean, that's you know, but that's how you know, kind of that's how constipated Washington is. So I'm, uh, you know, my fourth you know, generally speaking,
but they don't have any authority to do it. The people and the people that are going to do it, I think in financial services and a variety of other places are you know, if they're focused on efficiencies, but they're they're focused at root on not wanting to have too much overlapping regulation. And you know that's that's a good thing.
Well, it's interesting when we talk about, you know, the idea of eliminating red tape and creating growth not lost on me, by the way. Terry. When Donald Trump was asked on the other network yesterday at the New York Stock Exchange whether people should start buying right now. He did not say yes. He said, I'm not going to say that this market might tip lower because we have
been witnessing quite a melt up here. But the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is out with a new number crunch here, and they find that extending the Trump tax cuts set to expire next year may not boost the economy as much as promised. You already indicated the markets may be over their skis a little bit. What does that mean come the middle of twenty twenty five, if the market keeps rocking here in a new Trump administration.
Well, my advice really is twofold. One is that is that economists and others tend to look at this stuff in a very siloed sort of way. Whereas if you're Trump or the Trump people, or or senior members of Congress for that matter, they're not going to look at
it in a siloed sort of way. They're going to look at it as where do tax cuts fit in with, you know, the other pro growth aspects of what we you know, what we have planned, whether it be deregulation, whether the President wants to put some tariffs in, you know, regardless of how that goes, and then you've got a variety of other overlays that are going to make that
decision not instantaneous on January the twentieth. The first one is, you know what we do about the debt ceiling, the debt limit that that'll be important because I mean, that'll get done, but it'll be there'll be a lot of brinksmanship, but it'll give you an idea of what the appetite for of the Congress is and what the administration is for additional debt and deficit, So you know that'll be important.
Then Trump has to put a budget together, and then most importantly for the tax cuts, what ends up having to happen is a decision that I think really gets made in the Senate about how much deficit they want to incur. The last time, you know, when I was doing this in a prior life, I was working with a pretty prominent economist and we were going to do a note right after the twenty sixteen election what to expect on tax cuts, And what I said to the
economist is, Okay, how much more? How much more deficit can we incur if we get the corporate rate down to twenty percent. And he came back and said, well, you know, that's a trillion and a half. Now, that sounds like a lot, but trillion and a half over ten years is you know, is you know back then was thought to be doable, and you know that's where it ended up. I mean, that was my prediction and
that's where it ended up. But there's a lot of different overlay this time, whether it be the appetite of the market for this stuff, what the tariffs are going to look like, what the needs of the Defense Department are like, because that's those budgets are going to get raised in response to geopolitics, all these things very different than twenty seventeen.
Yeah, we could see our first trillion dollar defense budget, I suspect in the year ahead if we can actually get to regular order here you talk about the House, the way Congress might get along with this whole Trump approach when it comes to economic issues. We have a new chair of the House Financial Services Committee. It's French Hill, who, of course our viewers and listeners know quite well from a long conversation that the congressman has been having with
this network. It's been brought to my attention. I always learned something new about Terry Hayes every time you come on. Terry, you basically invented the Financial Services Committee. And I wonder, with your long view, and it's relatively recent history, what you think French Hill brings to that panel. You've got, you know, kind of a Reagan era Republican here is going to be interfacing with a Trump White House.
The really important thing to know about mister Hill, I think is that he's really the first one since my old boss, Congressman Mike Oxley, who really focused on immediate impact to and on markets. You know, what ends up happening in Washington so much as you well know, is that you know, regulators in Congress alike get kind of
caught up in the in regulatory capture issues. Everybody didthers around about regulation and whatnot, and few people really start at the start where the beginning should be, which is focusing on the economic impacts. And I think that's really what you get out of That's really fundamentally, I think what you get out of Hill. It's been touted a lot that his private sector experience in a bank helped
him get the chairmanship. I'm sure that's true. But you know where I think he's going to excel and really differentiate himself is he's really going to focus on market impacts as well as just the the regulatory overkill. And that's important and that's a big positive. And you know, and kudos to you and others on this network for
having the foresight to see that. You know that he should be should be talked with quite a lot, and now you've got a window into his thought process that nobody else really has.
Does it tell us realizing he's sensitive to markets just in our final moment here that Steve Scalice doesn't necessarily have the last word on everything in the US House.
You know, the Steering Committee is the Steering Committee is very very important, and you have to balance regional regional aspirations and you have to balance the aspirations for the committee. What I saw from what I saw from the Steering Committee in Picking Hill really is they want to return that committee, the Financial Services Committee, to real prominence. And so that's good news for the industry too.
Fascinating. Well, we thank Terry Haynes for the House Financial Services Committee. How about that? He also, of course founded Pangaea policy from where he talks to us right now, Terry, Great to see you, Happy Friday, have a great weekend. Another frequent voice here for a good reason. On Bloomberg, you're.
Listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on applecarplaying n Ron Oro with the Bloomberg Business ap. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
You've made it to the threshold of the weekend and some fascinating stories to talk about here is we anticipate the arrival of Donald Trump on January twentieth in Washington. You have got the Army Navy game this weekend that we'll be talking about that a lot. At the beginning of next week. Ron DeSantis is going right. Are we still sure why Speaker Mike Johnson's going to be there too? Is he takes a little bit of advice from the President on the sequencing of border versus tax cuts and
the agenda for the new Congress. But I'll tell you what high tech is not waiting around either. The list of names making pilgrimage tomorrow. Lago meeting Donald Trump at events investing in his inaugural is really starting to add up. We learned just yesterday Jeff Bezos will be meeting with Donald Trump next week. I see here now Google CEO
Sundar Pichai scheduled for a sit down on Thursday. Of course, you know the big thing at the NYSE yesterday the Person of the Year Time magazine, owned by the CEO of Salesforce, Mark Benioff. You might not have known this, but there's a lot more where this came from. Enter Mark Zuckerberg, right, donating a million dollars. Sam Altman another million dollars. You kind of have to give I guess a million does This is going to be a heck
of an inaugural. So we thought we would have a conversation here with a couple of people right in the middle of this story. One of them you know pretty often from this program, Mike Sheppard, who here in Washington covers the intersection of technology and politics. Were also joined by Max Chafkin, Bloomberg BusinessWeek columnists and gentlemen. It's great to see you both. Thanks for being here on this Friday. Mike I'll start with you on the remarkable turn here.
We talk about how many from the center and even from the left are kind of given Donald Trump a chance, saying nice things, maybe propping up some of his cabinet picks, helping them get to hearings. Big Tech is doing its own version of this. Huh, well, it really is.
It is a turn about from what we saw back in the first administration, when Tech really kept Trump largely at arm's length. One of the few CEOs who really had that kind of productive working relationship with Trump when we think back, was Tim Cook, and he had a whole different set of stakes at hand. And remember this is when Donald Trump was heating up a trade war
with China. There was the risk of US tariffs on Chinese goods and then retaliation by China against American products, and perhaps these days around the world, Apple is one of the most American branded products. So at the time Tim Cook really wanted to make sure that there was
some sort of protection for his company. He managed to secure it this time around the CEOs of these other companies, including Amazon dot Com and the founder It's not just Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, but also Andy Jassey has also been making his own outreaches Amazon CEO too, the incoming Trump team and likewise, you know, we saw Mark Zuckerberg having dinner last month with Trump at Mar A Lago. It is not only right a passage, but
a necessary one. These companies are all facing some degree of antitrust scrutiny. There is regulatory overhang that they're worried about, and they're hoping that Trump, who's coming to office with this promise of relief for corporate America, that he might bring it for them too.
Yeah. Max Chafkin in New York. These are all big personalities with big pocketbooks. We're talking about are they being motivated by fear or opportunity or both?
I think it's both. And you know, you look back, remember back to twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen, You did see efforts by folks like Bezos and even Zuckerberg to court Trump.
Back then, they just were not as loud about it, and we didn't see these big monetary donations, and you know, it just wasn't as prominent or out in the open or maybe even you know, brazen if you're taking the point of view of a critic that said, you know, the as Mike says, you have the potential of FTC investigations for both Amazon and Facebook, and in the case of Sam Altman, you have this looming threat of AI regulation.
And not only that, but Elon Musk is a who's a competitor of Sam Altman, and AI is a key advisor to the president elect.
What do you make of the money here, Mike, you covered politics before you entered the technology space for some time. Altman a million, Zuckerberg a million, Bezos a million. Tell our audience where this money's going.
Well, this is not unusual to see big companies making donations and contributions to the inaugural efforts, the inaugural committees. This is something we've seen over the years.
It sounds weird to people, though they're but this isn't a campaign. They're donating. So this is money for parties.
It is to the event. It's for the parties. It's to help the extravaganza that we're going to see in just a matter of weeks if you think about it less, in about a month from now, we're going to be really in the thick of it, and that helps to defray some of the costs and maybe add a little
bit of the pomp and circumstance too. And what's interesting on the tech side is just how much, as Max was saying, how open they are about it, and how much they have just hopped aboard this bamwagon of corporate support for an otherwise political event that other industries have more or less been hipped to. But tech has always been a little bit more arm's length about it. Not so much anymore.
You mentioned the potential. I don't know if I should call them conflicts of interest here, Max and Elon Musk has his own version actually running a government contractor in SpaceX and some of his business dealings with the federal government. But what you know, a lot of people see stories like this and leg I thought we were going to drain the swamp. You're given a million dollars for good treatment once the president elect takes office, aren't you. I mean this tension.
We saw this tension during the last Trump presidency, and it's going to be there this time. You know, I think from the point of view of Trump and his supporters, the swamp is government workers, right, It's not in government agencies. It's not necessarily billionaires. Who are you know, trying to donate money in the hopes of influencing policy. That said, of course the left, I mean, they are already talking about this. This is going to be a huge issue.
And just to underline something that sort of came up earlier, it's not just that Mark Zuckerberg is threatened with an FTC inquiry. Trump was on the campaign trail saying he was going to throw Mark Zuckerberg in jail. And and you know, obviously that that sounds like rhetoric, right, especially coming from someone like Trump, but it really does just show that these guys feel, you know, under threat, under
serious threat to their businesses. And and then there's also the sense that Trump is more flexible, maybe more flexible than than Biden or Harris would have been if she had been elected, in terms of being willing to sort of listen to the business world and and and make policy that they're going to be happy about.
Yeah. So, well, gosh, if this is stay out of jail money for Mark Zuckerberg, is it also take care of TikTok?
Well, Mark Zuckerberg, take care of TikTok and take care of other issues too.
Where Trump on TikTok, Now we differ from.
Don't we don't really know what his opinion is as of like five minutes ago. We do know from the campaign that he had actually reversed his position and says he no longer thinks that a ban of the of the app is justified.
Remember his worry was that would help Zuckerberg. Now they're hanging.
Out, So now how does that how does that change? And it's a and it will be fascinating to see once we get a final outcome and court on TikTok, where he falls and whether you know, the whole Zuckerberg relationship question, you know, pivots him in a different direction. I wanted to touch on one point that Max was making earlier, and that is just about how they feel the need to perhaps avoid any possible retribution by Trump or his you know, the people he's designating for some of these
big agencies, including the FBI. What's interesting also is how accessible or much more accessible Trump can be and can make himself to people empower in the business world. And so if you're a billionaire and you drop your car to the front door of mar A Lago, it is
not very long before they let you in. And he is really eager to make those relations relationships work and flourish it, you know, for his favor, but he also wants to hear what other business people are doing, and you know, as you said on TikTok, perhaps try to help them out if they can.
What do you make of the evolution on TikTok, Max, What will the Trump administration mean for this platform?
Well, you know, Trump sort of came sort of switched his position on TikTok roughly around the same time that he got a big donation from jeff Yass who is the runs Susquehanna Capital, which has an investment in TikTok. That you know, it felt like he was at that time really trying to adopt kind of business friendly positions. Of course, since then there are all these other donors, maybe donors who don't care as much about whether TikTok is banned or not, or whether it gets sold to
another company. I do think that Zuckerberg part of his motivation here. Part of it is the sec sorry, is the FTC. Part of it is the point that Mike is making about just sort of general accessibility, And part of it, yeah, is TikTok's That's the big competitor Facebook, and if it is harmed in some way or hampered or banned or what have you, that is going to
be good news for Zuckerberg. The other thing, the other point I'll make is, at the same time this is happening, Trump has appointed a head of Anti Trust at the DOJ, Gail Salter, who's expected to be to kind of continue these investigations. These cases that the dj has brought against Google and Apple. Now those are both Facebook competitors. So right now, like Zuckerberg is getting a lot of what he would have wanted from this presidency, and so it sort of makes sense that he's making a donation.
Can you imagine in our last minute here, and I think you can, in the early stages of the Trump administration, a big event in the auditorium in the Executive Office building across the driveway from the White House, with all of these characters around a round table with Donald Trump.
Very easily it's a kind of event he liked to convene during his first term, and I would easily see that taking place.
They all want to be on good terms with each other, it sounds.
Like it does. Though they do compete with each other. There is some interest in you know, they want to have a common understand when it comes to policy, and especially when it comes to politics.
Yeah, right, boy, that's going to be something. I can just imagine the optics now. Max, it's great to have you in New York. Don't be a stranger. It's good to have you with us here. Bloomberg Business Week columnist Max Chafkin from world headquarters in New York. And of course shep with me here in Washington, Mike Shepard covering the intersection of politics and technology. His actual title, By the way, I always say this Senior Editor, Technology and
Strategic Industries. That sounds more important. Mike. Thank you.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and round Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Just one week to go until the government runs out of money. The funding deadline the twentieth of December, and we're counting down. Ye're still without a plan. I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines and Washington. Thanks for being with us on the Friday edition of Balance of Power Friday the thirteenth, which means we've got a week until we run out of cash, right, So the question is when we get a plan. There's talk it emerges this weekend.
It might even come out of the Army Navy gate if things happen properly legislating from the suite, Mike Johnson will be there. Yeah, supposedly in the presidential suite. It's about kicking the can, right, And you know, Sarah Chamberlain was interesting from the Republican Main Street Partnership on Balance of Power last evening, saying this might be shorter than some are suggesting. We'll be lucky maybe to get into February before there's another funding battle.
Yeah.
Well, we have to consider, first of all, that by the time we get to late February or early March, which is what we're talking about here, the fiscal year that these appropriations we're supposed to address will be roughly halfway over. So even if we wrap this funding battle
pretty soon, the next one is going to start. Keeping in mind, it's not just about deciding on a budget for this fiscal year and appropriating it to all of the different agencies and departments, it's also about raising the debt ceiling, trying to get a few one maybe two reconciliation packages passed with border energy and tax legislation. This is going to be a really heavy to do list right at the beginning of the one hundred and nineteenth Congress.
Keeping in mind that the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is going to be working with a majority of what one.
Be one by the time that happens. And so you're hearing people suggest there's no shutdown in the works in the next week, but in the first quarter of next year is when we could really be running into some trouble.
Yeah, So let's get into this now with Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzeno, our signature political panel. Rick, of course, republican strategist and partner at Stone Court Capital, Genie a democratic strategist and Senior Democracy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Rick, we talk all the time, multiple times a year about doing this song and dance all over again. We know the can is just going to get kicked down the road. They
are choosing though, to kick it down the road to march. Well, it will be maybe two months after Donald Trump takes office with a lot he wants to accomplish in those first one hundred days. So how problematic is this particular kicking of the can going to be ultimately for the Republican majorities in Congress and the President?
You know, I don't think it's going to be that big an issue on March fourteenth or whenever the new cr will expire, primarily because it's really in your rear view mirror at that point, as you pointed out, Kaylee, six months down the road, in a fiscal year that hadn't had a budget proved yet. So it is a
little silly. But the reality is that most of the effort in Congress by then will be focused on the next funding year's budget, and all the appropriations activity, all the author is authorizing will be for the twenty twenty sixth budget. And so I do know that we've got more intensity in the Senate lined up. We've been talking all week about the five day work week in the United States Senate to really get things moving there, and I think that'll be matched to some degree by House tempo.
And we've all been talking about the close margins of victory in the House and the Senate with Republicans in charge, and how much complicated, how much more complicated that'll make
getting things passed. So that being said, yeah, I think as soon as they sign this CR before they get out before Christmas, that puts it in the review, Mayor that buys you as you point out three months and all of a sudden, you're focused on an entirely different set of numbers, new top lines, And I think it makes the reconciliation on twenty twenty four to twenty five really not that much more difficult, Genie.
Some of the delay in crafting a short term solution here has been the request for disaster aid following the hurricanes that blew through the Southeast. Reporting now suggests tens of billions of dollars in disaster aid will be included. The White House and asked for almost one hundred billion. Knowing these are a lot of red states we're talking about here, when you're looking at North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, and so forth, why the fight over the money?
Yeah, I mean, I think it's indicative of the fact that you do have a split in the House where you have obviously people who certainly most representatives, if not all, want to fund these emergencies. But there is an awful lot of concern about the spending levels and the debt and deficit. And since it's a Friday, I got to disagree with Rick there. This is a disaster for Republicans. There is no way that you move this to March or February. If it goes to February and then it's
clean sailing from there, Let's not forget. There is zero room for the House to maneuver on this, and so they don't have the numbers. There's a possibility that within the first hundred days, when you have Donald Trump and Republicans rightly anxious to move forward a really really energetic and a full agenda, that you have more Democrats on that House floor than you have Republicans on a given day. And so the idea that this is going to be smoother sailing when we go forward is not the case.
They will have to fight this out next year. And the problem for Donald Trump, and I suspect he may give Mike Johnson an earful on this this weekend, who knows, is the fact that he has an agenda that he has promised to the American public, and he is intent on living out that agenda, and you can bet if it doesn't get through, he's going to point the finger at Republicans in leadership for not pushing it through, because Democrats cannot be blamed because Republicans by January own Washington.
D c Well to that exact point, Genie, we have seen Democrats in this one hundred and eighteenth Congress be the votes in the House to actually get a lot of things over the finish line. But they have been doing so knowing that the Senate and the White House were controlled by Democrats. That's not going to be the
case now. So I do under if you think the Democrats are really going to play ball here at all, at least in the early days of the Trump administration, will there's still some degree of difference, but distance rather between what's taking place in the January to March period in the midterms in November of twenty twenty six.
Yeah, I think they absolutely will play ball. But playing ball means they will kick the ball and they will expect it to be kicked back. And so the question is what are they going to get from Nike Johnson, Kayley, I had to give you a sports you know, sports reference on a Friday.
But once you appreciated Army Navy tomorrow go Navy.
That's right.
What are they going to get in return for their support? They are going to expect something. And just listening to Donald Trump yesterday on the stock exchange, corporate tax cuts down to fifteen percent, those are huge, huge numbers for corporations, the ten largest in the country. How are they going to make that work? Where are these cuts going to
come from? And spending Democrats are in a position to say, you can't cut things that we hold important, and that means Mike Johnson, if he wants their support, he's going to have to deal with them. This is a really tough position for Mike Johnson, who I think has the toughest job in DC coming in January. And we thought the one hundred and eighteenth was tough, yes we did.
But the interesting development there is that Mike Johnson appears to be here to stay. Rick Davis. That's changed a lot in the last six months or so, when obviously there was a little bit more concern about the veracity of the speaker following Mike Johnson's short tenure here, but he's really turned himself into a figure in the House in terms of a fundraiser and an organizer. Will that be challenged by having a majority of one.
Not really, because the one is actually Donald Trump. That is the majority that he has to abide by. The reality is he was the most powerful man in Washington last year, aside from the President the United States. He was the leading Republican voice in the nation. He was the Speaker. It was the Speaker of the House, and nobody else had that kind of power. Now we are
a hierarchical party. Republicans salute when the president is a Republican, and that's what's going to happen in the House of Representatives. You can't bake the cake the same ingredients that you had last year. This year, it's going to be different. When Donald Trump says I want this bill pass, you're going to have almost complete fealty from Republicans in the House and Senate to do that, at least in the first year or two. And so I really don't think that you can gloom and doom it the way it
was for two years under the Biden administration. Because you know, Mike Johnson, a very inexperienced legislator, thrust into the speakership without any high cover. You know, he's gonna have plenty of high cover. Now he's going to salute whenever Donald Trump says this is the bill I want pass, and so will his coalition.
So that's the current speaker. I'd like to ask you, as well, Jeannie, about a former speaker Speaker America, Nancy Pelosi. We learned today, while on a congressional delegation a trip to Europe, was hospitalized in Luxembourg after she sustained what was just described as an injury during an official engagement. We understand she's still working. We don't have further detail on what exactly the injury is or the severity of it.
But keeping in mind here, the Congresswoman and Speaker America is eighty four years old, and this is just days after the eighty two year old outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell fell and also sustained injuries. What spotlight does this put on not only just the age of some of the most senior leaders in Washington, but whether or not they should still be in these positions at that age.
Yeah, I mean, you know, we wish and Nancy Pelosi well, like you said, we understand she's still working from the hospital where she's being checked out, and we hope she's okay. But I think we are seeing, just during this transition period for the administration, we are seeing a transition in Congress.
To your point, we have seen a number of more senior both in age and in terms of their length of time in Congress on the Democratic side in particular, have stepped aside for their younger colleagues to take the reigns of power. And I think that's critically important because part of being a leader and part of being a party is that you make sure and both parties have this, you make sure that your bench of incoming people and leaders are strong and they can take the reins. Otherwise,
you are the risk. If you have the power and something God forbid happens to you, you are the risk to the entire party. And so we've seen the Democrats in particular the last few weeks do that. Interestingly, Pelosi seems to have been fighting against Alexandria Ocasio Cortes for her ascension to the Oversight Committee. That said, we've seen a number of these transitions, and I think I think we're going to see more.
Of course, it's hockeym Jeffery's leading the Democratic Conference in the House now, and Rick, he's going to be looking across the valley to the midterms for the next two years. How does he best position himself to win.
Best position loyal opposition, raise enormous amounts of money. He'll be up against a fundraising juggernaut with the Republicans in the next two years. He's going to have to keep his eye on that, which means time away from the Chamber. But yeah, I mean, he's probably going to have the typical historical cycle on his side, so you know it should bode well for him. But he's got to be
organized enough to do it. And right now you really have to wonder whether the Democrats can rally around his leadership in the party to help facilitate that, because it's pretty segmented and bifurcated right now.
Quickly, Rick, the Army Navy game of course tomorrow. We understand there is quite a list of attendees. He was the most writing on their visits with Donald Trump. With the football game as the background. Here, Ron DeSantis, Mike Johnson, the speaker we've been talking about, or maybe Pete Hegseth if he decides to show.
Yeah, there's a big debate going on in Congress about how to facilitate the first year of Donald Trump's legislative agenda. John Thune is saying the two step process split up things and pass them in parts and house ways and means Chairman is saying, I want one big package up or down vote. That could be the most important decision. It comes out at halftime.
All right, Well, we'll be monitoring true social and I guess our television screens. Yeah, this is going to be like when Taylor Swift goes to exactly.
They'll have a camera on the box the whole time.
Yeah, all right, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzino our signature political panel. Thank you so much. I feel like I should go to Maryland tomorrow watch the game. I'm a Navy fan, you know, of.
Course, But twelve hundred dollars will get you in, I think at this point.
Right, Yeah, it's definitely a not cheap, but should be excited.
Looks better on TV, especially when you're in the stadium. We're talking about beautiful landover Maryland. We better get out of here. Natasha Hall is on the way in next on Balance of Power. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Oro 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.
As we keep our eyes on what's happening in the Middle East, where our Secretary of State is traveling right now.
Yeah, Anthony Blinken is abroad, as is Jake Sullivan, the
National Security Advisor. They're visiting this region. It was Blinkin today who was in both Jordan and then Turkey talking about not just the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, but also of course Syria, as we are just barely a week out from the ousting of Syrian dictator Boscher Ala Sad, and that is something he was talking about with Airdowan and Turkey specifically because Turkey will have a role to play, presumably in what happens in Syria next.
So we want to get into all of this and turn to Natasha Hall, who joins us from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where she is a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Program. Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio, Natasha. If we could focus on Syria first, As I said, it's been really only a matter of days since Asad fled to Russia. There's obviously efforts around a transitional government in place. How do you assess how it's gone so far since the rebels successfully got a sought.
Out thank you for having me in this historic occasion, I would say, I mean, it's really been momentous to see a regime that has held on to power for so long, over half a century, and then throughout a thirteen year brutal civil war to really fall within the course of less than two weeks. So we're not so far out from it from the fall of us said and his refuge in Moscow, but certainly there's a lot
of security in the region right now. A lot of people are nervous about what this might portend for the future, but Syrians are jubilant. They feel like today is just a day for the future that they never thought would be possible, frankly, and that it could potentially turn a positive leaf for a country that has been through through so much devastation. That said, the group that led the charge is Hayata Riersham, which is a designated terrorist organization.
So many Syrians are also wary as well, but aware of all of the hard work that needs to happen to get to a better place that they had dreamed of for so long.
So, Natasha, how long will it take and what will be the signs that you're looking for to see a government that the United States can in fact have a relationship with.
I mean, that's that's a great question, and I think the next few weeks and months are really critical for many reasons. Within the tree itself, we want to see more positive signs from HTS. They have given reassurances to religious minorities, for example. They've kept government employees and their posts for the most part, so it's been relatively bloodless, which is great to see for a country that has
suffered so much. But what we really need to see in a country like Syria that has been just economically devastated ninety percent of the population is under the poverty line, is we really need to see a rise in basic services, a rise in basic salaries. Your average government employee gets paid twenty five dollars a month, and we know with desperation breeds discontent, and discontent can lead to potential greater insecurity,
in fighting and terrorism. So I think that the United States has a really positive role to play with the designation it has on HTS and its sanctions to be able to steer Syria towards a better future and hopefully a more hopeful one.
It also raises the question, Natasha, of the role that other US adversaries could play in this. Russia and Iran, as we've talked about, were also dealt blows by the downfall of Asad, and I do wonder the circumstances that you are describing do seem if in the worser case scenario as ones, if there are unrest that Iran might be able to take advantage of, even if it does
find itself more weak in this moment. So how does the US, the new Syrian government whatever it is, and others in the region, including Turkey need to behave here to make sure that Iran stays down?
If you will, right, I mean, this was truly a humiliating defeat for both Iran and Russia, who have been stalwart allies of the USAID regime. This rebel offensive was essentially possible because of a regional breakdown in power where you saw Iran and its proxies really decimated, and Iran's forward defense strategy and tatters, It'd be difficult to see how they mount any kind of positive campaign in Syria at this time. That said, what we have seen in recent days was the Syrian Democratic forces.
These are the group. This is the group that the US.
Backs taking control of a really critical border crossing called Albu Kamal, which Syria shares with Iraq. This is a key part of the conduit of the sort of Schia crescent between Tehran and its proxy has Balah on the Mediterranean and Syria is really key to that strategy and that armed shipment sort of corridor.
So I mean, if we.
See the US troops, for example, pull out, as we've seen President Elect sort of allude to saying that there's no US interests in Syria, we could see the emergence of potential spoilers from Iran, but also Isis as well.
Well. So where should if you were looking forward here to make the most strategic decisions, Natasha, where should US forces be positioned Iraq or Syria.
Yeah, that's a great question.
I mean, I think in an advisory role, remaining in Iraq would be pretty critical to US security. But really the nine hundred troops that are in Syria are a lot of bang for one's buck. Let's say it's a very limited presence, but it's kind of a wedge to prevent insecurity from rising from ISIS cells to really re emerge in a serious way, and again to prevent Iran from sending arm shipments and militias back through that corridor.
So I would think that, you know, first and foremost, leaving US troops in place, but on top of that to really have a kind of stabilizing presence for the country. We've already seen a US broker ceasefire in the north between sort of Turkey and Turkish back groups and the Kurds. We need to see more of that in the months ahead to prevent greater insecure during this really fragile moment.
And then, as I mentioned with sanctions and the terrorism designation on HTS, there really needs to be a checklist in terms of behavior, transition to civilian governance, dissolving of militia groups for a broader, more unified Syrian military, and the US really does have cards to play along with its allies in doing that. So I think that there's really really concrete steps that I do hope the US plays.
Here, Natasha. In our final two minutes with you, I also want to note that the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made a trip to Israel where yesterday he suggested that he thinks there could be a deal between Israel and Hamas and a release of the hostages this month. And I wonder the extent to which you think there's credibility in that statement, or if this is misplaced optimism, right.
I mean, we've of course been talking about this since this February, that there will be a ceasefire.
Imminent in any moment.
I do not know if Prime Minister and Yahoo would want to at the end of the day give President Biden the win here.
He might be essentially waiting.
For President Alec Trump, which he hasn't been very secretive about is his preferred candidate, and wait to give President elect Trump the win.
I could see that easily happening.
If President elect Trump can take this as a win, then maybe we will see it in the next month.
But I have my doubts.
Natasha, it's great to have you back. You're always welcome here in Natasha Hall, Center for Strategic in the International Studies Middle East Program, Senior Fellow, a voice of experience helping us navigate these stories. It's good to see you, Natasha. Come back and see us soon. I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lions in Washington as we wind things down on
the early edition. We'll be back at five pm Eastern Time with a late edition of Balance of Power, working our way into what could be a pretty important weekend.
Here.
All eyes on this football game to figure out I guess the congressional agenda. Donald Trump's approached it, any number of issues, the transition. Who might be the next Defense secretary? That's a heck of a ballgame.
Yeah, it could be apprentice and that two potential defense secretaries, the one who actually has been nominated for it and the other who reportedly could be a backup if Hegseth can't get through both Hexath and DeSantis. They're in the presence of the President and elect. I feel like this could get a little dramatic.
Yeah, it's gonna be fun to watch. 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