Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch US Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch US Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay.

And then Proud Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.

And then Proud Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.

Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch US live on YouTube.

Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch US live on YouTube.

While it is Thanksgiving week, it certainly has not been slow in terms of newsflow. Much coming from the President elect Donald Trump, including last night his threat on True Social to pose higher tariffs on the US's three largest trading partners twenty five percent on all goods coming from Mexico and Canada and an additional ten percent on all goods from China. The President elect says this is necessary to clamp down on migrants and illegal drugs like fentanyl coming over the US border. And keep in mind here he had floated tariffs much higher than this during the course of his president campaign. He threw sixty percent out there for China. So we want to turn now to someone who focuses on China extensively in the House of Representatives by sitting on the House China Select Committee. Democratic Congressman Jake Auchencloss of Massachusetts is here with me now on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Congressman, thanks for your time. As we considered the authority Donald Trump would use to do this if he indeed follows through on this threat, it really is about protecting US national security interest in large part. Is this a justified means to an end.

While it is Thanksgiving week, it certainly has not been slow in terms of newsflow. Much coming from the President elect Donald Trump, including last night his threat on True Social to pose higher tariffs on the US's three largest trading partners twenty five percent on all goods coming from Mexico and Canada and an additional ten percent on all goods from China. The President elect says this is necessary to clamp down on migrants and illegal drugs like fentanyl coming over the US border. And keep in mind here he had floated tariffs much higher than this during the course of his president campaign. He threw sixty percent out there for China. So we want to turn now to someone who focuses on China extensively in the House of Representatives by sitting on the House China Select Committee. Democratic Congressman Jake Auchencloss of Massachusetts is here with me now on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Congressman, thanks for your time. As we considered the authority Donald Trump would use to do this if he indeed follows through on this threat, it really is about protecting US national security interest in large part. Is this a justified means to an end.

Good afternoon, Thanks for having me on. Before we talk about the politics and the legality, I think it's helpful to start with the facts of the matter. I'm the co chair of the Fentanyl Working Group. I'm on the Joint Task Force for combating the Mexican Drug Cartel, so I've been able to see both sides of this problem. And the facts are this. The Chinese are exporting about ninety seven percent of all fentanyl precursors to either the West coast of Mexico, where it then gets channeled into the United States, or to the United States. It's causing about one hundred thousand American deaths every year, about a nine to eleven every week. The Mexican drug cartels are absolutely part of this supply chain, both through trafficking and also through money laundering, and yes, as the Mexican President said, they are also being equipped by US arm sales going to the South. So there are no clean hands in this problem. But what is for certain is that Donald Trump's knee jerk approach to using tariffs right off the bat does two things. One, it removes his most potent leverage as opposed to using an escalatory ladder starting with other more targeted reprisals to Chinese exports.

Good afternoon, Thanks for having me on. Before we talk about the politics and the legality, I think it's helpful to start with the facts of the matter. I'm the co chair of the Fentanyl Working Group. I'm on the Joint Task Force for combating the Mexican Drug Cartel, so I've been able to see both sides of this problem. And the facts are this. The Chinese are exporting about ninety seven percent of all fentanyl precursors to either the West coast of Mexico, where it then gets channeled into the United States, or to the United States. It's causing about one hundred thousand American deaths every year, about a nine to eleven every week. The Mexican drug cartels are absolutely part of this supply chain, both through trafficking and also through money laundering, and yes, as the Mexican President said, they are also being equipped by US arm sales going to the South. So there are no clean hands in this problem. But what is for certain is that Donald Trump's knee jerk approach to using tariffs right off the bat does two things. One, it removes his most potent leverage as opposed to using an escalatory ladder starting with other more targeted reprisals to Chinese exports.

And two, it's.

And two, it's.

Gonna raise prices on Americans. It's gonna raise prices on Americans for car insurance, for housing, and it's also going to compress wages for American employees who are working for companies that now have smaller end markets.

Gonna raise prices on Americans. It's gonna raise prices on Americans for car insurance, for housing, and it's also going to compress wages for American employees who are working for companies that now have smaller end markets.

Okay, well, so if we consider that this notion that these things do need to be calibrated, is there a level of tariff you think would be appropriate to put in place to use his leverage to get more favorable outcomes when it comes to the flow of things over the US border, both people and illegal drugs as Donald Trump suggests, or is this not the right way of approaching this policy?

Okay, well, so if we consider that this notion that these things do need to be calibrated, is there a level of tariff you think would be appropriate to put in place to use his leverage to get more favorable outcomes when it comes to the flow of things over the US border, both people and illegal drugs as Donald Trump suggests, or is this not the right way of approaching this policy?

Putting tariffs on the table as negotiating leverage is not a bad idea. And by the way, Donald Trump didn't invent that. I know he likes to claim that he's the person who thought of the idea of mutual market access being a negotiating tactic.

Putting tariffs on the table as negotiating leverage is not a bad idea. And by the way, Donald Trump didn't invent that. I know he likes to claim that he's the person who thought of the idea of mutual market access being a negotiating tactic.

He's not.

He's not.

US trade representatives have been using that for time immemorial. Here's the more targeted approach, though. There's about two dozen Chinese manufacturers who account for the vast majority of this fentanyl active pharmaceutical ingredients, and these Chinese manufacturers actually have a lot of illicit business as well as illicit business that means they are highly susceptible to sanctions. So step number one is the United States needs to impose and draconiously enforce very tough sanctions on Chinese chemical manufacturers that are shipping fentanol. Number two, we should be charging docking fees on Chinese ships coming to ports, and we can escalate those docking fees until they get better screening and customs process on their end. We can also establish a joint Task Force Counter Opioid that would fuse together various organs of US state power, intelligence, law enforcement, customs, immigration to targeting fentanmol shipments into the United States, whether by air or by sea. And finally, we should totally get rid of the dominimus exemption that Chinese both lisit and illicit manufacturers have been abusing to ship in projects to the United States. All of these things that I just said don't raise the price of car insurance for the average American family, don't raise the price of housing for the average American family, but they still get the point across to China.

US trade representatives have been using that for time immemorial. Here's the more targeted approach, though. There's about two dozen Chinese manufacturers who account for the vast majority of this fentanyl active pharmaceutical ingredients, and these Chinese manufacturers actually have a lot of illicit business as well as illicit business that means they are highly susceptible to sanctions. So step number one is the United States needs to impose and draconiously enforce very tough sanctions on Chinese chemical manufacturers that are shipping fentanol. Number two, we should be charging docking fees on Chinese ships coming to ports, and we can escalate those docking fees until they get better screening and customs process on their end. We can also establish a joint Task Force Counter Opioid that would fuse together various organs of US state power, intelligence, law enforcement, customs, immigration to targeting fentanmol shipments into the United States, whether by air or by sea. And finally, we should totally get rid of the dominimus exemption that Chinese both lisit and illicit manufacturers have been abusing to ship in projects to the United States. All of these things that I just said don't raise the price of car insurance for the average American family, don't raise the price of housing for the average American family, but they still get the point across to China.

Well, and in many of those things you just said also involve other cabinet officials. Presumably will are other departments at the very least Treasury for the enforcement of sanctions, tariffs obviously there as well the Secretary of State potentially to handle with the diplomacy aspects. And when we consider the individuals that the President elect has selected for those posts, does that give you more confidence about the way China policy is going to be approached under this administration.

Well, and in many of those things you just said also involve other cabinet officials. Presumably will are other departments at the very least Treasury for the enforcement of sanctions, tariffs obviously there as well the Secretary of State potentially to handle with the diplomacy aspects. And when we consider the individuals that the President elect has selected for those posts, does that give you more confidence about the way China policy is going to be approached under this administration.

Well, as I look at the opioid epidemic cascading over the United States, and then I look at the nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, No, that doesn't fill me with confidence because he starts by looking at problems from a position of conspiracy, not from a position of science. RFK is somebody who doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by a virus. He thinks the high speed internet causes leaky brain syndrome. He thinks that COVID was ethnically targeted to spare Jews in Chinese and target black Americans. So this is not an individual that I trust to look at the evidence and take a rational and science informed view of how we reduce opioid deaths and how we tackle fentanyl imports to the United States. But this is why it is so critical that Congress mandated joint task force kind of opioid that brings together all the various elements of US state power and makes fentanyl a priority. Because there's really two short term things that we want from China in my opinion, One stop exporting fentanyl to the United States and two stop importing Irani and oil that is funding these proxy terror groups in the Middle East. We can accomplish those two things in the first year, but not if Donald Trump punishes American citizens with higher prices as opposed to punishing China.

Well, as I look at the opioid epidemic cascading over the United States, and then I look at the nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, No, that doesn't fill me with confidence because he starts by looking at problems from a position of conspiracy, not from a position of science. RFK is somebody who doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by a virus. He thinks the high speed internet causes leaky brain syndrome. He thinks that COVID was ethnically targeted to spare Jews in Chinese and target black Americans. So this is not an individual that I trust to look at the evidence and take a rational and science informed view of how we reduce opioid deaths and how we tackle fentanyl imports to the United States. But this is why it is so critical that Congress mandated joint task force kind of opioid that brings together all the various elements of US state power and makes fentanyl a priority. Because there's really two short term things that we want from China in my opinion, One stop exporting fentanyl to the United States and two stop importing Irani and oil that is funding these proxy terror groups in the Middle East. We can accomplish those two things in the first year, but not if Donald Trump punishes American citizens with higher prices as opposed to punishing China.

Well, I'm glad, Congressman that you raised the Middle East, because we're watching that as well today. In fact, any minute now, we're expecting we will hear from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As we've been made to understand both by Israeli officials but even the US Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln as well, that a ceasefire agreement with Lebanon or with Hesbola in Lebanon is within reach. We've talked to you extensively about the conflict between Israel and these proxies on this program. Congressman, how do you feel about the pros of this being done and what it might mean for a potential ceasefire in Gaza as well?

Well, I'm glad, Congressman that you raised the Middle East, because we're watching that as well today. In fact, any minute now, we're expecting we will hear from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As we've been made to understand both by Israeli officials but even the US Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln as well, that a ceasefire agreement with Lebanon or with Hesbola in Lebanon is within reach. We've talked to you extensively about the conflict between Israel and these proxies on this program. Congressman, how do you feel about the pros of this being done and what it might mean for a potential ceasefire in Gaza as well?

We should be cautious that they are distinct issues. What's going to be critical for any ceasefire agreement with Hisbela, in my view, is that these Israelis who have been displaced from their homes and communities in northern Israel because of indiscriminate Hbela rocket fire need to be able to return back to their homes. And we also need to see that Hisbela is not going to relocate to the southern border of Lebanon and be able to continue their launching of precision guided munitions, but rather that the Lebanese Army will gain operational control of that area so that the two thousand and six agreement can really be honored, which is that there needs to be that buffer zone. Gaza really remains a separate issue, and I think we should be cautious about interlocking them too much. Of course, every ceasefire agreement is progress, but in Gaza it still comes down to those hostages. We have human beings held underground in terror tunnel and they need to be released home. And Israel has every right to continue to operation, to operate against Hamas until those hostages are home.

We should be cautious that they are distinct issues. What's going to be critical for any ceasefire agreement with Hisbela, in my view, is that these Israelis who have been displaced from their homes and communities in northern Israel because of indiscriminate Hbela rocket fire need to be able to return back to their homes. And we also need to see that Hisbela is not going to relocate to the southern border of Lebanon and be able to continue their launching of precision guided munitions, but rather that the Lebanese Army will gain operational control of that area so that the two thousand and six agreement can really be honored, which is that there needs to be that buffer zone. Gaza really remains a separate issue, and I think we should be cautious about interlocking them too much. Of course, every ceasefire agreement is progress, but in Gaza it still comes down to those hostages. We have human beings held underground in terror tunnel and they need to be released home. And Israel has every right to continue to operation, to operate against Hamas until those hostages are home.

Well, and we know that's something that the President has been trying advocating for the last year or more. Congressman, he has fifty five days left to go before Donald Trump takes over. What would it mean if some ceasefire agreement at least a greater degree of peace in the Middle East can be achieved before President Biden leaves office.

Well, and we know that's something that the President has been trying advocating for the last year or more. Congressman, he has fifty five days left to go before Donald Trump takes over. What would it mean if some ceasefire agreement at least a greater degree of peace in the Middle East can be achieved before President Biden leaves office.

Every president has aspired to that since Jimmy Carter and onwards right, So of course every president used that as a golden ring to furnish their legacy. What would be really critical for Joe Biden, I think, is a hostage deal for Gaza that got these hostages home and that also transitioned towards Palestinian led Arab finance, Western backed reconstruction of Gaza that respects Israel's security. That is the pinnacle of a Israel Gaza accord. I think the second thing that he can do within these next fifty five days is enforce the oil export sanctions against Iran with more muscle and vigor. Iran is exporting about ninety percent of its oil to China, and it's using that hard currency one to keep its own regime afloat, but two to fund these proxetaria groups across the Middle East. And what we saw with Israel's attack against Iran is that Iran is significantly more vulnerable now than it was even six months ago. And I think when it's in a position of weakness is when you want to pounce.

Every president has aspired to that since Jimmy Carter and onwards right, So of course every president used that as a golden ring to furnish their legacy. What would be really critical for Joe Biden, I think, is a hostage deal for Gaza that got these hostages home and that also transitioned towards Palestinian led Arab finance, Western backed reconstruction of Gaza that respects Israel's security. That is the pinnacle of a Israel Gaza accord. I think the second thing that he can do within these next fifty five days is enforce the oil export sanctions against Iran with more muscle and vigor. Iran is exporting about ninety percent of its oil to China, and it's using that hard currency one to keep its own regime afloat, but two to fund these proxetaria groups across the Middle East. And what we saw with Israel's attack against Iran is that Iran is significantly more vulnerable now than it was even six months ago. And I think when it's in a position of weakness is when you want to pounce.

All right, Congressman, thank you so much for joining me. Congressman Jake Auchincloss, the Democrat from Massachusetts.

All right, Congressman, thank you so much for joining me. Congressman Jake Auchincloss, the Democrat from Massachusetts.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ketch just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ketch just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo.

Playing Enrounoto with the Bloomberg Business app.

Playing Enrounoto 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.

You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netnia, who has just begun his televised remarks, will of course bring you the headlines from this as we get them, but we want to add the voice as we await the news here of Evelyn Farcas. She's executive director of the McCain Institute, joining us now here on Bloomberg TV and Radio Evelyn, as we await the words of Netna who and clarity as to whether or not an agreement has been reached. The reporting suggests that this would be temporary sixty day ceasefire. How if it is agreed to, do you make sixty days something more permanent?

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netnia, who has just begun his televised remarks, will of course bring you the headlines from this as we get them, but we want to add the voice as we await the news here of Evelyn Farcas. She's executive director of the McCain Institute, joining us now here on Bloomberg TV and Radio Evelyn, as we await the words of Netna who and clarity as to whether or not an agreement has been reached. The reporting suggests that this would be temporary sixty day ceasefire. How if it is agreed to, do you make sixty days something more permanent?

Kayley, thank you for having me on. I think it needs to be really considered what kind of armed force might be in there to reinforce this agreement, because if there's no enforcement, I'm afraid the agreement won't hold. And there have been various proposals. Perhaps the IDF could go in there. It would of course require the United Nations to agree to that, which is a difficult proposition right now, given the perspective that a lot of the United Nations members have on Israel and the Israeli defense forces. You know how they have been fighting in Gaza.

Kayley, thank you for having me on. I think it needs to be really considered what kind of armed force might be in there to reinforce this agreement, because if there's no enforcement, I'm afraid the agreement won't hold. And there have been various proposals. Perhaps the IDF could go in there. It would of course require the United Nations to agree to that, which is a difficult proposition right now, given the perspective that a lot of the United Nations members have on Israel and the Israeli defense forces. You know how they have been fighting in Gaza.

Well, we are nataniahu is speaking as we mentioned Evelyn in Hebrew, we understand. But initially the first read of his comments in part say that he says the war will not end until residents can return to the North and all goals are accomplished, including that safe return. And it does raise the question of the goals Israel had here at the outset Evelyn, and to what extent they have been largely achieved. And that doesn't just go for in Lebanon, but in Gaza.

Well, we are nataniahu is speaking as we mentioned Evelyn in Hebrew, we understand. But initially the first read of his comments in part say that he says the war will not end until residents can return to the North and all goals are accomplished, including that safe return. And it does raise the question of the goals Israel had here at the outset Evelyn, and to what extent they have been largely achieved. And that doesn't just go for in Lebanon, but in Gaza.

As well well.

As well well.

I think Killy clearly, the Israeli government has managed to neutralize Hesbala as a threat, and in doing so it has significantly weakened Iran, leaving a side of course, or let's add to it what Israel has done in Gaza and what Israel has done directly in Iran. So Iran is much weakened. So there is an opportunity now to put pressure on Iran to make a bigger deal, meaning to stop the fighting through the power they have over Hamas in Gaza. And there's an opportunity to maybe get Iran's nuclear program back in the box.

I think Killy clearly, the Israeli government has managed to neutralize Hesbala as a threat, and in doing so it has significantly weakened Iran, leaving a side of course, or let's add to it what Israel has done in Gaza and what Israel has done directly in Iran. So Iran is much weakened. So there is an opportunity now to put pressure on Iran to make a bigger deal, meaning to stop the fighting through the power they have over Hamas in Gaza. And there's an opportunity to maybe get Iran's nuclear program back in the box.

If you will.

If you will.

Yeah, and Netanyahu is now saying that he's determined to prevent Iran from having nuclear arms. So we're talking about the same thing here, Evelyn, and I do wonder if the role you think Iran has in the knowledge that it is going to take Iranian blessing, you would think or at least allowance of, but it's proxy Hesbela to agree to a deal like this with Israel. If one is to be reached, I wonder what it signals to you, knowing that their proxies have been weakened, if Iran is going to sanction this.

Yeah, and Netanyahu is now saying that he's determined to prevent Iran from having nuclear arms. So we're talking about the same thing here, Evelyn, and I do wonder if the role you think Iran has in the knowledge that it is going to take Iranian blessing, you would think or at least allowance of, but it's proxy Hesbela to agree to a deal like this with Israel. If one is to be reached, I wonder what it signals to you, knowing that their proxies have been weakened, if Iran is going to sanction this.

Yeah, I mean I think Iran probably doesn't have a choice. Hesbela is significantly weakened. They probably want a break, if you will, a break from the fighting. My guess is that hesbe Lah would you know, probably be itching or would be willing to conduct more attacks against Israel in the future. That's why I think there needs to be some kind of mechanism for enforcement. But I don't think Iran has much of a choice. If Hesbela says we can't hold out, and if Iran wants to take some of the pressure off of itself again minimize the likelihood that Israel might do something further to further weaken Iran, whether it's in their nuclear facilities or elsewhere. I think Iran might be feeling like this is a good deal for the moment.

Yeah, I mean I think Iran probably doesn't have a choice. Hesbela is significantly weakened. They probably want a break, if you will, a break from the fighting. My guess is that hesbe Lah would you know, probably be itching or would be willing to conduct more attacks against Israel in the future. That's why I think there needs to be some kind of mechanism for enforcement. But I don't think Iran has much of a choice. If Hesbela says we can't hold out, and if Iran wants to take some of the pressure off of itself again minimize the likelihood that Israel might do something further to further weaken Iran, whether it's in their nuclear facilities or elsewhere. I think Iran might be feeling like this is a good deal for the moment.

Well, and Iran also knows, as does Israel and Netan Yahoo, as do the Iranian proxies, that fifty five days from now there will be a different US administration in place. Donald Trump will be the president and commander in chief. And I wonder at the extent to which Evelyn, you think that is factoring in to the timing of this, as it's been months of pushing for a deal like this one, and now three weeks after the election, it does seem like it could come to fruition.

Well, and Iran also knows, as does Israel and Netan Yahoo, as do the Iranian proxies, that fifty five days from now there will be a different US administration in place. Donald Trump will be the president and commander in chief. And I wonder at the extent to which Evelyn, you think that is factoring in to the timing of this, as it's been months of pushing for a deal like this one, and now three weeks after the election, it does seem like it could come to fruition.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think Iran is definitely concerned about what will happen under US government led by President Trump. We know from media accounts that Iran tried to assassinate him, so they clearly didn't want him to be our next president. They are worried about this because Donald Trump has taken a hard line against Iran, so I would think that they're eager to have this deal. The Israelis, I think, would be more likely to drag this out and offer a peace agreement, even if it's temporary with Hezbollah as a gift to incoming President Trump. So I'm a little bit skeptical, Kelly, that this is going to get signed before the inauguration on January twentieth.

I think Iran is definitely concerned about what will happen under US government led by President Trump. We know from media accounts that Iran tried to assassinate him, so they clearly didn't want him to be our next president. They are worried about this because Donald Trump has taken a hard line against Iran, so I would think that they're eager to have this deal. The Israelis, I think, would be more likely to drag this out and offer a peace agreement, even if it's temporary with Hezbollah as a gift to incoming President Trump. So I'm a little bit skeptical, Kelly, that this is going to get signed before the inauguration on January twentieth.

Okay, So, and it is worth pointing out as we're and if you're with us here on Bloomberg TV, you see that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Etnia who is still speaking. We have yet to see him specifically address a ceasefire or to hear from him on that. We're still waiting for that news, Evelyn. But fifty five days, I guess, is not that long of a time. And what the question I started with this notion that it could be a sixty day secession of hostilities window that would essentially bring us what five days in to a Trump presidency. How could that play in here? They say we'll pause things for now, but when Trump comes back, we're revisiting this.

Okay, So, and it is worth pointing out as we're and if you're with us here on Bloomberg TV, you see that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Etnia who is still speaking. We have yet to see him specifically address a ceasefire or to hear from him on that. We're still waiting for that news, Evelyn. But fifty five days, I guess, is not that long of a time. And what the question I started with this notion that it could be a sixty day secession of hostilities window that would essentially bring us what five days in to a Trump presidency. How could that play in here? They say we'll pause things for now, but when Trump comes back, we're revisiting this.

Yeah, I mean as possible, And maybe Israel thinks that that they'll be in a better position then I think they will be, frankly, given the relationship between Primis Yahu and President Trump. So that is another option they could sign now. And then, as you point out, I hadn't done the map, then the gifts to President Trump is a chance to revisit and chance to make another deal.

Yeah, I mean as possible, And maybe Israel thinks that that they'll be in a better position then I think they will be, frankly, given the relationship between Primis Yahu and President Trump. So that is another option they could sign now. And then, as you point out, I hadn't done the map, then the gifts to President Trump is a chance to revisit and chance to make another deal.

Well, we just heard from that Neahu saying the duration of the truce in Lebanon depends on developments. He says, if Hesbela chooses to rearm, then Israel will attack once again. As we consider here, Evelyn, this notion that things can be temporary or they could be longer in duration, depending on the decisions here of the Iranian proxies. You were just speaking about this notion that they have been materially weakened, commanders taken out infrastructure targeted by Israeli strikes. How long, realistically would it take Hesbela to reconstitute them themselves to be in the position to be as great a threat to Israel as it was beginning on October eighth and through now.

Well, we just heard from that Neahu saying the duration of the truce in Lebanon depends on developments. He says, if Hesbela chooses to rearm, then Israel will attack once again. As we consider here, Evelyn, this notion that things can be temporary or they could be longer in duration, depending on the decisions here of the Iranian proxies. You were just speaking about this notion that they have been materially weakened, commanders taken out infrastructure targeted by Israeli strikes. How long, realistically would it take Hesbela to reconstitute them themselves to be in the position to be as great a threat to Israel as it was beginning on October eighth and through now.

It's hard for me to say that's really kind of a military question. Clearly, they lost a lot of manpower. The people who'se you know, hands were blown off. They are not likely to be fighters, so they need to be replaced. They need to replace their weaponry, because of course we know Israel has taken out large stockpiles all the places where Hesbola had kept their weapons, those have been eliminated. I don't think it takes that long, so you know, probably maybe six months to a year. So this isn't a window of opportunity for Israel, certainly, and I would imagine that the Iranians and Hesbola would be interested in, you know, quickly going to a ceasefire so that they can take advantage and try to rebuild.

It's hard for me to say that's really kind of a military question. Clearly, they lost a lot of manpower. The people who'se you know, hands were blown off. They are not likely to be fighters, so they need to be replaced. They need to replace their weaponry, because of course we know Israel has taken out large stockpiles all the places where Hesbola had kept their weapons, those have been eliminated. I don't think it takes that long, so you know, probably maybe six months to a year. So this isn't a window of opportunity for Israel, certainly, and I would imagine that the Iranians and Hesbola would be interested in, you know, quickly going to a ceasefire so that they can take advantage and try to rebuild.

And just again reminding our audience on Bloomberg TV and Radio that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netnia who is speaking suggesting now that he will be bringing a truce agreement in Lebanon to the Cabinet for cabinet approval, which of course we understood that the cabinet was meeting today, so that might suggest this has not been fully agreed to yet, Evelyn. We also thought we might hear from President Biden today. I suppose we still could before he travels to Nantucket for Thanksgiving. And that plays into the fact that it was not just the US at the table here in these negotiations. In part, this agreement was negotiated with the help of France and French President Emmanuel and Crone. We understand was involved here. What do you make of the role of another ally, another mediating force in this, knowing of course that there were many mediators at play in the talks that have yet to come to a fruitful ceasefire deal when it comes to Israel and Hamas.

And just again reminding our audience on Bloomberg TV and Radio that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netnia who is speaking suggesting now that he will be bringing a truce agreement in Lebanon to the Cabinet for cabinet approval, which of course we understood that the cabinet was meeting today, so that might suggest this has not been fully agreed to yet, Evelyn. We also thought we might hear from President Biden today. I suppose we still could before he travels to Nantucket for Thanksgiving. And that plays into the fact that it was not just the US at the table here in these negotiations. In part, this agreement was negotiated with the help of France and French President Emmanuel and Crone. We understand was involved here. What do you make of the role of another ally, another mediating force in this, knowing of course that there were many mediators at play in the talks that have yet to come to a fruitful ceasefire deal when it comes to Israel and Hamas.

Yeah, it is interesting that the French were involved. Of course, the French have a long history in and with Lebanon, and so they want to maintain their relevance in the Middle East. So I would imagine that was part of what was motivating France. But clearly they would also like to tamp down the danger that we're going to have a wider war in the Middle East involving Iran and Israel continuing to target one another directly. That's dangerous for the world, frankly, and so I think France was motivated to try to help us with the diplomacy. The Lebanese government, of course, is also involved because we the United States, we don't deal directly with Hezbolah because they're terrorist organizations. So the Lebanese government was essentially doing some of that go between work.

Yeah, it is interesting that the French were involved. Of course, the French have a long history in and with Lebanon, and so they want to maintain their relevance in the Middle East. So I would imagine that was part of what was motivating France. But clearly they would also like to tamp down the danger that we're going to have a wider war in the Middle East involving Iran and Israel continuing to target one another directly. That's dangerous for the world, frankly, and so I think France was motivated to try to help us with the diplomacy. The Lebanese government, of course, is also involved because we the United States, we don't deal directly with Hezbolah because they're terrorist organizations. So the Lebanese government was essentially doing some of that go between work.

Well, that is an important point. There's obviously a distinction between the Lebanese government and Hezbola forces to reiterate. Netanyahu here is saying that he will bring the Lebanon truce agreement to the Security Cabinet for a vote, suggesting that vote has not happened yet, though he does say the truce proposed will help isolate Hamas and free hostages. We also just had a headline cross the Bloomberg Terminal that ten minutes from now, at least scheduled ten minutes from now one thirty pm Eastern time, Biden will be delivering remarks at the White House. I would presume, Evelyn, those remarks would pertain to this just before I let you go, knowing he is in the final weeks here of his presidency, which is fifty five days to go. As we've discussed, what would it mean if this can be achieved under this president in particular, who has been pushing for a ceasefire and said he wants part of his legacy to be greater peace in the Middle East.

Well, that is an important point. There's obviously a distinction between the Lebanese government and Hezbola forces to reiterate. Netanyahu here is saying that he will bring the Lebanon truce agreement to the Security Cabinet for a vote, suggesting that vote has not happened yet, though he does say the truce proposed will help isolate Hamas and free hostages. We also just had a headline cross the Bloomberg Terminal that ten minutes from now, at least scheduled ten minutes from now one thirty pm Eastern time, Biden will be delivering remarks at the White House. I would presume, Evelyn, those remarks would pertain to this just before I let you go, knowing he is in the final weeks here of his presidency, which is fifty five days to go. As we've discussed, what would it mean if this can be achieved under this president in particular, who has been pushing for a ceasefire and said he wants part of his legacy to be greater peace in the Middle East.

Well, it would mean that he has achieved, of course, that objective, and he will have brought some peace to the Middle East. In the aftermath of the horrible attack that was conducted by Lebanese proxies by Hamas out of Gaza. And then of course the fact that the Hesbola struck Israel again the first time since, you know, in a massive way, since the two thousand and six negotiations to end the conflict between Hesbela and Israel in the north. So it would be an achievement certainly, that would bring us closer to It will bring some peace, and it'll allow the people, the Israeli people to go back and live in the north and also the Lebanese people to live in their south. But it wouldn't solve the Hamas. It might make it easier to solve Hamas, but those are very different situations, so I'm a bit skeptical as to whether that would open the door wide enough.

Well, it would mean that he has achieved, of course, that objective, and he will have brought some peace to the Middle East. In the aftermath of the horrible attack that was conducted by Lebanese proxies by Hamas out of Gaza. And then of course the fact that the Hesbola struck Israel again the first time since, you know, in a massive way, since the two thousand and six negotiations to end the conflict between Hesbela and Israel in the north. So it would be an achievement certainly, that would bring us closer to It will bring some peace, and it'll allow the people, the Israeli people to go back and live in the north and also the Lebanese people to live in their south. But it wouldn't solve the Hamas. It might make it easier to solve Hamas, but those are very different situations, so I'm a bit skeptical as to whether that would open the door wide enough.

All right, Evelyn, appreciate you joining us as we work through these headlines from the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Evelyn Farcas, Executive Director of the McCain Institute.

All right, Evelyn, appreciate you joining us as we work through these headlines from the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Evelyn Farcas, Executive Director of the McCain Institute.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on EPO, car Play and then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on EPO, car Play and then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

We want to assemble our signature political panel. Rick Davis, Stone Court Capital Partner and Bloomberg Politics contributor. Also Bloomberg Politics contributor, Jeanie Shanzino, Senior demok Chrissy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Genie, I'd like to ask you the same question I just asked Evelyn. As we consider here a US president in his final weeks as Commander in chief, final weeks in the Oval office, what would it mean for President Biden if indeed a ceasefire between Israel and Hesbela is reached while he still holds that title.

We want to assemble our signature political panel. Rick Davis, Stone Court Capital Partner and Bloomberg Politics contributor. Also Bloomberg Politics contributor, Jeanie Shanzino, Senior demok Chrissy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. Genie, I'd like to ask you the same question I just asked Evelyn. As we consider here a US president in his final weeks as Commander in chief, final weeks in the Oval office, what would it mean for President Biden if indeed a ceasefire between Israel and Hesbela is reached while he still holds that title.

Yeah, it would be enormously important for President Biden. This is something he has been committed to, as Evelyn mentioned, since the October seventh horrific attack. He went right over to Israel. He is obviously a great friend of Israel, and so he would like to see this happen. That said, history doesn't sort of suggest that he should be incredibly optimistic, because Middle East peace has been one of the most confounding things for presidents in the modern era to get and to achieve, and they've all tried a left, right and center Republican Democrat, very hard to get to and you know, to hear and Yahoo say that he has an outline or there is an outline that the French and the US diplomats were able to negotiate and he's bringing it to the cabinet. I just keep wondering, in the back of Joe Biden's mind, is he thinking he is the next Jimmy Carter with the Iran hostages, that he is going to work this hard and Donald Trump will come in and on January twenty first, we will see an agreement. You know, it's hard to say, but that's got to be weighing in the back of his mind. It's going to be curious to see how he handles this when he speaks in a couple of minutes.

Yeah, it would be enormously important for President Biden. This is something he has been committed to, as Evelyn mentioned, since the October seventh horrific attack. He went right over to Israel. He is obviously a great friend of Israel, and so he would like to see this happen. That said, history doesn't sort of suggest that he should be incredibly optimistic, because Middle East peace has been one of the most confounding things for presidents in the modern era to get and to achieve, and they've all tried a left, right and center Republican Democrat, very hard to get to and you know, to hear and Yahoo say that he has an outline or there is an outline that the French and the US diplomats were able to negotiate and he's bringing it to the cabinet. I just keep wondering, in the back of Joe Biden's mind, is he thinking he is the next Jimmy Carter with the Iran hostages, that he is going to work this hard and Donald Trump will come in and on January twenty first, we will see an agreement. You know, it's hard to say, but that's got to be weighing in the back of his mind. It's going to be curious to see how he handles this when he speaks in a couple of minutes.

Yeah, and we actually do have a correction here on the timeline. He'll be speaking now at two thirty pm Eastern Time from the Rose Garden at the White House, so just over one hour from now is when we expect those remarks.

Yeah, and we actually do have a correction here on the timeline. He'll be speaking now at two thirty pm Eastern Time from the Rose Garden at the White House, so just over one hour from now is when we expect those remarks.

Rick.

Rick.

I'd love for you to weigh in on this kind of legacy shaping question as well, because we all remember when President Biden came into office, he was suggesting America's back. He made foreign policy a really key pillar of his presidency. Is it going to end on a foreign policy oriented note?

I'd love for you to weigh in on this kind of legacy shaping question as well, because we all remember when President Biden came into office, he was suggesting America's back. He made foreign policy a really key pillar of his presidency. Is it going to end on a foreign policy oriented note?

Well, I think certainly foreign policy is going to be one of the things that shapes Joe Biden's legacy. You know, starting with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, you know, a horrific outcome for him and something that actually hurt his standing amongst the American people that sort of lasted all the way through to the election. But then you know, the vexing war in Ukraine. And even though many observers will say that Joe Biden's been a staunch advocate and supporter of Ukraine and fighting the war of Russian aggression, you know, there are just as many who will say he hasn't done enough quick enough to really end the war, but has now resulted in a prolonged conflict with no end in sight. And to some degree, this whole Israeli situation. You take it from the time that he got elected and that everyone was celebrating the Abraham Accords. People in his own administration were saying, you know, this is a peaceful situation, least could last for a long time. And then it was just after that that of course, Israel got the worst attack in their history, you know, from Hamas and lit up this war that we're now talking about. So yeah, this is definitely going to frame the foreign policy legacy of Joe Biden and frankly difficult to find real successes inside that legacy. And so on the domestic side, totally different equation. Has done a lot to get us out of COVID and restore the economic health of our country, But on foreign policy national security, I think it's going to be a spotty legacy at least unless we see how all this unwinds itself well.

Well, I think certainly foreign policy is going to be one of the things that shapes Joe Biden's legacy. You know, starting with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, you know, a horrific outcome for him and something that actually hurt his standing amongst the American people that sort of lasted all the way through to the election. But then you know, the vexing war in Ukraine. And even though many observers will say that Joe Biden's been a staunch advocate and supporter of Ukraine and fighting the war of Russian aggression, you know, there are just as many who will say he hasn't done enough quick enough to really end the war, but has now resulted in a prolonged conflict with no end in sight. And to some degree, this whole Israeli situation. You take it from the time that he got elected and that everyone was celebrating the Abraham Accords. People in his own administration were saying, you know, this is a peaceful situation, least could last for a long time. And then it was just after that that of course, Israel got the worst attack in their history, you know, from Hamas and lit up this war that we're now talking about. So yeah, this is definitely going to frame the foreign policy legacy of Joe Biden and frankly difficult to find real successes inside that legacy. And so on the domestic side, totally different equation. Has done a lot to get us out of COVID and restore the economic health of our country, But on foreign policy national security, I think it's going to be a spotty legacy at least unless we see how all this unwinds itself well.

And to that point, Genies, we consider the domestic legacy foreign policy as well, how much of it, even as it stands now and when he leaves office, could be unround, unwound over the course of the next four years when Donald Trump gets his turn again.

And to that point, Genies, we consider the domestic legacy foreign policy as well, how much of it, even as it stands now and when he leaves office, could be unround, unwound over the course of the next four years when Donald Trump gets his turn again.

Yeah, that's the big fear of every president and it is absolutely possible. You know, as we think about Joe Biden talking at two thirty or when he comes out, I'm reminded that he was at the g twenty and he did not speak to the press for like almost a week, and so you know, it's unclear how he is going to move forward with his attempts to protect his legacy. And the efforts are widespread because, as you mentioned, as it comes to regulations, they started in February and March trying to protect those against a potential Republican takeover, which has now happened. As you think about legislation, just think about the Chips Act. Huge success for the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress, and yet about thirty billion of that has not been spent yet, and you know it could be an issue of them running out of the time. And Rick was just talking about the policy legacy. So you look at this and he does have a lot of work to do to try to cement this legacy. And one thing we know that's how happening in Congress right now is the Senate is rushing as far as it can to confirm the rest of these judges because the Democrats will lose the Senate. All of this impacting Joe Biden's legacy. So it is a broad legacy. And of course Donald Trump he is you know, the Democrats and Joe Biden are firmly convinced he might do what he did in twenty seventeen and use the Congressional Review Act to unwind some of this and in EOS and that's very, very possible, so it is a challenge for them.

Yeah, that's the big fear of every president and it is absolutely possible. You know, as we think about Joe Biden talking at two thirty or when he comes out, I'm reminded that he was at the g twenty and he did not speak to the press for like almost a week, and so you know, it's unclear how he is going to move forward with his attempts to protect his legacy. And the efforts are widespread because, as you mentioned, as it comes to regulations, they started in February and March trying to protect those against a potential Republican takeover, which has now happened. As you think about legislation, just think about the Chips Act. Huge success for the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress, and yet about thirty billion of that has not been spent yet, and you know it could be an issue of them running out of the time. And Rick was just talking about the policy legacy. So you look at this and he does have a lot of work to do to try to cement this legacy. And one thing we know that's how happening in Congress right now is the Senate is rushing as far as it can to confirm the rest of these judges because the Democrats will lose the Senate. All of this impacting Joe Biden's legacy. So it is a broad legacy. And of course Donald Trump he is you know, the Democrats and Joe Biden are firmly convinced he might do what he did in twenty seventeen and use the Congressional Review Act to unwind some of this and in EOS and that's very, very possible, so it is a challenge for them.

Well, and something else President Biden has focused on is lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and we actually have a new proposal on that from the administration just today, Genie, proposing a rule that would require both Medicare and Medicaid to cover obesity drugs, the weight loss drugs we all have heard so much about in recent years. The White House says this will get more than seven million people access to weight loss treatment, but it also could add potentially forty billion dollars in costs over ten years in the process for these programs. So clearly he's trying to lower more prescription drug cost Genie. But does he still have time for it to do so to make this a reality?

Well, and something else President Biden has focused on is lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and we actually have a new proposal on that from the administration just today, Genie, proposing a rule that would require both Medicare and Medicaid to cover obesity drugs, the weight loss drugs we all have heard so much about in recent years. The White House says this will get more than seven million people access to weight loss treatment, but it also could add potentially forty billion dollars in costs over ten years in the process for these programs. So clearly he's trying to lower more prescription drug cost Genie. But does he still have time for it to do so to make this a reality?

Yeah, yeah, And that was one of his big accomplishments, was the lowering of drug prices. They announced this, as you mentioned, the last twenty four hours, but they may, again to your point, run out of time. They also have to be cognizant that if we see say RFK Junior approved as HHS Secretary while he seems firmly and spoken a lot about you know better eating, exercise, and health, he has not been the biggest fan of these so called you know, weight loss drugs and prescription drugs. And so they have to understand that this could be reversed, pulled back by the next administration, particularly if they don't move with all deliberate speed. So they're trying to move in this direction, but they've only got about a month left to get this all in place.

Yeah, yeah, And that was one of his big accomplishments, was the lowering of drug prices. They announced this, as you mentioned, the last twenty four hours, but they may, again to your point, run out of time. They also have to be cognizant that if we see say RFK Junior approved as HHS Secretary while he seems firmly and spoken a lot about you know better eating, exercise, and health, he has not been the biggest fan of these so called you know, weight loss drugs and prescription drugs. And so they have to understand that this could be reversed, pulled back by the next administration, particularly if they don't move with all deliberate speed. So they're trying to move in this direction, but they've only got about a month left to get this all in place.

Well, and I wonder to what extent they might be rushing to get this into place, Rick, not just for legacy protection purposes, but also proofing purposes, if you will, if Biden is trying to make some health policy oriented decisions here at the end of his turn, before say RFK Junior takes the helmet Health and Human Services.

Well, and I wonder to what extent they might be rushing to get this into place, Rick, not just for legacy protection purposes, but also proofing purposes, if you will, if Biden is trying to make some health policy oriented decisions here at the end of his turn, before say RFK Junior takes the helmet Health and Human Services.

Yeah, I actually don't think they have time. There are certain prescriptions to advertise these changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and they've just announced it, so it runs its course, which won't be over until after the inaugural. So this will fall into the category of things that the Trump administration will pick up. And look, there's a lot of dissidence within that administration on approaches, especially when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. I mean, you've got doctor Oz, who famously on his TV shows promoted weight loss drugs and their effect on all range of things. And so the reality is, you know, what may hold for Bobby Kennedy might not be the same point of view as the person who's now in charge of running those programs, Doctor Oz. And of course all of this will probably fall under the prescription so to speak, of President Trump, who I think is probably much more populistic and attitude is if people who want their drugs, we should give them to them. And so I think that this is going to be a administration that makes decisions out of the White House and they will be implemented in their agencies, not the other way around.

Yeah, I actually don't think they have time. There are certain prescriptions to advertise these changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and they've just announced it, so it runs its course, which won't be over until after the inaugural. So this will fall into the category of things that the Trump administration will pick up. And look, there's a lot of dissidence within that administration on approaches, especially when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. I mean, you've got doctor Oz, who famously on his TV shows promoted weight loss drugs and their effect on all range of things. And so the reality is, you know, what may hold for Bobby Kennedy might not be the same point of view as the person who's now in charge of running those programs, Doctor Oz. And of course all of this will probably fall under the prescription so to speak, of President Trump, who I think is probably much more populistic and attitude is if people who want their drugs, we should give them to them. And so I think that this is going to be a administration that makes decisions out of the White House and they will be implemented in their agencies, not the other way around.

Well, Jeanie, I wonder if you agree with that. As we've talked about all of these various cabinet level selections and otherwise we've gotten from Donald Trump, the degrees to which they will have influence on policy is that that shapes policy. The White House approves it or the White House originates it, and everybody else just has to act on that desire.

Well, Jeanie, I wonder if you agree with that. As we've talked about all of these various cabinet level selections and otherwise we've gotten from Donald Trump, the degrees to which they will have influence on policy is that that shapes policy. The White House approves it or the White House originates it, and everybody else just has to act on that desire.

You know, I think what we're seeing clearly from what Donald Trump campaigned on and the folks that are in the cabinet, provided they're all confirmed, is that there is a real desire to move this all under the auspices of the White House.

You know, I think what we're seeing clearly from what Donald Trump campaigned on and the folks that are in the cabinet, provided they're all confirmed, is that there is a real desire to move this all under the auspices of the White House.

You know.

You know.

You look at Boy, you look at others. They're very very clear that there is no independent agents anymore, there's no independent departments.

You look at Boy, you look at others. They're very very clear that there is no independent agents anymore, there's no independent departments.

In their view.

In their view.

They want and have a firm view of strong executive power that they would like to ensure is in the federal government in a way they don't feel it has been for several decades, if ever, And so I think their view is to give Donald Trump and the White House the power and to allow the President to do what he thinks is in his best interest, you know, as it concerns this particular weight loss drug. I don't personally recall Donald Trump speaking out about it. But the reality is there are different views in this cabinet, and if RFK is appointed AGTs Secretary, he may not take as kind lead to this as a doctor Oz or even the Surgeon General, who's a fascinating woman and a fascinating doctor if Jessup proved. So, you know, there is a lot of different views, and it's partly going to depend on how Donald Trump sees this and of course the costs of all of this.

They want and have a firm view of strong executive power that they would like to ensure is in the federal government in a way they don't feel it has been for several decades, if ever, And so I think their view is to give Donald Trump and the White House the power and to allow the President to do what he thinks is in his best interest, you know, as it concerns this particular weight loss drug. I don't personally recall Donald Trump speaking out about it. But the reality is there are different views in this cabinet, and if RFK is appointed AGTs Secretary, he may not take as kind lead to this as a doctor Oz or even the Surgeon General, who's a fascinating woman and a fascinating doctor if Jessup proved. So, you know, there is a lot of different views, and it's partly going to depend on how Donald Trump sees this and of course the costs of all of this.

Well, and of course it also depends on if these individuals do get that approval from the Senate. Rick, nothing is done until it's really done when it comes to this transition process, in these nominees becoming confirm mees or officially being confirmed for their roles.

Well, and of course it also depends on if these individuals do get that approval from the Senate. Rick, nothing is done until it's really done when it comes to this transition process, in these nominees becoming confirm mees or officially being confirmed for their roles.

That's right, and that could take a while.

That's right, and that could take a while.

Right.

Right.

We know that it's taken some time in his first administration. Although he's a head of schedule at naming these individuals, none of them have been through proper background checks, and the vetting process hasn't even really begun on Capitol Hill in the Senate, so it could take a while. Maybe some will get through quickly. I don't know about how the Senate Committee on Hell is going to work as far as bringing up these nominees, but it's going to be a high priority of this administration the first quarter of this year. But we could be still talking about this in March, all right.

We know that it's taken some time in his first administration. Although he's a head of schedule at naming these individuals, none of them have been through proper background checks, and the vetting process hasn't even really begun on Capitol Hill in the Senate, so it could take a while. Maybe some will get through quickly. I don't know about how the Senate Committee on Hell is going to work as far as bringing up these nominees, but it's going to be a high priority of this administration the first quarter of this year. But we could be still talking about this in March, all right.

Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano, I look forward to talking about this with you in March and in the months in between. Our signature political panel here on Balance of Power. Thank you so much. And as we are here on Balance of Power, I would remind you that we have been dealing with some breaking news in the last several minutes, having just heard from the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin net and Yahoo, who in part said that he will be bringing a ceasefire deal in Lebanon, that agreement to his security cabinet for approval this evening, so we're waiting the actual vote on that, but Netanyahu said the duration of the ceasefire depends on what happens in Lebanon.

Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano, I look forward to talking about this with you in March and in the months in between. Our signature political panel here on Balance of Power. Thank you so much. And as we are here on Balance of Power, I would remind you that we have been dealing with some breaking news in the last several minutes, having just heard from the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin net and Yahoo, who in part said that he will be bringing a ceasefire deal in Lebanon, that agreement to his security cabinet for approval this evening, so we're waiting the actual vote on that, but Netanyahu said the duration of the ceasefire depends on what happens in Lebanon.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then ron Oto with the Bloomberg Business. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then ron Oto with the Bloomberg Business. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

Just three weeks later, Donald Trump is seeming like he wants to make good on promises made on the campaign trail, including those around tariffs, taking to True Social last night suggesting he would put into place an additional ten percent tariff on all goods coming from China and twenty five percent on those coming from Mexico and Canada. The President alex suggesting that this needs to be done in order to clamp down on migrants and illegal drugs like fentanyl coming over the US border. It's unclear whether this is just a negotiating tack, though, and we should keep in mind that he had actually floated tariffs even higher than this over the course of his campaign. At one point, he was suggesting sixty percent Levy's placed on all Chinese goods, a level that our own economists here at Bloomberg think would effectively cut off trade in the world's two largest economies. It is, though, a reminder, of course, that what you do economically does have implications geopolitically, and that's where we really want to focus now with our first guest, Michael O'Hanlon.

Just three weeks later, Donald Trump is seeming like he wants to make good on promises made on the campaign trail, including those around tariffs, taking to True Social last night suggesting he would put into place an additional ten percent tariff on all goods coming from China and twenty five percent on those coming from Mexico and Canada. The President alex suggesting that this needs to be done in order to clamp down on migrants and illegal drugs like fentanyl coming over the US border. It's unclear whether this is just a negotiating tack, though, and we should keep in mind that he had actually floated tariffs even higher than this over the course of his campaign. At one point, he was suggesting sixty percent Levy's placed on all Chinese goods, a level that our own economists here at Bloomberg think would effectively cut off trade in the world's two largest economies. It is, though, a reminder, of course, that what you do economically does have implications geopolitically, and that's where we really want to focus now with our first guest, Michael O'Hanlon.

Is with me.

Is with me.

He is Brookings Institution Senior Fellow and director of Research in the Foreign Policy Program. Michael, welcome back to balance of power. When we first just consider the authority Trump could use to do this, what powers are bestowed upon him and the executive branch. Many of those things stem from national security interests. Basically that the president can impose higher tariffs if they think it is necessary to protect US national security? Could that be adequate justification here?

He is Brookings Institution Senior Fellow and director of Research in the Foreign Policy Program. Michael, welcome back to balance of power. When we first just consider the authority Trump could use to do this, what powers are bestowed upon him and the executive branch. Many of those things stem from national security interests. Basically that the president can impose higher tariffs if they think it is necessary to protect US national security? Could that be adequate justification here?

You know, it's a great question. According to the letter of the law, I'm not going to claim expertise to be able to answer your question. According to the spirit of the law, the answer would be yes. If you're talking about fentanyl and Mexico. I'm not really sure what Mexico can do in any realistic way or time horizon to dramatically cut back on the illegal shipments of fentanol to the United States, but it certainly is a national security consideration. I mean, when you have one hundred thousand Americans a year dying of opioid overdoses, I think that qualifies as a national security problem, and I don't think a court would be in a position to disagree, even if scholars might have a debate on that question. So in that sense, I think that it's plausible that both in regard to China with its power and its rise on the world stage, and the military implications of China's growing economic power, as well as the fentanyl connection and the illegal immigration connection with Mexico, I think that Trump probably could invoke national security considerations, at least in a political and strategic sense whether the law and the lawyers would let him I don't know.

You know, it's a great question. According to the letter of the law, I'm not going to claim expertise to be able to answer your question. According to the spirit of the law, the answer would be yes. If you're talking about fentanyl and Mexico. I'm not really sure what Mexico can do in any realistic way or time horizon to dramatically cut back on the illegal shipments of fentanol to the United States, but it certainly is a national security consideration. I mean, when you have one hundred thousand Americans a year dying of opioid overdoses, I think that qualifies as a national security problem, and I don't think a court would be in a position to disagree, even if scholars might have a debate on that question. So in that sense, I think that it's plausible that both in regard to China with its power and its rise on the world stage, and the military implications of China's growing economic power, as well as the fentanyl connection and the illegal immigration connection with Mexico, I think that Trump probably could invoke national security considerations, at least in a political and strategic sense whether the law and the lawyers would let him I don't know.

Well, So if we focus on China here specifically, what could higher tariffs or greater trade barriers ultimately mean for the nature of the relationship with an adversary like that. Is it actually something that can be exercised as leverage to get more favorable outcomes geopolitically, or is it something that could potentially be even more destabilizing geopolitically and risk undoing progress made in normalization of ties between.

Well, So if we focus on China here specifically, what could higher tariffs or greater trade barriers ultimately mean for the nature of the relationship with an adversary like that. Is it actually something that can be exercised as leverage to get more favorable outcomes geopolitically, or is it something that could potentially be even more destabilizing geopolitically and risk undoing progress made in normalization of ties between.

The US and China both and hence the riskiness of the strategy. Although I think that to get concessions you have to have a reasonable theory of the case for why the tariff is an appropriate policy tool. There has to be some sense of fair play or at least leverage, and I think that with Trump already having applied these high tariffs on China in his first term and President Biden having kept those in Biden's term, it's harder to see why a general sweeping tariff would be appropriate. Now, obviously, we do have intellectual property right disagreements with China. We feel they steal a lot of our ip are, and we also have national security concerns over high technology.

The US and China both and hence the riskiness of the strategy. Although I think that to get concessions you have to have a reasonable theory of the case for why the tariff is an appropriate policy tool. There has to be some sense of fair play or at least leverage, and I think that with Trump already having applied these high tariffs on China in his first term and President Biden having kept those in Biden's term, it's harder to see why a general sweeping tariff would be appropriate. Now, obviously, we do have intellectual property right disagreements with China. We feel they steal a lot of our ip are, and we also have national security concerns over high technology.

So I think on either of.

So I think on either of.

Those two more limited bins of technology, you could imagine Trump making this threat and perhaps having some justification for doing so, And you could imagine that the response by China that we would want to achieve would be less theft of intellectual property and also less provocative behavior in the Western Pacific militarily. So in that sense, there'd be a credible, plausible linkage. But a ten percent across the board tariff, I mean, it's harder for me to see how China reacts well to that. At least it's less than sixty percent. As you pointed out earlier, you know, ten percent the news there is almost that Trump's so dramatically lowering the additional tariff that he said he was going to apply to goods from China. That's more the news in some sense than the additional proposal for ten percent more.

Those two more limited bins of technology, you could imagine Trump making this threat and perhaps having some justification for doing so, And you could imagine that the response by China that we would want to achieve would be less theft of intellectual property and also less provocative behavior in the Western Pacific militarily. So in that sense, there'd be a credible, plausible linkage. But a ten percent across the board tariff, I mean, it's harder for me to see how China reacts well to that. At least it's less than sixty percent. As you pointed out earlier, you know, ten percent the news there is almost that Trump's so dramatically lowering the additional tariff that he said he was going to apply to goods from China. That's more the news in some sense than the additional proposal for ten percent more.

But you know, the Chinese are still not.

But you know, the Chinese are still not.

Going to be thrilled, obviously, and whether Trump could actually extract out less threatening behavior militarily to China, that's pretty dubious. I do still like the idea of linkage, because China should know that there are going to be economic repercussions to strategically destabilizing behavior. I'm just not sure you're really going to get a negotiation on those terms anytime soon.

Going to be thrilled, obviously, and whether Trump could actually extract out less threatening behavior militarily to China, that's pretty dubious. I do still like the idea of linkage, because China should know that there are going to be economic repercussions to strategically destabilizing behavior. I'm just not sure you're really going to get a negotiation on those terms anytime soon.

Well, we'll see what happens. I suppose when Trump actually takes office once again. Something that could happen more immediately than that, potentially as soon as today, Michael, is a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon. Prime Minister Benjamin net Nyahu is set to give a televised address less than an hour from now. There's been reports that President Biden may speak to and Anthony Blincoln just said that the Lebanon ceasfire effort is near the finish line and could help end the conflict in Gaza as well. Even if this agreement is reached, Michael, do you believe it will stick and potentially have ramifications for beyond Lebanon but into Israel's war with Moss.

Well, we'll see what happens. I suppose when Trump actually takes office once again. Something that could happen more immediately than that, potentially as soon as today, Michael, is a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon. Prime Minister Benjamin net Nyahu is set to give a televised address less than an hour from now. There's been reports that President Biden may speak to and Anthony Blincoln just said that the Lebanon ceasfire effort is near the finish line and could help end the conflict in Gaza as well. Even if this agreement is reached, Michael, do you believe it will stick and potentially have ramifications for beyond Lebanon but into Israel's war with Moss.

You know, that's a great question. I think there's a good chance it could stick, as Below, of course, has lost of its leadership, so no one's quite sure who's calling the shots there and exactly how much control they have over the whole organization. So even if you get a deal, you could have some outliers who violate it on the Hesbola side, But I think that on balance, Hesbola still has demonstrated an ability to graduate to adjust the level of its fire and the locations of its fire as a function of where things stand with Gaza, where things stand more broadly with Israel. And so I'm guessing they've still got enough command and control over their organization irrespective of the loss of the top leadership that they probably could hue to such a ceapire. And certainly Israel would relish that because it wants to be able to move back the tens of thousands of citizens who have had to evacuate northern Israel due to the previous year's attacks from Levitnese territory by Hesbola against those locations in Israel. As to whether that could actually lead to a higher probability of a ceasefire in Gaza, I suppose in some broader political sense, because the atmosphere would have changed. I'm not sure though, that it really changes the specific options Israel would think it has in Gaza. It certainly doesn't want to do a deal with Hamas itself unless that deal also committed Hamas to no longer be in charge of Gaza longer term and to just have this be the step towards creation of a new political entity inside of the Palestinian territories. So if Hamas would agree to that deal, then maybe, But I don't know that Hamas would.

You know, that's a great question. I think there's a good chance it could stick, as Below, of course, has lost of its leadership, so no one's quite sure who's calling the shots there and exactly how much control they have over the whole organization. So even if you get a deal, you could have some outliers who violate it on the Hesbola side, But I think that on balance, Hesbola still has demonstrated an ability to graduate to adjust the level of its fire and the locations of its fire as a function of where things stand with Gaza, where things stand more broadly with Israel. And so I'm guessing they've still got enough command and control over their organization irrespective of the loss of the top leadership that they probably could hue to such a ceapire. And certainly Israel would relish that because it wants to be able to move back the tens of thousands of citizens who have had to evacuate northern Israel due to the previous year's attacks from Levitnese territory by Hesbola against those locations in Israel. As to whether that could actually lead to a higher probability of a ceasefire in Gaza, I suppose in some broader political sense, because the atmosphere would have changed. I'm not sure though, that it really changes the specific options Israel would think it has in Gaza. It certainly doesn't want to do a deal with Hamas itself unless that deal also committed Hamas to no longer be in charge of Gaza longer term and to just have this be the step towards creation of a new political entity inside of the Palestinian territories. So if Hamas would agree to that deal, then maybe, But I don't know that Hamas would.

Well, and it's a question of what Israel is willing to agree to as well. Considering from the very start of this conflict last October they said their end goal was the total eradication of Hamas. Are we though, coming to realize that that, at least from an ideology perspective, is not something that feasibly could have been accomplished.

Well, and it's a question of what Israel is willing to agree to as well. Considering from the very start of this conflict last October they said their end goal was the total eradication of Hamas. Are we though, coming to realize that that, at least from an ideology perspective, is not something that feasibly could have been accomplished.

I don't think it could be. But one of the smartest things I've seen written about this conflict in recent weeks was by Michael Duran or the Hudson Institute, who suggested that Israel's real goal was not so much a ceasefire with what's left of centralized Thomas leadership, but rather individual ceasepires with local leaders of Hamas in various parts of Gaza, and to the extent they could achieve that, maybe they could claim that was essentially a realization of their earlier promise to eradicate Hamas as a central organization inside the Gaza strip. That may be also unrealistic, but a little less unrealistic than completely eradicating every previous member of the organization.

I don't think it could be. But one of the smartest things I've seen written about this conflict in recent weeks was by Michael Duran or the Hudson Institute, who suggested that Israel's real goal was not so much a ceasefire with what's left of centralized Thomas leadership, but rather individual ceasepires with local leaders of Hamas in various parts of Gaza, and to the extent they could achieve that, maybe they could claim that was essentially a realization of their earlier promise to eradicate Hamas as a central organization inside the Gaza strip. That may be also unrealistic, but a little less unrealistic than completely eradicating every previous member of the organization.

And Michael, we have less than a minute left here. But how does the knowledge that Donald Trump will be the president fifty five days from now influence all sides of these negotiations.

And Michael, we have less than a minute left here. But how does the knowledge that Donald Trump will be the president fifty five days from now influence all sides of these negotiations.

Well, I think that for Prime Minister net and Yahoo, he will be happier with Trump than with Biden. And I don't know if that means that he really therefore is more likely to agree to a cease fire. In other words, some people had the theory that Netanyahu wanted the war beyondgoing in a way that would hurt Biden and Harris politically. And now that that's over, the election is complete and Trump won, this same argument would no longer apply. But I doubt that was Netnaku's main calculus from the start, so I don't think.