Joining us now for reaction to that and much more employes to say, is the former Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence. Vice President Pence, thank you so much for being here.
Thank you both for having me on.
I want to start with one of these top stories that we're following today, which has to do with the pressure campaign from the White House when it comes to the Federal Reserve. And now you told Bloomberg Television last month that the President ought to be able to express himself when it comes.
To the FED.
But I want to get your thoughts on these latest allegations against FED Governor Lisa Cook. What's your level of concern now with that all when it comes to central bank independence as we see the scrutiny Widen Well, certainly.
I think it'd be appropriate for Lisa Cook to respond to the allegations that have been made. I know the President's called on her to resign, but she has a right to defend herself.
I do.
I did read today that.
Federal Home Loan has found more than twenty two thousand Americans that have filed mortgages, aims, and two residences at the same time, and so I think she should answer for that. Have a chance to answer for it. But what I hope is that the effort to push out another member of the Federal Reserve isn't just simply part and parcel of an effort to get Jerome Powell, who our administration appointed as a Federal Reserve chair to to lower interest rates or otherwise take action that that would
not otherwise be justified. I understand the President's frustration with Chairman Powell, and he's.
Entitled to speak out about that.
But my hope is that these latest allegations are not simply part of that overall pressure campaign and can be given and afforded the due process that they deserve.
Mister Vice President, we'd like to turn to another topic we've been covering very closely this week, of course, that is the question of the President's effort to end the war in Ukraine through a settlement between Voladimir Zelenski, the president of Ukraine, and his Russian counterpart.
You have met Vladimir.
Putin before, do you believe that President Trump is perhaps putting too much trust in the Russian leader and his willingness to end the war.
Well, I haven't met Vladimir Putin, and it's clear to me that Putin doesn't want peace. Putin wants Ukraine. And I commend President Trump for continuing to pursue peace in Ukraine today he is quite frankly surrounded by a lot of isolationist voices in and outside the administration that frankly would have cut Ukraine off a long time ago. And
so I'm grateful to President has stayed after it. I'm grateful that he renewed military support, and I commend him for meeting with President Putin and meeting with President Zelenski and our European allies. But Michael, I think one thing is missing, and that is I believe the time has come for the United States Senate to enact those strong secondary sanctions against Russia and send them to the President's desk.
I believe that would strengthen the president's hand. With a waiver authority are that are built into those sanctions, the President could implement them or.
Not implement as he saw fit.
But my deep conviction, having studied Vladimir Putin and having spoken to him and told him things he didn't want to hear, Putin's not going to stop until he stopped. So while the President continues, on one hand, on a
vigorous track of diplomacy. I think the time has come for the US Senate to put on the President's desk those strong secondary sanctions that will make it clear to Vladimir Putin and to the Russians that unless they choose the pathway of peace through diplomacy, we will continue to provide military support and we will pass the kind of secondary sanctions that will literally break their economy.
What about so.
Called secondary tariffs against China? Would you be in favor of the administration moving towards that against Beijing, like we've seen them take against India, even if some of the argument has been that they haven't done that yet because they don't want to risk the trade talks that are happening right now with China.
Well, I have to tell you that the secondary sanctions against China and other countries that are essentially fueling the Russian war machine, sanctions that five hundred percent would have a devastating effect on the Russian economy.
Now, I have.
Plenty of reasons to support strong tariffs against China. During our administration, we changed the national consensus on China. We imposed two hundred and fifty billion dollars in tariffs, and we brought China to the negotiating table for that Phase one trade deal in twenty twenty. So I think we have to be really strong on China after years of trade abuses. But otherwise, I believe we ought to be
pursuing free trade with free nations. We ought not to be We ought not to be cheering on one hundred and fifty billion dollars in tariff for revenue that's ultimately paid by American consumers and American businesses. But rather we ought to be looking to lower tariffs with free nations around the world. Even while we stand firm with places like China.
We do want to get to trade. But I have one other for you when it comes to Russia, because a large part of the discussion this week has been around security guarantees. But we've had reporting here at Bloomberg News that there are doubts growing about what those guarantees can look like because Russia wants to have a say in what those guarantees are going to be. What is
feasible in your view? What can the US push for here when it comes to guaranteeing Ukraine's future, particularly when we know that this will likely be led first by Europe, but then with the United States backing.
Well, the President's taken NATO membership off the table, which he's entitled to do. But I don't know why the United States has given the Russians veto authority over who joins NATO. That's our security alliance. But be that as it may, I think the security commitments that we should
make should reflect NATO. They should be in a sense like Article five, where the United States provides whatever's appropriate, not boots on the ground, but the kind of strategic support that's necessary to ensure that once Vladimir Putin has stopped that he doesn't go forward at all.
If I can come back.
The reason I'm so confident and so adamant about the Senate needing to move these secondary sanctions is because it was back in twenty nineteen that President Airdawan sent the tanks across the border into Syria. They were raging down on top of our Kurdish allies, and President Trump put me on a plane on Air Force two and sent
me to Turkey to negotiate a ceasefire. And what I would tell you and your viewers is in that negotiation with President Airdiwan, what was persuasive to him was the fact that President Trump had given me a series of sanctions that would be imposed on members of Air Dewan's government unless he agreed to a ceasefire to allow us to evacuate our allies from the border region. As you remember, we secured that ceasefire, our Kurdish allies were able to
evacuate safely. And that's why I really do believe that it would strengthen President Trump's hand if when the Senate comes back, one of their first acts would be to send those those secondary sanctions, that tough bill to the President's desk, let him sign it, implement it at his
choosing with the waiver authority. But I really do believe that at the end of the day, we've got to we've got to have that hand reach out in diplomacy and negotiations, but the other hand, reminding, reminding Vladimir Putin and the Russians that there will be severe consequences, as the President said, there would be if the path of diplomacy fails.
It's the Vice president we wanted to move on to domestic politics and those questions, and that includes redistricting. It's been a big topic this week, of course, with what's happening in Texas and California. As a former Indiana governor, we do support that happening in the Hoosier State and what will be the long term implications of this wave to redrun congressional maps.
Well, Michael, as a former Indiana governor, I'll support with the current Indiana governor decides as appropriate with our General Assembly. You know, the Constitution gives the states the authority to set the time, place, and manner of elections, and I respect that. I also understand the frustration that the President
and many Republicans have fell. I mean there were state it's the President and I have the two times we ran together one thirty five forty percent of the vote, and yet the congressional delegation from that state is more like twenty percent or less. Some states where we enjoyed thirty five percent support, there are no Republicans in Congress.
You know, there's an old saying that that way you sow, you reap, and the heavy handedness of many Democrat legislatures and governors over the years is set into motion this pathway. So I'm going to let people Indiana and other legislatures make those decisions, but at the end of the day, it'll be the American people that.
Decide no matter what happens. When it comes to twenty twenty six, twenty twenty eight, we know the economy is going to remain a top issue for American voters. And this week US swybean farmers said that they were near a quote trade in financial precipice and cannot survive a prolonged trade war, particularly when it comes to China. I've learned that Indiana is the top five soybean producing state.
Are you concerned about farmers and do you think that this administration is planning enough ahead to protect US farmers.
I believe also to believe that trade meets jobs. In our administration, whether it was in negotiations with Canada and Mexico or in that the strong stand we took with China imposing teriffs, it was always a battle about about lowering trade barriers and ending subsidies and ending trade abuses.
My concern about I think it's a concern.
Of many farmers in Indiana and all across the heartland, is that what's emerging from this administration are broad based, unilateral tariffs that are being imposed on friend and foe alike. And that's that's that's not leverage, that's industrial policy. Uh and and I believe you know that history shows and and even somebody that knows a little bit about economics knows that American companies and American consumers pay American tariffs.
I mean, some of the countries around the world.
That export to US will take a small reduction of their price, but in the main, Americans pay that cost. And it's particularly meaningful for farmers who understand that when there's terriffs that are imposed on imported agricultural goods here, they always result in retaliation by those markets around the world. So again, my belief has always been that free trade
with free nations. Let's stand strong on trade abusers like China around the world, but let's look to lower terraffs, lower non terraf barriers.
And that way we'll win in the city and on the farm.
It's a Vice President. You brought up industrial policy, and we wanted to ask you about some headlines that we have seen and broken here at Bloomberg News at Bounce some industrial policy moves. This includes the possibility that the US government may take a stake of up to ten percent in Intel Corp. The iconic American chip maker, as well as take a fifteen percent cut of sales of Nvidia AI chips to China. Were those kinds of ideas on the table during your time in the first administration?
And do you think these things are a good idea or a good strategy.
This was not a strategy that we employed during the Trump Pens years. And I have great concerns about having the US government take a position with a Golden Chairs and Nippon Steel, or just the latest discussions about taking a percent of Intel. Now the Navidia agreement is even more problematic. I mean, we have export controls in place to protect our national security. The limitations on the ability of Navidia to sell to chips to China was on
the basis of our national security. Simply taking fifteen percent of those sales doesn't serve our national interests or our national security, I would argue, And so I think we need to take a step back on all of this. I'd encourage the administration, and if I was speaking to the President, I'd encourage him to It's time for us to think twice state.
Owned enterprise is not the American way.
Free enterprise is the American way, and a refereed private sector with less taxes and less regulation has created the most prosperous economy in the history of the world. And if we stay on that path, that'll always be true.
My ser Vice President, the last minute that we have with you, we do want to ask you about news of day. I would love your thoughts about President Trump's decision to call in the National Guard to Washington, d C.
Do you think that this was the right move.
I strongly support the President's decision to use his authority under the constitutionnsting with the Home Rule Act to really bring safety back to the streets of Washington, d C. I know there's a lot of debate about statistics, but you know, honestly, if Washington, d C. Was a state to have the highest homicide rate in the country, I mean, sixteen hundred violent crimes this year alone in a city
this size is just astounding. And I think I think the residents of this city and people around the country appreciate the President taking the steps that he's taken to create safety on the streets of our nation's capital. And I fully support efforts by the President to provide resources for states and local communities to make every city in every town in America safe.
Former Vice President Mike Pence, thank you.