Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Another story we've been following this week, Joe, which is the attempt at least to freeze federal loans and grants by the Office of Management and Budget. It was blocked by a judge last night, that newsbreaking just before you went to air in the late edition of Balance of Power. And now, according to the Washington Post, the White House has rescinded that initial war.
Which is interesting if you listened to the White House Press briefing yesterday and then the clarifications that followed from the likes of Stephen Miller, they were calling it a media hoax, that it was being framed in that regard. Unable to answer some questions about programs that would be affected. Now the whole thing is being rescinded. So we have a lot of questions at this out.
Yeah, so let's see if we can post some of them to Bloomberg's Mike Dorning, who is now joining us in our Washington, d C.
Studio.
So, Mike, obviously, this has been incredibly fast moving. There was a lot of uproar on Capitol Hill about whether or not the move the White House was trying to make was actually legal, considering we're talking here about funds that were appropriated by Congress. If the orders were sended, does this end there?
It maybe ends this chapter. It just all feels like the Muslim band that came out quickly when Trump came into office, and then they kind of did something different that was a little bit more tailored. This omb order that came out last night. You know, I was talking to people who administer the food stamp program and they were that morning and they're like, well, we can't tell you whether our stuff is frozen or not. So this caused a lot of chaos because it hadn't sort of
run the gamut. It It might be they've rescinded it because they're really not going to do it, or it might be they've rescinded this order and going to take, you know, the chaos that this caused into consideration and do a new order that's a little more clear and a little more targeted.
Either way, This is apparently what was needed to light the fires for Democrats. Oh way, Jeffery is calling an emergency caucus meeting at this hour to start drafting plans. Here a three prong strategy to fight back. It's time, I guess to lock arms here. For Democrats, how do they answer it?
Well, I mean they they're just rallying their troops. There's really not that much they can do unless they get some Republicans to go along with them. But they can mobilize a public opinion. They can mobilize important political actors. Now, what was happening yesterday is there's all sorts of critical services,
school lunches. You know. I talk with people who administered the school lunch is around the country, the School Nutrition Association, and they were saying, we don't know whether we're going to get the reimbursements that we get, so what do you do with your school lunch program? It hit so many different segments of society that then they can now mobilize them. Also, obviously President Trump and others notice, so they probably attacking one way or the other.
So that's the Democrats that I am also struck by the fact that Republicans don't seem to be too bothered by Donald Trump kind of stepping on the power of the purse, if you will, in their congressional authority to appropriate funds. Knowing that an appropriation's battle is looming. They have to figure out how to fund the government by mid March. They have to figure out a budget reconciliation package.
What does this portend about the way in which they will just be going along with whatever in terms of government spending Donald Trump would like to see.
So there have been in the way most Republicans responded to this was sort of saying, just you know, if Trump does it, it's a good idea. That they were not pushing back at all, and in fact, some people who did push back slightly on the Republican side got their knuckles wrapped by the White House that said, I'm not sure that it's really going to cure these internal divisions within the Republican Party when it comes to spending
and what they want out of the tax package. It's quite likely in the end they will come together on that, but there's going to be a lot more twists and turns, and there are people on the Republican side who are hardcore about wanting a lot of spending cuts, and there are other people from other districts that are hardcore about not wanting too many important services to get touched too much. And those are inherent conflicts and it will take a
while over come them. In this Republican retreat, didn't look like they got that far on.
That or anywhere. According to Marjorie Taylor Green, after two days at our House Republican Winter Retreats, she writes, we still do not have a plan on budget reconciliation, and our speaker and his team have not offered one. She says, that's not even a one or two bill framework, even though Donald Trump literally told us here he doesn't care. So is it not Mike Johnson's job now to answer with the plan?
Mike Johnson has to come up with something. But remember Mike Johnson did have a plan. It was one bill, and John Thune had a plan. It's two bills.
Arm wrestled.
As the House and the Senate have different views on this. You know, there is a party leader that sort of outranks the two of them, and he didn't want to take a side on this. So I think that Mike Johnson is especially careful about not alienating too many Republicans because his position is so tenuous that he's got to just wait and work it out slowly.
That one vote margin is a killer, Yeah, no doubt.
Marjorie Taylor Green writes, just get started doing something which might hit home for a lot of lawmakers at Washington right now. Mike Dorning, thank you so much reporting for Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg. Eleven thirty.
Confirmation hearings for Donald Trump's selections to fill out the cabinet the President, of course, choosing Howard Lutnick for Commerce and also RFK Junior for Health and Human Services. Our FK Junior trying to get to some of the criticism that he anticipated in answering questions when it comes to food. For instance, by the way, said he supports the polio vaccine, supports other vaccine measles. Yes, And he said he does not want to take people's food away from them. Cue
the Big Max. Here's what he said.
I don't want to take food away from anybody. If you like a cheese McDonald's, jeez Bergger coke, which my boss loves, you should be able to get them. If you want to eat Hostess Dwinkies, you should be able to do that. But you should know what the impacts are on your family and on your health.
As we distill what we heard from RFK Junior and of course the senators on the Finance Committee, we welcome Lisa Jarvis to the program, columnist for Bloomberg Opinion covering biotech, healthcare, of the pharma industry, everything that we've been talking about, and clearly a skeptic. Lisa, welcome back. The headline on your column today says it all. RFK Junior is changing
his tune. Don't all for it. He did speak in softer tones, if you will, about vaccines, but of course many of the Democratic senators primarily were replaying comments that he had made in podcasts. There's a long list of comments that he's made about vaccine policy. Are you looking at this any differently now that you've heard him speak.
You know, thank you for having me. I'm not. I think what he was doing today was trying to take a strategy that he's taken in the past by positioning himself as not being anti vaccine but pro vaccine safety. You heard him say this, I support vaccines. The only thing I want is good science. What he's trying to do here is suggest that the science that exists on
our vaccines isn't sound, when in fact it is. It's a strategy that sounds really reasonable and I think can persuade people, but you know, allows him to talk about this as if he's not trying to take anything away or couldn't have a deleterious effect on public health. So it didn't change my mind. We'll see what it does with senators. I think that he didn't do a great job with trying to convince anyone if those weren't his views.
Well, when he says things like I'm not trying to take anything away, can you just speak to us, Lisa about the actual power he would have if confirmed to be HHS secretary to take things away or are we just talking about recommendations changing, for example, not actually the inability to access these vaccines?
Right while actually changing the recommendations would put these vaccines out of reach for folks. So as head oft HHS, he would be responsible for picking the makeup for a committee. And it gets kind of wonky here, and this is where the public might not see that he is actually sort of crafting policy around vaccines behind the scenes. But he's responsible for the makeup of a committee that just makes the recommendations for what vaccines we take, who should
take them, how often we take them. And so that vaccine got that committee got mentioned just sort of in the background a few times today, but right before we came on the air, he meant himself and talked about how ninety percent of the people on that committee had conflict of interest and so he wants to get that out to me. That says that he may change the
makeup of that committee. The reason that matters is because that committee's recommendations shape actually how vaccines are covered by insurers. It also can embolden states to pass laws that make it easier for parents to, for example, get an exemption from childhood vaccines. All of that is coming at a time when we're already seeing a drop off in childhood vaccination rates and increasing levels of hesitancy.
In the US.
Yet Lisa, we keep hearing he likely has the votes, this likely will be the next health secretary. So doesn't it come down to what Donald Trump wants? We heard this repeatedly from RFK Junior and from Howard Lutnik today, I serve at the pleasure of the president. Does Donald Trump want to question Operation warp speed some of the vaccines that emerged from his own administration? Does he want to stop eating Big Max for instance? Aren't these the questions that we should be asking?
No?
And I agree with you, And there are a few moments in today's hearing that you know, raised alarm bells for me. And you know, not to shift topics, but you know a lot of the questions had to do with abortion access and the abortion pill MITHI pristone, which has been you know, of course, a point of contention ever since Roe fell. And you know one thing that concerned me was that RFK repeatedly said that he was
just asked by Trump. He hadn't decided. Trump hadn't decided his position on a MEPhI pristone, but he asked RFK to review the science. So we know he's going to be using the same kind of lens and analytical mind that has given him the wrong conclusion on vaccines and applying that to things like methi pristone. So that's where.
He sent to me, Well, we've already seen the mithi pristone question in the courts as well, Lisa, to what extent could litigation act as a check on some things that the Trump administration, through HHS and presumably a Secretary Kennedy would would try to do.
Well. I think one thing that he could do that you know, I think the courts would not be a check on is that you know, he would of course would oversee FDA. FDA has rolled back some of the restrictions on access to mithi pristone. I think appropriately. The science shows that it's safe to do.
So.
A lot of the questions today was around reintroducing those same restrictions that would essentially cut off telehealth access to mify Perstone. That has been an important way that women in states with bands have been able to get the drug, whether within their own state or by traveling to another state just over the border. So that would be a real problem. It could help could prevent access to women
who live in states where abortion is legal. So I think there are ways that that could really inhibit access to abortion. It would be, you know, sort of like using an FDA to kind of re prevent access to everyone, not just people who live in states with bands.
Just quickly, Lisa, while you're with us. There seems to be this take in Washington and among many Democrats, well, we don't like this vaccine stuff, but hey, if he gets the food dies out of the junk cereal, maybe that's a good thing that he can bring to the table. Do you expect that will happen? As he discussed scrutinizing the chemical additives in our food supply, what will he do with them?
I mean, I love the idea of making America healthy again, if we are doing it in a way that makes sense, I think again, what concerns me is his ability to analyze what the actual root cause of the problem is. He mentioned in the hearing today that you know chronic diseases and that you know no one is working on them in the government. All you need to do is look at the NIH budget to see that that's an
intense area of research in clinical investigation. So you know, I think it's a point of common ground, but senators should be asking themselves whether he has the right strategies to actually improve our health, and I worry that he does not.
All Right, Lisa Jarvis, great to have you today. She's a Bloomberg opinion columnists covering biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry, joining us here on Balance of Power.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at Bloomberg dot com.