Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. President Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs joining us now to Discussely Senior White House Trade Advisor Piter Navarro dot Navara, Welcome back to the program, Sir. First of all, I think we've got to get into the rule in room overnight. Have you spoken to the President and ultimately what's this reaction to what we heard?
Haven't forggned with the President yet, but they've forgned with people who have spocused to the president.
Lord, We're in.
A situation now.
Big picture here is i EPA.
We were using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. There's no question that there's an economic emergency. With respect to both uses that we had. One is we are in a world where China has killed over a million Americans with fentanyl poison, and we took this step to stop that. We will continue to press on that. At the same time, we invoke that rule to stop what has been twenty million illegal abling streaming into our country, driving down wages,
taking jobs away. That's an economic emergency. On top of that, the world continues to steal about a trillion dollars a year and is measured by the trade deficit, and that's an economic emergency because it's transferring our wealth abroad. So we think we have a strong case. Yes, we will immediately appeal and try to stay the ruling. But at the same time, the court, interestingly enough, basically said we were right, just use different rules and laws. So nothing
has really changed here in that sense. We're still as we speak, having countries call us and tell us they want a deal. So these deals are going to happen. So that's kind of where we're at. And it's troublesome here because if you look broadly at the pattern, we've got courts in this country who are basically engaged in
attacks on the American people. The President ran on stopping the Fennel poison, stopping international trade unfair practices from stealing our factories in jobs, and courts keep getting in the way of that. The courts get in the way of our trying to deal with the border issues. Now they're getting in the way of our trying to deal with
the phantodol crisis. And that's where we stand here. And I think part of what's going to be important about this ruin demonstrates yet again to the American people that the judiciary in this country has been weaponized in ways which are contrary to their interests.
Well, Pety, he would have had a lot of people come on this program and ultimately say, you still have tons of options, and you've alluded to one of them. You will, of course appeal, but could you describe what you might do in the interim the way you might pursue your ultimate objective anyway with the tools you have still available to you.
I'm gonna let Jamison Greer, the USTR, inform you on that, and you'll be hearing from him soon on that. But look, any trade lawyer knows is just a number of different options we can take. If you look at the kind of things we've already done. It kind of give you a roadmap on that. There's all sorts of numbers out there. There's one twenty two, there's three ozho one, there's two thirty two, there's three three eight, There's all sorts of
things we can do well within the law. But look, we think that what we've done already is perfectly appropriate.
So that's why the appeal will take case.
But you know, it's like, interestingly enough, I was scheduled to come on the program today to talk about the bond market and the Big Beautiful Tax Bill, but there is a there is a bridge to that, and if I may, we have a situation where the bond market we've seen like a fifty to fifty basis point increase in yields in the ten year since April second, And a lot of the hysteria around the Big Beautiful Tax Bill centers on the Congressional Budget Office scoring that bill
in a way which says there's going to be a three point seven trillion dollar addition to America's national debt over the next ten years, and so of course you got to finance that, and that drives interest rates up and heads explode, when in fact, if you do the math properly and you look at the history of the CBO forecast, you actually see about a five trillion dollar swing to a two trillion dollar surplus from the bill. And I'd like to get you walk you through the
math there. It's like the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office historically has been very bad at estimating impacts of tax bills. In the twenty seventeen tax cut that President Trump did.
They got that totally wrong.
They underestimated the GDP growth by a full percentage point. And what that does if they make that same mistake here, which they have done, will you add that that's about two trillion dollars of additional revenue because you got greater economic activity.
And then, Peter, you also have the revenue from the tariffs, which I saw your opinion piece in the Hill.
I just want to get back.
To the tar I just want to get back to the tariff because you don't have that revenue.
Well that's another two trillion if you.
Don't have the authority to use it, though, But can I just ask you mentioned j Ambassadord Greer. We're going to hear from him soon, are we going to hear from USTR about the bridge potentially what John was talking about. If you can't use AEPA, potentially you're going to come out the administration say we're going to use one twenty two in the interim.
Well, the court did in some sense tell us to do that, which is interesting. But look, here's the thing, mean, Fennyl, I just people need to wrap their heads around the fact that every day here in America people die because communists. China puts fifty gallon barrel, fifty gallon drums full of these chemicals that come over to the Mexican cartels and
then are made not just into fentanyl. They use the fentanyl to spike heroin, to spike meth amphetamines, to spike ecstasy, and they're eating putting it in prescription drugs like xanax and valium, and people are dying. It's been over a million people, a million Americans, and it's an economic emergency because a lot of those people are prime age working force here in America. So this kind of court ruling the judge, I mean, look, the lead.
Court said, if the ruling said, Peter, and we've been talking about this page thirty four to thirty five. They say, basically, you're in your right if you use section one twenty two. Why didn't you guys do that from the beginning?
Well, Section one twenty two only gives you one hundred and fifty days, So there's your answer right there.
So are you.
Section one twenty two if you use this now for one hundred years, got to be a bridge to three oh one or a bridge to two thirty two.
What are you thinking?
More long term?
You can be the strategist on that, but those are the kinds of thoughts. And look, look, if anybody thinks this caught the administration by a surprise, think again, okay, because you could see in the oral arguments where those judges were going and the lead judging this, I mean, the problem with that court. It's so such an obscure court, but it's consistently been globalist pro importer giving us bad rules.
The lead judge there ruled against the two thirty two's originally and had to get overturned by the appeals court. So that gives you an idea of the bias against the president's tariff policy right on that court. But I think the big picture here is we've got a very strong case with AIPA, but the court basically tells us if we lose that, we just do some other things. So nothing's really changed. I want to say this to
the world, you're cheating us. We're coming after you deal and let's make this right because ultimately what's at stake here is the global international environment getting in in a way where it's fair to America. And thereby, if it's fair to America and we westructure this thing in a way, we'll have just more stability in terms of financial flows and capital and everything like that.
Nothing ifietly out of balance. Now we're going to run, but it's quite to catch up the sm We look forward to singing next step. So just got a tiny one thing, you know, a lot of high on the rate. She's with us. So right the sty in White House tried, it's not is a fit of Peter. Thank you, Sir Dobavarad. So here's the laces this morning and versus a waiting another read on the state of the labor market with initial job less claims you out in just under two
hours time. But Michael A JP Morgan Asset Management right in the following. In the end, it's all about jobs and the labor market. With a FED generally looking past near term inflation data, the labor data becomes the motivating factor. Bob John just now for more, Bob, good morning.
Good morning.
See we've got a lot to get through. So let's start with growth. Do you think this bond market should be pricing in a step down in growth or a step up in growth?
I think probably a step up in growth, and that seems to be what they're pricing in today. We were looking at effective tariff rates yesterday morning. We're about fifteen percent today. When I read Mike symbol of stuff and you look at where the courts came in. You assume the two thirty two section tariffs go through, you're talking about ten percent effective rate. The economy could absorb that.
And then you've got Congress. You've got the budget Reconciliation package, which we estimate adds another three trillion to the deficit over the next ten years. So there's an upward impulse to growth today.
Does that make you revise some of your expectations for how high yields can go, because what you just expressed was resilient growth. The idea that the FED can't cut rights as easily if the data doesn't roll over as quickly and the idea that supply is going to be coming out at a time or inflation could potentially say sticky.
Yeah. Let's start with the FED. We looked at the minutes yesterday our AI program, let's call it. Kelsey determined that there were thirteen references to inflation expectations, whereas there were three a couple months ago at the March meeting. So the FED is clearly focused on inflation and keeping inflation expectations anchored. As you think about the way things could play out, you're looking at higher prices first. That may create demand destruction, which then causes you to raise
the probability of recession. But you have to get through the higher prices and see how businesses and households react to that. Now you've got to enter Congress, and Congress is trying to push through not only extension of the Tax Cutting Jobs Act, but incremental spending, and you have to gauge will that offset some of the impact of the tariffs, And it looks like it probably will.
I don't know how Kelsey Baro feels about being sort of connected to a chat GPT program. Kelsey, if you're watching, please write in and let us know what you think. I am curious, though, whether you have upgraded your expectation for yields. You didn't answer nex you'd expected yields to be going down much more significantly when there was this overhag of potentially slower growth, the drag from tariffs, the drag from policy uncertainty.
Yeah, I'd be happy if yields held in Around here. I think there is going to be an upward impulse because first we're going to see higher prices, and then it does feel that businesses and households can absorb that, and you're going to get some package out of Congress which will help to offset some of that. I would say my greatest frustration of the last year is we hadn't actually been higher. I would have loved the two year to have been anchored around the Fed Funds rate
four and three eight percent. I would have loved the ten year to be at five percent. To me, that would have been a relatively normal curve. And yet we still have the two year and the five year trading below the Fed Funds rate. So it makes it challenging for clients who want to get into the bond market. I'm still not having a single conversation with clients about wanting to get out of the bond market. It's all about where do we get into the bomb line market and how.
And it's all about the belly of the curve, which is what we saw yesterday in the auction. So it went very well yesterday for the five year. Today we've got seven year. How closely are you watching to see, particularly with longer duration, whether you see a repeat of what happened in Japan in the United States with real pushback about long term bonds.
So far, we're not seeing that. We're seeing flows coming in to the US bond market firum overseas, and we are seeing the long duration buyers, pension funds and insurance companies get interested, particularly in longer credit. So we're not seeing it, certainly. Secretary Bessett has a couple tools. One is to either cancel or dial down the thirty year auctions, and that's something we heard out at Japan. It's something we saw out of the UK that would certainly help to stabilize.
The cam cell market. Council or dial down you think is real potential for that.
You as God per se percent.
There's enough in the market right now to force that kind of corrective action.
Treasure are telling us if there's no demand, why am I selling? I don't need to do that, And you've got a Treasury Secretary who has put out there we're focused on the long end of the curve. We're focused on the tenure. By the way, I think he's right. I think you've got to look at the mortgage market. You've got to look at the housing data. That's another bit of data we're watching. Housing should be fairly strong
at this point in the cycle. It's not because of housing affordability and mortgage rates are a big part of that.
So it's got a strong congment to re engage with the long end of the curve right now.
Okay, I quoted Kelseyum, I'm going to quote another one I've heard you quote, please Fria Misrae ten and thirty year part of the curve our risk assets. I don't want to be the one to stand in front as a steam roller right now, so I'm just going to pack into the intermediate part of the curve. There's lots for me to buy there in credit and in securitized and in are in bond markets. I'll let somebody else help statilize.
The long end. You think it needs to get worse before it gets better.
I'm concerned that it can. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
Can you describe what worse looks like?
Yeah, if I start with the ten year, I think going to four ninety five, we've been there. The market can support that. In my mind, where pain really starts to get felt is one hundred basis points shift up from where the steady state was. And the steady state's been around four forty. So once you break above five percent, if we get to five forty, that path between five and five forty becomes almost unbearable for bond investors. And
I've lived through those hundred basis point shocks before. It always seems to be one hundred and then things tend to stabilize. Where does that put the long end? You know, add another twenty five basis points on top of that for the thirty year. To me, that would be real pain. You need to see policy response, both from the Treasury and from the Fed.
But Michael, this was fantastic, deep, me thoughtful stuff, especial thanks to Bob Michael to Councy Barrow to primiser of JP Morgan Asset Management, reigniting AI optimism after beating earnings expectations.
Well, we got a whole bunch of engines firing right now. The biggest one, of course, is the reasoning AI inference. The demand is just off the charts. You see the popularity of all these AI services.
Now joining us now to discuss. Angelo Zeno of c FRA was a by rating and a one hundred and sixty five dollars price target on the stock. Great to catch up with you, and let's just start with the basics. What jumped out for you yesterday afternoon.
Yeah, I mean I actually thank you guys hit it in terms of, you know, the China side of things. I think that's that's where all eyes were going into the print, and we saw them really kind of navigating the uncertainty you know from China right now and not eight billion dollars in lost revenue in terms of the guidance extremely well. We're not necessarily surprised by the fact that they're navigating it really well, because if there was a company that could do it right now in video
would be that company. Because of the immense amount of demand that they're seeing right now. And say the other thing right now, is this a commentary surrounding these reasoning models, right I think you know, back at GtC, A Jensen was talking about potentially one hundred x one hundred and fifty x, you know, increased need for compute from these reasoning models. I think even when as far as going somewhere along the lines of a thousand X on the
fall last night. So you're kind of seeing the fact that there is just an enormous amount of demand from the shift to AI agents here that we think will continue to rank in twenty twenty five and into two twenty twenty six. And that is given really in Video some really strong momentum and you know, not to mention blackwealth.
Is this really kind of shift towards you know, the infrastructure and the system side of things, completely different from what we saw and Hopper and I think the upside we're seeing from Blackwealth is stronger than I think most analyts here had anticipated.
There was a lot of positive discussion around in Video's performance. There also is this existential threat and you talked about it with China, this question of if there isn't sort of decoupling and regulatory overhang, Can and Vidia continue and maintain its model? In Jenson wank On and said, you cannot underestimate the importance of the China market. This is a home of the world's largest population of AI researchers.
The company that wins China wins this war. Do you think the market's really complacent about the risk that Video gets locked out of that country?
Well, I think there's two sides to this, right, I mean, I think one point here with regards to China, they've essentially be rich China in many respects, and I think that's the side that the market is taking right now. But it's one of those situations where, all right, we took the eight billion dollar hit. It was more than we thought was going to take place here in the July quarter, But we're not going to see another quarter where you know, China's going to be a huge negative
headwind for this company looking ahead. But that said, you know the other side of this is when you kind of look here two three years down the road, it is a huge opportunity. Course if they can't get back into China, our belief is that they will be able to get back into China at some point in time.
I think the market also has expectations, just giving the move we're seeing here, that eventually in Video will be able to find its way back, whether it be you know, from you know, some sort of deal that the administration creates, or whether it be some sort of you know, maybe performance laden type of chip that they can somehow find their way through into China, albeit you know, at significantly
lower revenue potential than what they could have gotten. But nonetheless, I think there is you know, belief out there that eventually in Nvidia needs to find a way back into China. Jensen isn't given giving up on that hope that China will be a part of their business in the future. So I think that's why the stocket is moving the way it is as well.
Do you think that the ruling that happened overnight really built on that belief in market so that Invidio will find its way back into China.
Yeah.
I mean, listen, I think when you when you look at the when you look at just semiconductors in general, I mean they're largely exempt from you know, all this taraff oriented stuff as well, they do fall under the more sectorial semiconductor investigation that we're waiting on right now.
I think some of the comments that I mean, you guys earlier alluded to in terms of you know, Jensen making supporting the whole, you know, the the tariff situation, I think as it's partly due to the fact that he is trying to position himself really well in terms
of semi conductor manufacturing in the US. Not to mention, a lot of users that he's making are coming from Mexico, So he's almost well kind of insulated at least for now from some of the uncertainty and some of the commentary that we've heard overnight or even over the last month or two tied to a lot of the country specific you know, tariffs that we've heard about.
We do have the Trump administration, though, moving to restrict the sale of chip design software to China, and what the reports basically suggest is.
This is a choke point.
They want to cut off at the start where China can get access to this type of technology. But you sound optimistic that Nvidia can still make its way back in China. How when the administration seems to be clearly saying we are going to decouple when it comes to national security concerns.
Yeah, I mean listen, I think and in that EDA software, you know, Ben that we're what we're seeing here. I actually think, you know, it actually took longer than we anticipated. We expected to hear it, you know, sooner than that. It'd also be interesting to see how a great of
the administration really wants to get here. I mean, there are other you know, levers that they can throw out there, tied to the semiconductive equipment industry, for instance, So we'll see how far the administration wants to go with this. But as far as you know, in Video is concerned, I think ultimately, you know, the administration has a price for anything as well as long as they can kind
of get their terms on the deals. So I think, you know, in Vidia is going to be a hot topic when the two sides try to come together and have conversations in the coming weeks and months. So that is why we, you know, we personally believe that there is potential for in Video that kind of get back into China. Not to mention, we do think the administration
isn't necessarily against Nvidia and selling into China. As much as you know, especially if they can somehow you know, cut the you know, the the expansion efforts for the local semi conductor industry out and so we'll wait. You say there's gonna be I think there are a lot of moving parts here, and you never know what's going to come afround the administration.
Angela, let's just finish on that point. Getting access and granting access to nvidio chips is becoming a foreign policy tool at something we discussed on this program just yesterday. What kind of characteristics does that introduce to the stock and how it trades, you know.
I think that's I think that's a great point. I think it's a potential catalyst here for the Yeares. I think it's more upside than downside. From that, you kind of look here over the next couple of weeks, months, I think you're going to see more kind of Saudi Arabia oriented type deals, sovereign AI related deals. You've got Jensen himself saying he's going to be traveling out to Europe here over the next couple of days, you know, so it'll be interesting to kind of see when the
timing of more announcements come tied to sovereign AI. But even Collette, you know, alluded to the point yesterday that you're you are going to see more, you know, ori, more sovereign AI oriented deals. It's just they wouldn't cut their head on when you're going to see these deals.
Angela, I appreciate your time as always, sir. Basically night for you. I'm sure angela'sina that of CFRA with Nvidia nicely high in the pre market. Here's the license. This morning, a federal court blocking President Trump from imposing is sweeping Liberation Day tariffs. The White House is vowing to appeal. Libby canshell a Pincoach joins us now for more. Libby, good Mornic, Good morning. What's the message from you to the clients this morning.
Yeah.
I think what the message is is that the worst worst case has been avoided. For sure. I think that, like your previous guests, we are not going to seem unlikely to see one hundred and forty five percent tariffs
rolling back on in China. However, it is not at all clear, and that's for the very reason that you just mentioned, which is that the president has wide latitude using other statutory authorities, whether it's something called Section one twenty two the nineteen seventy four Trade Act that allows him to impose up to up to fifteen percent tariffs
for one hundred fifty days. I would not be surprised if we saw him actually move forward with that, replacing that ten percent baseline that was just obviously rolled back by the courts, and using that authority. He also has section threeh one which he could impose tariffs on China immediately. That's a live, active investigation. And there's something called section three three eight from nineteen thirty Tariff Act. So I think the upshot here is that AIPA provided him with
a lot of flexibility, a lot of negotiating powers. He could roll tariffs on or roll tariffs off. These statutes are more limited, usually require some investigation and what have you. But the upshot here is that we are not there is not an all clear from a tariff policy perspective. We will see additional tariffs again. I will not be surprised if you didn't see them over the next few days or so.
Well, let's explore the one twenty two, which everyone, even this court thinks Trump should have used. Is that the end destination or is it bridge to another authority like a three thirty eight or three oh one.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's excellent question, because Section twenty two does have these sort of limitations. You can only impose them for one hundred and fifty days and then they have to basically go back to Congress to move forward. You know, I think that it will look likely a bridge to something else, probably in a section three oh one. Again, I think that if you, if you kind of go back to January twentieth, when President Trump was inaugurated, those were the authorities I think many
of us thought he was going to use. I mean, there was wide question about the legal ability for him to use AIPA in this very broad based way, and then of course to use them on countries with whom we have trade surpluses. I think did quot call into question, well, this was sort of national emergency, what have you?
So?
I think if you again all those authorities that were available to him January twentieth that we thought he was going to use, I think those seem more likely. But again, those do have some guardrails, some of them do require some investigations, so they're longer base. I would say the upshot, though, is they're more legally durable, so once you know, they're not going to be as vulnerable to illegal challenge as certainly obviously was what happens with.
The UK right now, because that is a deal that's already been struck but kept a ten percent baseline. Now the court is saying that ten percent baseline is illegal.
Yes, so I think that remains to be seen.
Now.
I don't think, you know, the UK had not really seen we hadn't really seen that deal materialize. That was a little bit in name only, So I think, you know, again it's open question what happens to that deal, but then also to all these open negotiations, whether it's with
the EU or Japan. I think importantly though, some of the more punitive tariffs as it relates to say Japan, this section two thirty two tear twenty five percent tariffs on autos, those stick around, right, So that is a legal authority that is durable, that has not been overturned by it by this court decision. So that is an important kind of you know, something that to defector in if.
You're a corporate executive. There are a couple different ways to look at this. On one hand, you could say, the path of travel is still clear, there are going to be other methods of tariffs that are put on. The other way you could look at it is this all feels very fungible changes on the day. If I waited out for a couple of years, I could just keep my plans in place, maybe delay things, but keep everything kind of the way it was before.
Which path that they picking, Yeah, I think that Well, that's also an open question, and I think obviously depends on on the sector. Yeah, I think what we've seen from some companies is that they have announced some some future investment. Whether that investment actually comes to fruition or not, I think, you know, again, it remains to be seen.
So obviously a lot of open questions here. But I do think this underscores for a company just how much uncertainty there is around these this agenda and the fact that the President Trump is only going to be in office for the next three and a half years. You know, regardless of what happens, he is not going to be running for re election. We will, you'll, we will have a different president come twenty twenty nine. And so if you are a corporate executive, that obviously is going to
inform your perspective. I only highlight that because I do think if this were the first, you know, first few months of his first administration, then those corporations may be more willing to make those those investments, and they are now just because of your shorter period.
So let's build on that each to lay. Does it matter the sense that yeah, it's just okay, ten days, twenty days, two months, it's not that big of a deal if the path of travel is still the same, or does it are some of these delays actually crucial for these companies to understand how to navigate this.
Yeah, and again I think this is what I mean. I think we should watch over the next few days because if they do, you know, move forward with a say universal tariff under Section one twenty two, then I think it's going to be a reminder that again this tear is these tariffs maybe via different statutory you know, avenues or what have, you are going to be here to stay. So I do think I do think it matters.
But I think the upshoff for investors, for our clients is that the worst case scenario has been avoided, that thirty percent effective tariff, right that we were all looking at and you know, in those first weeks of April that is very unlikely to come to fruition just because of the limitations around these other statutes. But again, I think like this is not all clear and from you know, from a financial markets perspective, I think that's really important.
Do you think though, it changes the White House stre ategy of wanting to get this all wrapped up by July ninth?
Well?
Yeah, I mean I think the July ninth sort of becomes that deadline becomes a little bit irrelevant, right, I mean, I don't know if you're the EU, do you still have that same sort of you know, immediacy or a sense of urgency in terms of negotiating or making concessions
with the Trump administration? You know, probably not now. Again, if we think that the Section one twenty two, say it's universal tariff, is a bridge to a Section three oh one tariff, which could be you know, deeper and more broad based tariffs on country specific then that then you know, I think that will bring negotiating partners to the table. But I do think this really sort of
changes the calculus. One last thing I will just say though, and something I think our traders have already asked me last night, is does this change sort of the calculus around the tax bill? Right if you're a member of Congress and you were expecting two hundred fifty three hundred million dollars of annual revenue from tariffs, you know, does this make you a little bit more queasy to actually vote for sort of this big, you know, three trillion
dollar plus bill. I think probably not. I actually don't think this really does change. But I think intellectually or academically you might think that it would. I just don't think it does.
Doesn't change the bond market's response.
I do think, I mean, I think, you know, you're seeing a little bit of relief in the bond market. Maybe from an institutional perspective, this sort of reminds you foreign investors, in particular, that there are some checks and balances on presidential power. I think a lot of our foreign clients had thought, you know, we thought that there was you know, the Congress and the judiciary, And I do think this sort of reasserts the fact that, yes,
there are going to be some limits. The president and his team, I think, by design want to push the limits of executive authority, but there obviously there are some checks the bond market, but also the courts.
More importantly, this is actually an argument the piton of our mate in an opinion piece just yesterday. He's catching up with this a little bit later this morning, making the argument that he was complaining about the scoring down in Washington that it didn't didn't account for the tariff revenue, and this might be an explanation as to why it didn't.
And he's still pushing for this idea of the external revenue service. This basically what we already have with the customs to bring in all of that money to offset the tax plan. But to Libby's point, it doesn't really matter.
Let me just quickly for anyone playing trade section bingo this morning three one unfair trade practices, Yeah, why didn't they start that this time around? They did in the first term? Why not yet?
Second serve, because that does require months long investigation. It's a little bit of a nuance. There's an open investigation on China, the three zero section three oh one investigation, So they could have imposed tariffs on just on China using that open investigation, but for any other country they would have to actually pursue another kind of months long investigation.
But again, as to our conversation earlier, I think they could use Section one twenty two, a temporary tariff to get to a broader destination in terms of, you know, more tariffs on other country specifics.
This was a clinic as we expected it to be. We appreciate it. Thank you. Let me cancel, that's for sure. I've Pimco sand in the gears. We've heard all sorts so far this morning, But ultimately it doesn't change the president's pursuit of his old objective, which is to put tariffs up on some of our trade partners. This is the Bloombergs Events podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics,
an gio politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app