Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

Keeping an eye on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and where they're intercepting today as a meeting is set to take place at the White House between top administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Besstt, and leadership on Capitol Hill from both chambers, inclusive of House Speaker Mike Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader John Thune, as well as the heads of the Tax Writing Committee, Senator Mark Crapo and Congressman Jason Smith, all there to talk tax cuts and reconciling the different ways in which the House and Senate would like to see those tax cuts pursued in budget reconciliation. Now, we understand there's some gaps to bridge here, although the House Speaker Mike Johnson, when talking to reporters earlier today, suggested no such gaps exist.

Keeping an eye on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and where they're intercepting today as a meeting is set to take place at the White House between top administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Besstt, and leadership on Capitol Hill from both chambers, inclusive of House Speaker Mike Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader John Thune, as well as the heads of the Tax Writing Committee, Senator Mark Crapo and Congressman Jason Smith, all there to talk tax cuts and reconciling the different ways in which the House and Senate would like to see those tax cuts pursued in budget reconciliation. Now, we understand there's some gaps to bridge here, although the House Speaker Mike Johnson, when talking to reporters earlier today, suggested no such gaps exist.

There's no daylight between House and Senate Republicans. We are one team. I speak with Leader Thune about this constantly and with individual members of the Senate over there. We're all united on the mission, and there's been different ideas about how to complete the mission, but I think it's all coming together now. This week will be pivotal.

There's no daylight between House and Senate Republicans. We are one team. I speak with Leader Thune about this constantly and with individual members of the Senate over there. We're all united on the mission, and there's been different ideas about how to complete the mission, but I think it's all coming together now. This week will be pivotal.

So let's bring it to a vote. Running Bloomberg's Capital influenced team. Megan Scully with her eyes on Capitol Hill and joining us now at the table ahead of our conversation with Congressman Marlin Stutspin. Meghan, it's great to see you. Of course, this is not a layup. This is a threading of the needle with some very big issues. We're talking again to remind everybody about extending Trump tax cuts, potentially lifting the debt limit and doing it all without adding to the debt. Is that possible?

So let's bring it to a vote. Running Bloomberg's Capital influenced team. Megan Scully with her eyes on Capitol Hill and joining us now at the table ahead of our conversation with Congressman Marlin Stutspin. Meghan, it's great to see you. Of course, this is not a layup. This is a threading of the needle with some very big issues. We're talking again to remind everybody about extending Trump tax cuts, potentially lifting the debt limit and doing it all without adding to the debt. Is that possible?

Yeah, maybe if we do some fuzzy math, which is what they're recommending, particularly in the Senate, you know, basically not counting a renewal of Trump's tax cuts as new cuts, basically deficit neutral, so then they can move forward on some of the other promises the President has put forth, like no taxes on Social Security or no taxes on tips, we're getting into that fuzzy math period of these negotiations. And while this week will indeed be pivotal, you know, with Congress back from a recess, it is just the beginning. I mean, we're talking about several months likely ahead in terms of negotiations between the two.

Yeah, maybe if we do some fuzzy math, which is what they're recommending, particularly in the Senate, you know, basically not counting a renewal of Trump's tax cuts as new cuts, basically deficit neutral, so then they can move forward on some of the other promises the President has put forth, like no taxes on Social Security or no taxes on tips, we're getting into that fuzzy math period of these negotiations. And while this week will indeed be pivotal, you know, with Congress back from a recess, it is just the beginning. I mean, we're talking about several months likely ahead in terms of negotiations between the two.

Chambers, even though the Speaker is suggesting he wants to see a vote on this done by Memorial Day, which is going to be coming up pretty quickly in terms of legislative days. Megan, when we consider this notion that math may get fuzzy, is math required to be fuzzy if the Senate is to get what it wants, which is an permanent extension of the twenty seventeen tax cuts rather than just an extension, which is what the House Plan originally called for.

Chambers, even though the Speaker is suggesting he wants to see a vote on this done by Memorial Day, which is going to be coming up pretty quickly in terms of legislative days. Megan, when we consider this notion that math may get fuzzy, is math required to be fuzzy if the Senate is to get what it wants, which is an permanent extension of the twenty seventeen tax cuts rather than just an extension, which is what the House Plan originally called for.

So a lot of this actually will come down to the Senate parliamentarian, who is not somebody that most Americans are familiar with, and she will rule. Elizabeth McDonough is her name, and she will roll essentially what is allowed and what is not allowed in this debate in terms of how we're counting these tax cuts and how we're counting these spending, any new spending, etc.

So a lot of this actually will come down to the Senate parliamentarian, who is not somebody that most Americans are familiar with, and she will rule. Elizabeth McDonough is her name, and she will roll essentially what is allowed and what is not allowed in this debate in terms of how we're counting these tax cuts and how we're counting these spending, any new spending, etc.

Etc.

Etc.

So a lot of this will be happening behind the scenes, and we'll see how it plays out in the coming months. But in addition to sort of the rules here, you also have divisions within the Republican party between those who really want to move forward with deep spending cuts including two entitlement programs, these deficit hawks, and then others who want to be more liberal with tax cuts. So there's going to be a lot of push and pulled not just between the House and the Senate, but between Republicans in both chambers.

So a lot of this will be happening behind the scenes, and we'll see how it plays out in the coming months. But in addition to sort of the rules here, you also have divisions within the Republican party between those who really want to move forward with deep spending cuts including two entitlement programs, these deficit hawks, and then others who want to be more liberal with tax cuts. So there's going to be a lot of push and pulled not just between the House and the Senate, but between Republicans in both chambers.

So what gets done, if anything, in this meeting today? Does John Thune make it clear he needs to take the wheel?

So what gets done, if anything, in this meeting today? Does John Thune make it clear he needs to take the wheel?

I think that right now the ball is very much in the Senate court, and the Senate has been sort of in the background of this, as we saw the House get it through its own budget blueprint just last month. So now it is the Senate's turn to sort of to figure out whether they're going to move forward with what the House has passed or whether they're going to go their own way here. As you mentioned a few minutes ago, the dead ceiling is a key component of this. You know, we're going to have a new X date projection later this week, and you know we're anticipating that to be this summer sometime. And do they deal with that as part of this whole you know, Republican only bill on tax cuts, or do they do it separately and require Democrats to weigh in as well.

I think that right now the ball is very much in the Senate court, and the Senate has been sort of in the background of this, as we saw the House get it through its own budget blueprint just last month. So now it is the Senate's turn to sort of to figure out whether they're going to move forward with what the House has passed or whether they're going to go their own way here. As you mentioned a few minutes ago, the dead ceiling is a key component of this. You know, we're going to have a new X date projection later this week, and you know we're anticipating that to be this summer sometime. And do they deal with that as part of this whole you know, Republican only bill on tax cuts, or do they do it separately and require Democrats to weigh in as well.

Well, we know President Trump has expressed some pretty strong feelings about what he thinks should be done with the dead ceiling recently. He either wants it lifted in dellies out of office or abolished. It doesn't seem that he's expressed much specificity as to what wants to be done with it, other than that he wants it addressed. How much is it his voice that matters above all others in this conversation?

Well, we know President Trump has expressed some pretty strong feelings about what he thinks should be done with the dead ceiling recently. He either wants it lifted in dellies out of office or abolished. It doesn't seem that he's expressed much specificity as to what wants to be done with it, other than that he wants it addressed. How much is it his voice that matters above all others in this conversation?

So certainly we have seen him, you know, matter very much in these negotiations, including making calls to lawmakers as they're walking onto the floor. We've seen him reverse votes, you know, at the very last minute. So that is certainly central here. But for a lot of deficit hawks, the debt ceiling is persona non graded like. They do not want to lift it, they do not want to eradicate it. They see this as the biggest forcing function that we have to keep spending under any kind of control. So I do think that that becomes much more complicated for the president. But certainly, like I said, we've seen him changed hearts and minds in the Capitol in the last several months.

So certainly we have seen him, you know, matter very much in these negotiations, including making calls to lawmakers as they're walking onto the floor. We've seen him reverse votes, you know, at the very last minute. So that is certainly central here. But for a lot of deficit hawks, the debt ceiling is persona non graded like. They do not want to lift it, they do not want to eradicate it. They see this as the biggest forcing function that we have to keep spending under any kind of control. So I do think that that becomes much more complicated for the president. But certainly, like I said, we've seen him changed hearts and minds in the Capitol in the last several months.

Indeed, we have all right, Megan Scully, who leads our capital influence team here at Bloomberg, thank you so much. And as we considered those deficit hawks that exist in Congress, they also exist on Wall Street. Just look at Ray Dalio, the share of Fregewater Associates, who of course has done extensive research into debt and deficits and actually shared some of that novel on Capitol Hill today.

Indeed, we have all right, Megan Scully, who leads our capital influence team here at Bloomberg, thank you so much. And as we considered those deficit hawks that exist in Congress, they also exist on Wall Street. Just look at Ray Dalio, the share of Fregewater Associates, who of course has done extensive research into debt and deficits and actually shared some of that novel on Capitol Hill today.

Yeah, I wonder what the reception was. Of course, Bridgewater Associates founder more likely to appear on Bloomberg probably than on Capitol Hill. But to have a room full at a moment like this to be preaching about the history of debt crises does bring us back to the complexities and paying.

Yeah, I wonder what the reception was. Of course, Bridgewater Associates founder more likely to appear on Bloomberg probably than on Capitol Hill. But to have a room full at a moment like this to be preaching about the history of debt crises does bring us back to the complexities and paying.

For all of this.

For all of this.

Kay.

Kay.

Yeah, he was addressing specifically the House Budget Committee, and one of its members is joining us now here on Bloomberg TV and radio. Republican Congressman Marlon Stutsman of Indiana is back with us on Balance of Power live from Capitol Hill. Congressman, thank you very much for your time. Can you shed some light as to what exactly Ray Dalio shared.

Yeah, he was addressing specifically the House Budget Committee, and one of its members is joining us now here on Bloomberg TV and radio. Republican Congressman Marlon Stutsman of Indiana is back with us on Balance of Power live from Capitol Hill. Congressman, thank you very much for your time. Can you shed some light as to what exactly Ray Dalio shared.

With you today? Yeah, Kaylee, great to be with you again.

With you today? Yeah, Kaylee, great to be with you again.

Yeah, it was fascinating to have these outside voices, which I think is really critical to this whole deficit and debt conversation and basically just the federal budget as a whole, and having mister Dalyo there to answer questions and just really share his thoughts.

Yeah, it was fascinating to have these outside voices, which I think is really critical to this whole deficit and debt conversation and basically just the federal budget as a whole, and having mister Dalyo there to answer questions and just really share his thoughts.

We're really in sight.

We're really in sight.

I mean, one of the things that I walked away with is that he's like, you got to take care of this before a recession hits, and you know, timeline could be two, three.

I mean, one of the things that I walked away with is that he's like, you got to take care of this before a recession hits, and you know, timeline could be two, three.

Four years, don't know exactly when.

Four years, don't know exactly when.

But as I walked out with some of my staff who are younger, they said, oh, how are we going to sleep tonight after hearing that? Because his comments are really he's a realist and I appreciate that, and I think that's what a lot of us on Capitol Hill in Congress should be doing right now, and you know, being realistic about where we're at, thirty six trillion dollars of debt, deficits out of control and getting back to balanced budgets is critical, and he really just laid out a very thoughtful, realistic plan, not with a lot of details, but hit those high points that we should all be be considering in one of those spending cuts.

But as I walked out with some of my staff who are younger, they said, oh, how are we going to sleep tonight after hearing that? Because his comments are really he's a realist and I appreciate that, and I think that's what a lot of us on Capitol Hill in Congress should be doing right now, and you know, being realistic about where we're at, thirty six trillion dollars of debt, deficits out of control and getting back to balanced budgets is critical, and he really just laid out a very thoughtful, realistic plan, not with a lot of details, but hit those high points that we should all be be considering in one of those spending cuts.

And so I think that's.

And so I think that's.

Why the House Budget is addressing that and knowing that having these outside voices, which I think is critical to moving Congress forward and actually.

Why the House Budget is addressing that and knowing that having these outside voices, which I think is critical to moving Congress forward and actually.

Doing something, is very timely. And I was glad he was here today.

Doing something, is very timely. And I was glad he was here today.

Really interesting, Congressman, thanks for bringing us in the room here. And I'm curious about what you said about getting ahead of the next recession. Is that because it would be impossible to pass this bill in the throes of a recession, or a bill like this will prevent one?

Really interesting, Congressman, thanks for bringing us in the room here. And I'm curious about what you said about getting ahead of the next recession. Is that because it would be impossible to pass this bill in the throes of a recession, or a bill like this will prevent one?

He said that it would help prevent it. And you know, his his plan three point plan basically was four percent spending cuts, four percent increase in revenue, and then having to lower the debt service, you know, one percent roughly.

He said that it would help prevent it. And you know, his his plan three point plan basically was four percent spending cuts, four percent increase in revenue, and then having to lower the debt service, you know, one percent roughly.

And I think I asked.

And I think I asked.

Him the question because when Treasury Secretary came down and visited with a group of us, he talked about how he's going to go out to those debt holders and say, hey, America is still a good place to invest. But as mister Dalyo said, you know, I asked him, can we restructure the debt? You know, in business, at some point you have the ability to go and restructure and hopefully get better terms. And his comments were not very optimistic. He said, things are getting bad enough that those who have the debt would be very skeptical to restructure debt. And so I think that's why all of US Republicans and Democrats need to realize that this debt is becoming a crisis here in the next three to five years and maybe sooner.

Him the question because when Treasury Secretary came down and visited with a group of us, he talked about how he's going to go out to those debt holders and say, hey, America is still a good place to invest. But as mister Dalyo said, you know, I asked him, can we restructure the debt? You know, in business, at some point you have the ability to go and restructure and hopefully get better terms. And his comments were not very optimistic. He said, things are getting bad enough that those who have the debt would be very skeptical to restructure debt. And so I think that's why all of US Republicans and Democrats need to realize that this debt is becoming a crisis here in the next three to five years and maybe sooner.

So we have to address it today.

So we have to address it today.

Well, and something that does need to be addressed in at least the next few months. And we'll get a specific X state estimate from the Congressional Budget Office tomorrow. Congressman, is the debt ceiling which it could impact the way in which the US is seen as credit worthy, if there is still full faith in the United States credit or not. Obviously in the House bill, the debt ceiling increase is included. Do you believe the Senate ultimately will come around to that and include it in its own package or is this going to have to be dealt with separately.

Well, and something that does need to be addressed in at least the next few months. And we'll get a specific X state estimate from the Congressional Budget Office tomorrow. Congressman, is the debt ceiling which it could impact the way in which the US is seen as credit worthy, if there is still full faith in the United States credit or not. Obviously in the House bill, the debt ceiling increase is included. Do you believe the Senate ultimately will come around to that and include it in its own package or is this going to have to be dealt with separately.

Well, I was interested in what Megan was reporting before I came on, and I think, you know, from what we feel here in the House is that keeping this one big beautiful bill, as Trump President Trump likes to.

Well, I was interested in what Megan was reporting before I came on, and I think, you know, from what we feel here in the House is that keeping this one big beautiful bill, as Trump President Trump likes to.

Call it, is really the way forward.

Call it, is really the way forward.

We address the debt ceiling, we address spending cuts, we address the tax policy, and as the committees of jurisdiction start working through all of that, I think that's going to be the path forward. We're gonna have to jump on this, jump together as Republicans because I don't think we're going to get very much help from Democrats. But you know, kind of back to mister Daleo's comments is that we do have to have spending cuts, we do have to see increase in revenue, but there's ways of doing that. I think tariffs is a short term solution to increase in revenues. A growing economy will obviously help with that. So you know, then also if we can somehow see lower interest rates to move forward on a budget package that I think addresses all of those, And so I hope the Senate will seriously consider the House package because I think anything else short of that in the House is going to be if the Senate passes something else, I think it's going to be very difficult to pass in the House.

We address the debt ceiling, we address spending cuts, we address the tax policy, and as the committees of jurisdiction start working through all of that, I think that's going to be the path forward. We're gonna have to jump on this, jump together as Republicans because I don't think we're going to get very much help from Democrats. But you know, kind of back to mister Daleo's comments is that we do have to have spending cuts, we do have to see increase in revenue, but there's ways of doing that. I think tariffs is a short term solution to increase in revenues. A growing economy will obviously help with that. So you know, then also if we can somehow see lower interest rates to move forward on a budget package that I think addresses all of those, And so I hope the Senate will seriously consider the House package because I think anything else short of that in the House is going to be if the Senate passes something else, I think it's going to be very difficult to pass in the House.

Congressman, when you were a state lawmaker in Indiana, you helped Governor Mitch Daniels eliminate a billion dollar deficit. There was no doge and there were no tariffs to provide revenue, but you did it without raising taxes. Can't you bring a lesson from that experience to this debate? How'd you do it?

Congressman, when you were a state lawmaker in Indiana, you helped Governor Mitch Daniels eliminate a billion dollar deficit. There was no doge and there were no tariffs to provide revenue, but you did it without raising taxes. Can't you bring a lesson from that experience to this debate? How'd you do it?

As yet? Well?

As yet? Well?

First of all, Mitch Doese are Mitch Daniels, not Mitch does. Mitch Daniels was Doze before it was cool. He was known as the Blade if you remember when he was OMB director. And Governor Daniels really turned Indiana around in a way that has set us on a very strong path going forward, fiscally balanced budgets. We haven't seen deficits in Indiana for years. We actually are seeing a growing population, a great place to do business. And so I tell that story over and over, and we had a tight majority in two thousand and five when Governor Daniels came into office, and we passed a budget that would give him two years to balance, but he, of course did it in one year. But that's the type of leadership, Governor Daniels was. I think that's the type of leadership we have with President Trump. He's talking about balanced budgets. Doge is giving Congress this insight that we have needed for many years to get actually closer to the action, to see where spending is going and where we can do better in appropriating and authorizing. So I think that that experience is going to be very helpful. And I see this freshman class as the type of class that's here to do make those hard votes, to cast those hard votes, but also making sure that we put India America on the right course for success and prosperity.

First of all, Mitch Doese are Mitch Daniels, not Mitch does. Mitch Daniels was Doze before it was cool. He was known as the Blade if you remember when he was OMB director. And Governor Daniels really turned Indiana around in a way that has set us on a very strong path going forward, fiscally balanced budgets. We haven't seen deficits in Indiana for years. We actually are seeing a growing population, a great place to do business. And so I tell that story over and over, and we had a tight majority in two thousand and five when Governor Daniels came into office, and we passed a budget that would give him two years to balance, but he, of course did it in one year. But that's the type of leadership, Governor Daniels was. I think that's the type of leadership we have with President Trump. He's talking about balanced budgets. Doge is giving Congress this insight that we have needed for many years to get actually closer to the action, to see where spending is going and where we can do better in appropriating and authorizing. So I think that that experience is going to be very helpful. And I see this freshman class as the type of class that's here to do make those hard votes, to cast those hard votes, but also making sure that we put India America on the right course for success and prosperity.

Well, and as you previously mentioned, Congressman, the President obviously thinks one way to do that is to enact tariffs on our trading partners. Obviously looking ahead to next week, which he says will bring Liberation Day April second, reciprocal tariffs, but now he's talking about carve outs or exemptions for some countries. He says auto tariffs may be coming in the coming days. Do you feel you can give businesses and consumers in your district in Indiana clarity as to what Liberation Day will actually bring in what will come after it.

Well, and as you previously mentioned, Congressman, the President obviously thinks one way to do that is to enact tariffs on our trading partners. Obviously looking ahead to next week, which he says will bring Liberation Day April second, reciprocal tariffs, but now he's talking about carve outs or exemptions for some countries. He says auto tariffs may be coming in the coming days. Do you feel you can give businesses and consumers in your district in Indiana clarity as to what Liberation Day will actually bring in what will come after it.

Yeah, you know, that's a great question. A lot of you know, mixed reactions. You know, talking with the steel industry, the tariffs are good for the steel industry. Talking with the ag community, it's a mixed bag there. But I think at the end of the day, what I hear from my constituents in the ag sector and manufacturing sector is that there's trust in Trump that he's going to settle this in the long run, and they know that it's going to take a little bit of time. They also know that deregulation is coming and that's going to be helpful to the economy, energy production, and the cost of energy. And then also just simply confidence. You know, if we get these tax rates, if we make them permanent, or even if we extend them for four or five years, which I think would be sufficient to just give certainty, will make a huge difference. And then whatever volatility is seen from the tariffs, we can ride through that.

Yeah, you know, that's a great question. A lot of you know, mixed reactions. You know, talking with the steel industry, the tariffs are good for the steel industry. Talking with the ag community, it's a mixed bag there. But I think at the end of the day, what I hear from my constituents in the ag sector and manufacturing sector is that there's trust in Trump that he's going to settle this in the long run, and they know that it's going to take a little bit of time. They also know that deregulation is coming and that's going to be helpful to the economy, energy production, and the cost of energy. And then also just simply confidence. You know, if we get these tax rates, if we make them permanent, or even if we extend them for four or five years, which I think would be sufficient to just give certainty, will make a huge difference. And then whatever volatility is seen from the tariffs, we can ride through that.

But you know, there's going to be days that there's question marks.

But you know, there's going to be days that there's question marks.

But I think in the long run, there's a lot of trust for President Trump, knowing he's a businessman, knowing he's been through things like this before. And also you know the fact that reciprocal tariffs just simply mean if you're going to tear if us a dollar, we're going to tear if you a dollar. And at some point I hope the conversation leads to, hey, what if we just lower all tariffs down and really have fair trade and free trade.

But I think in the long run, there's a lot of trust for President Trump, knowing he's a businessman, knowing he's been through things like this before. And also you know the fact that reciprocal tariffs just simply mean if you're going to tear if us a dollar, we're going to tear if you a dollar. And at some point I hope the conversation leads to, hey, what if we just lower all tariffs down and really have fair trade and free trade.

A world with no tariffs. Congressman Marlin Stutsman, it's great to have you back from Indiana's third District's Republican voice today from Capitol Hill. As these meetings take place on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue will be tracking, of course, the reconciliation process for you on the regular here alongside Kaylee Lines. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. It's great to have you with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio as we assemble our panel next on a busy day here in the nation's capital. Stay with us on the fastest show in politics, This is Bloomberg.

A world with no tariffs. Congressman Marlin Stutsman, it's great to have you back from Indiana's third District's Republican voice today from Capitol Hill. As these meetings take place on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue will be tracking, of course, the reconciliation process for you on the regular here alongside Kaylee Lines. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. It's great to have you with us on Bloomberg TV and Radio as we assemble our panel next on a busy day here in the nation's capital. Stay with us on the fastest show in politics, This is Bloomberg.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.

Washington, of course, was a buzz yesterday and remains so today on the story that published in the Atlantic by its editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who detailed his apparently inadvertent inclusion in a group chat on the encrypted messaging platform Signal with some of the most senior members of the Trump administration who were discussing strikes on hoothy targets in Yemen, and according to Goldberg's reporting, the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth actually shared specific detail as to the planning of these strikes, what the targets were, weaponry that could be used, details that Goldberg himself actually omitted in the article given national security concerns. But Hegseth is not the only character in this story. There's also the National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who started the chat initially and apparently inadvertently added Goldberg. Here, Donald Trump, the President is defending as a good man today. And there were others too, including the Director of National Intelligence Toolsey Gabbard and the Director of the CIA, John Radcliffe. Those two, perhaps unluckily, were already scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee today for a hearing, and they faced some tough questions about it. Here's this exchange between Ratcliffe and the committee's Democratic ranking member, Senator Mark Warner.

Washington, of course, was a buzz yesterday and remains so today on the story that published in the Atlantic by its editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who detailed his apparently inadvertent inclusion in a group chat on the encrypted messaging platform Signal with some of the most senior members of the Trump administration who were discussing strikes on hoothy targets in Yemen, and according to Goldberg's reporting, the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth actually shared specific detail as to the planning of these strikes, what the targets were, weaponry that could be used, details that Goldberg himself actually omitted in the article given national security concerns. But Hegseth is not the only character in this story. There's also the National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who started the chat initially and apparently inadvertently added Goldberg. Here, Donald Trump, the President is defending as a good man today. And there were others too, including the Director of National Intelligence Toolsey Gabbard and the Director of the CIA, John Radcliffe. Those two, perhaps unluckily, were already scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee today for a hearing, and they faced some tough questions about it. Here's this exchange between Ratcliffe and the committee's Democratic ranking member, Senator Mark Warner.

Director Radcliffe, were you on the group chat, Senator? I was on a signal messaging group, So you were the John Radcliffe on that chat? I was, No, Those were procedures that were implemented, Doctor Ratclife. Staff implemented those processes, followed those processes, complied with and finally, just please so my communications, to be clear in a signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information. We will make that determination.

Director Radcliffe, were you on the group chat, Senator? I was on a signal messaging group, So you were the John Radcliffe on that chat? I was, No, Those were procedures that were implemented, Doctor Ratclife. Staff implemented those processes, followed those processes, complied with and finally, just please so my communications, to be clear in a signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information. We will make that determination.

One of the more mild exchanges between CIA Director Ratcliffe and Mark Warner, the Democrat top Democrat on that panel, as Kaylee mentioned, and that's where we start with our political panel today. Rick Davis is back with US, Republican strategist and partner at Stone Court Capital, alongside Democratic strategist Roger Fisk, former special advisor to President Barack Obama. Great to have both of you back with US. Roger. This hearing was supposed to be boring. It was originally titled Worldwide Threats and open hearing to start at ten am on a Tuesday, Worldwide Threats. Is the threat in this case coming from inside the house?

One of the more mild exchanges between CIA Director Ratcliffe and Mark Warner, the Democrat top Democrat on that panel, as Kaylee mentioned, and that's where we start with our political panel today. Rick Davis is back with US, Republican strategist and partner at Stone Court Capital, alongside Democratic strategist Roger Fisk, former special advisor to President Barack Obama. Great to have both of you back with US. Roger. This hearing was supposed to be boring. It was originally titled Worldwide Threats and open hearing to start at ten am on a Tuesday, Worldwide Threats. Is the threat in this case coming from inside the house?

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, right, So obviously this what happened yesterday clears the decks. And I think it's good that these folks happen to be in front kind of a very highly respected bipartisan committee, with Senator Warner really being one of the standard bearers about the conduct that everyone should exercise when around and using classified intelligence. The fact that this signal can't be downloaded and installed on government phones, so walking into this conversation, we have to acknowledge that these are all these individuals doing this work on their private phones, which is a source of concern. And then the fact that no one took the time to go through and ensure that as soon as that chain became at all detailed, that the logical thing to do would be to say, let's all get on a video conference so that we can talk in a secure environment. That's basically the earliest trigger as soon as it becomes any kind of a detailed conversation is to get on a secure video conference. And that didn't happen, and unfortunately, I think it's part of a pattern that we've seen from the administration. But to Senator Warner's point, we'll see how this plays out well.

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, right, So obviously this what happened yesterday clears the decks. And I think it's good that these folks happen to be in front kind of a very highly respected bipartisan committee, with Senator Warner really being one of the standard bearers about the conduct that everyone should exercise when around and using classified intelligence. The fact that this signal can't be downloaded and installed on government phones, so walking into this conversation, we have to acknowledge that these are all these individuals doing this work on their private phones, which is a source of concern. And then the fact that no one took the time to go through and ensure that as soon as that chain became at all detailed, that the logical thing to do would be to say, let's all get on a video conference so that we can talk in a secure environment. That's basically the earliest trigger as soon as it becomes any kind of a detailed conversation is to get on a secure video conference. And that didn't happen, and unfortunately, I think it's part of a pattern that we've seen from the administration. But to Senator Warner's point, we'll see how this plays out well.

And to seeing how this plays out, obviously the members of the committee, Rick can ask their questions and however Flamboyanna Manner, they would like to get the answers from Gabbard and Radcliffe on tape, make as much noise as they can about this, But in terms of actual ramification, is the only person who can cause a head to roll because of this President Trump, because his indication right now is that he thinks Mike Walts, who created the group chat, made a mistake but is a good man. Doesn't seem to be pushing for a resignation or anything like that.

And to seeing how this plays out, obviously the members of the committee, Rick can ask their questions and however Flamboyanna Manner, they would like to get the answers from Gabbard and Radcliffe on tape, make as much noise as they can about this, But in terms of actual ramification, is the only person who can cause a head to roll because of this President Trump, because his indication right now is that he thinks Mike Walts, who created the group chat, made a mistake but is a good man. Doesn't seem to be pushing for a resignation or anything like that.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that they don't want to upset the apple cart with their senior leadership, and I can understand that. But at the end of the day, somebody ultimately was responsible for this, whether it's a Cabinet member or a committee staff and DFD or the National Security Council, I think every one of them probably should be looking at their procedures because you know that these intelligence seals have been broken, right, I mean, like, did nobody in the D and I's office say hey, maybe you shouldn't be talking about this kind of stuff on a signal chat. Same with all the other agencies. I just think everybody's you know, sort of the situational alertness needs to be reminded that they're handling highly sensitive classified information. And I can't imagine how naming a intelligence official who is it's against the law to describe them as a CIA operative is not classified. And that's one of the things that was in the communication. So I think all this debate about what's classified what's not is sort of beating around the bush. I think everyone the appropriate response today should have been, Yeah, this wasn't the right thing to have done, and we need to find ways of being able to communicate with each other, which is critically important, but do it in a more classified fashion.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that they don't want to upset the apple cart with their senior leadership, and I can understand that. But at the end of the day, somebody ultimately was responsible for this, whether it's a Cabinet member or a committee staff and DFD or the National Security Council, I think every one of them probably should be looking at their procedures because you know that these intelligence seals have been broken, right, I mean, like, did nobody in the D and I's office say hey, maybe you shouldn't be talking about this kind of stuff on a signal chat. Same with all the other agencies. I just think everybody's you know, sort of the situational alertness needs to be reminded that they're handling highly sensitive classified information. And I can't imagine how naming a intelligence official who is it's against the law to describe them as a CIA operative is not classified. And that's one of the things that was in the communication. So I think all this debate about what's classified what's not is sort of beating around the bush. I think everyone the appropriate response today should have been, Yeah, this wasn't the right thing to have done, and we need to find ways of being able to communicate with each other, which is critically important, but do it in a more classified fashion.

Another instance in that naming of that CIA officer, where the Atlantic chose not to publish sensitive information here, classified information as the case may be. Roger, you had a top security clearance when you were in the Obama administration. You have a sense of the gravity here, and I'm wondering if we can tug on your other area of expertise, and that's political communications. From a crisis communications standpoint, what is the White House to do here? Do you just duck and cover let it blow over? Or to Kiley's point, does Donald Trump need a scalp?

Another instance in that naming of that CIA officer, where the Atlantic chose not to publish sensitive information here, classified information as the case may be. Roger, you had a top security clearance when you were in the Obama administration. You have a sense of the gravity here, and I'm wondering if we can tug on your other area of expertise, and that's political communications. From a crisis communications standpoint, what is the White House to do here? Do you just duck and cover let it blow over? Or to Kiley's point, does Donald Trump need a scalp?

The answer could very well be yes to all of those things. I subscribe to the idea of tell it all, tell it quick something as serious as national security, and frankly, anytime the list of individuals that are on that chat or having its classified.

The answer could very well be yes to all of those things. I subscribe to the idea of tell it all, tell it quick something as serious as national security, and frankly, anytime the list of individuals that are on that chat or having its classified.

It seems we're having a little bit of difficulty with Roger's connection there. We'll try to work on that rick as we consider not just the way in which this is being viewed domestically and how the administration may need to be messaging what happened here to a domestic audience. I also wonder about another audience that's at play, which is US allies, some of which share intelligence with the United States. There was some revealing dialogue taking place between officials, including the Vice President Jad Evans and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, about Europe and how they didn't want to be bailing out Europe again when it comes to shipping traffic through the Red Sea. If you're a European ally looking at this Atlantic article, what are you thinking, Well.

It seems we're having a little bit of difficulty with Roger's connection there. We'll try to work on that rick as we consider not just the way in which this is being viewed domestically and how the administration may need to be messaging what happened here to a domestic audience. I also wonder about another audience that's at play, which is US allies, some of which share intelligence with the United States. There was some revealing dialogue taking place between officials, including the Vice President Jad Evans and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, about Europe and how they didn't want to be bailing out Europe again when it comes to shipping traffic through the Red Sea. If you're a European ally looking at this Atlantic article, what are you thinking, Well.

Their red flags have been up for quite some time. Look, I mean the administration does carry a burden. I mean Donald Trump was under indictment for misuse of classified information in his post presidency, and so it wouldn't surprise anybody that we would have a problem like this, you know, since the leader of the team, the President United States, you know, took a relatively cavalier attitude toward our nation's secrets. So look, all of this flows down. There's a thing called the Five Eyes, which are our five closest partners, and we share intelligence with them in order to be able to prepare for any contingency. And there has been discussions as to whether or not our closing up relationship with Russia right now is going to precipitate a pullback from the normal course of business that the Five Eyes conducts by sharing that kind of sensitive information. So we hope not, because that's what helps keep the country safe and the world safe.

Their red flags have been up for quite some time. Look, I mean the administration does carry a burden. I mean Donald Trump was under indictment for misuse of classified information in his post presidency, and so it wouldn't surprise anybody that we would have a problem like this, you know, since the leader of the team, the President United States, you know, took a relatively cavalier attitude toward our nation's secrets. So look, all of this flows down. There's a thing called the Five Eyes, which are our five closest partners, and we share intelligence with them in order to be able to prepare for any contingency. And there has been discussions as to whether or not our closing up relationship with Russia right now is going to precipitate a pullback from the normal course of business that the Five Eyes conducts by sharing that kind of sensitive information. So we hope not, because that's what helps keep the country safe and the world safe.

Hey, Roger, we got a statement from the White House a little bit earlier. Doesn't mention signal of the subject line. Trump Administration's actions made who the terrorists pay, remembering it was the battle plans, the attack plans against Yemen that were being discussed in this signal chat. It says Democrats and their media allies have seen seemingly forgotten President Trump successfully killed terrorists who have targeted US troops and disrupted the most consequential shipping routes in the world. And then the text goes bold Roger, this is a coordinated effort to distract from the successful actions taken by the President his administration to make America's enemies pay and keep American safe. Is this an effective line of response?

Hey, Roger, we got a statement from the White House a little bit earlier. Doesn't mention signal of the subject line. Trump Administration's actions made who the terrorists pay, remembering it was the battle plans, the attack plans against Yemen that were being discussed in this signal chat. It says Democrats and their media allies have seen seemingly forgotten President Trump successfully killed terrorists who have targeted US troops and disrupted the most consequential shipping routes in the world. And then the text goes bold Roger, this is a coordinated effort to distract from the successful actions taken by the President his administration to make America's enemies pay and keep American safe. Is this an effective line of response?

Apparently an impossibly coordinated attempt. If we got all those folks to get on a signal chat and then leak it. To build on Rick's excellent point, we have to put ourselves in the minds of an Australia or a Germany, or a France or Canada. And we have to also remember that the current president in his first administration said that he could declassify things just by thinking about them. So if you have actionable intelligence specifically relevant to Russia, and when you ask Rick about whether or not we're seeing some of our allies pull back, you've got to think that your source, your methods are all going to be potentially compromised if you share that intelligence with the United States of America right now. And then you add on to this cavalier attitude that we see in the chat yesterday, which is just not serious sober national security professionals. I've been in these discussions, and that's not how these people conduct themselves. The backslapping, the chest thumping, et cetera. Then any reasonable ally would look at that and say, you know what, it's probably better that we don't share that information with the United States of America.

Apparently an impossibly coordinated attempt. If we got all those folks to get on a signal chat and then leak it. To build on Rick's excellent point, we have to put ourselves in the minds of an Australia or a Germany, or a France or Canada. And we have to also remember that the current president in his first administration said that he could declassify things just by thinking about them. So if you have actionable intelligence specifically relevant to Russia, and when you ask Rick about whether or not we're seeing some of our allies pull back, you've got to think that your source, your methods are all going to be potentially compromised if you share that intelligence with the United States of America right now. And then you add on to this cavalier attitude that we see in the chat yesterday, which is just not serious sober national security professionals. I've been in these discussions, and that's not how these people conduct themselves. The backslapping, the chest thumping, et cetera. Then any reasonable ally would look at that and say, you know what, it's probably better that we don't share that information with the United States of America.

Well, and just finally, Rick, we have about ninety seconds left here on the background of some of these individuals, like for example, Pete Hegseth, who as defed secretary is actually the one who reportedly shared the plans for Yemen. He was not a government official prior to you assuming that position. He served in the military, yes, but he was also a Fox News host. How much is the kind of inexperience of the typical workings of bureaucracy and security protocol at play here.

Well, and just finally, Rick, we have about ninety seconds left here on the background of some of these individuals, like for example, Pete Hegseth, who as defed secretary is actually the one who reportedly shared the plans for Yemen. He was not a government official prior to you assuming that position. He served in the military, yes, but he was also a Fox News host. How much is the kind of inexperience of the typical workings of bureaucracy and security protocol at play here.

Look my preference, I like people coming out of non government roles. I think sometimes we get stagnation with too many people who make government their life. So I wouldn't criticize that, because, look, if you're smart enough to serve in this role and get through Senate confirmation, you're smart enough to be able to play by the rules and to see traps. And regardless of what this looks like, it could have been just a trap, right in the sense that you see something that probably isn't right, maybe we shouldn't be on signal, and but you take action to do something about it. That's what we need, is just the awareness of our senior leadership to see these kinds of things. They happen every now and then. It's not necessarily intentional, but they've got to take action and say, hey, let's change this to talking on our secure computer system, because that is where we ought to be having this conversation.

Look my preference, I like people coming out of non government roles. I think sometimes we get stagnation with too many people who make government their life. So I wouldn't criticize that, because, look, if you're smart enough to serve in this role and get through Senate confirmation, you're smart enough to be able to play by the rules and to see traps. And regardless of what this looks like, it could have been just a trap, right in the sense that you see something that probably isn't right, maybe we shouldn't be on signal, and but you take action to do something about it. That's what we need, is just the awareness of our senior leadership to see these kinds of things. They happen every now and then. It's not necessarily intentional, but they've got to take action and say, hey, let's change this to talking on our secure computer system, because that is where we ought to be having this conversation.

All right, Well, we appreciate this conversation with our political panel here on Balance of Power, Rick Davis and Roger Fisk with us today, and we still have much more ahead as we turn to a partial ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Differences though on the timeline, and we'll get into that next here on Bloomberg TV than radio.

All right, Well, we appreciate this conversation with our political panel here on Balance of Power, Rick Davis and Roger Fisk with us today, and we still have much more ahead as we turn to a partial ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Differences though on the timeline, and we'll get into that next here on Bloomberg TV than radio.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business Up. 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 and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business Up. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

We broke the news shortly after twelve pm Eastern time news from Ukraine agreeing to a ceasefire in the Black Sea and now implementing, at least, according to President Zelenski, a partial energy infrastructure ceasefire. Kayley, these were two components that we had talked about quite a bit on the road to finding a lasting peace agreement in Ukraine. But we're getting some confusing messaging out of Moscow, making us wonder if the Kremlin and Kiev are actually on the same page yeah, or.

We broke the news shortly after twelve pm Eastern time news from Ukraine agreeing to a ceasefire in the Black Sea and now implementing, at least, according to President Zelenski, a partial energy infrastructure ceasefire. Kayley, these were two components that we had talked about quite a bit on the road to finding a lasting peace agreement in Ukraine. But we're getting some confusing messaging out of Moscow, making us wonder if the Kremlin and Kiev are actually on the same page yeah, or.

If the US is also on that page with the two of them, as they are acting as the mediator here. The Kremlin suggesting that Russia and the US have further discussions to have about the actual implementation of the energy infrastructure sees fire, and that when it comes to the Black Sea agreement, which they said they did make, it's contingent on the relaxation of sanctions, specifically on financial institutions that deal with Russian agricultural export. So is the deal done or not? And what is the actual timeline? Here are the questions that we have.

If the US is also on that page with the two of them, as they are acting as the mediator here. The Kremlin suggesting that Russia and the US have further discussions to have about the actual implementation of the energy infrastructure sees fire, and that when it comes to the Black Sea agreement, which they said they did make, it's contingent on the relaxation of sanctions, specifically on financial institutions that deal with Russian agricultural export. So is the deal done or not? And what is the actual timeline? Here are the questions that we have.

Yeah, the more we learn, the more questions we have. We explored some of this gray area on the late edition of Balance of Power yesterday with Ukraine's ambassador to the US, Oksana Markarova.

Yeah, the more we learn, the more questions we have. We explored some of this gray area on the late edition of Balance of Power yesterday with Ukraine's ambassador to the US, Oksana Markarova.

We will see with Russia they have to show it not only by woods, but was they gids.

We will see with Russia they have to show it not only by woods, but was they gids.

We heard from President Trump on a potential minerals deal with Ukraine just about completed. We'll be signing it soon, he said, are you really that far along?

We heard from President Trump on a potential minerals deal with Ukraine just about completed. We'll be signing it soon, he said, are you really that far along?

Well, you know, as the former Minister of Finance and during my four years as an ambassador, I always pushed for a bigger cooperation between US and Ukraine. And there are many areas we can do that. I mean, mineral deals is one of them. Energy, infrastructure, innovations and engineering everywhere, all these sectors where Ukraine can be a solution to so many global problems and where we together can actually add to security and to prosperity of both of our countries. So our first Vice Prime Minister and Secretary of Vesant are in active discussions and the more we can do together on the economic and investment front, the better for both.

Well, you know, as the former Minister of Finance and during my four years as an ambassador, I always pushed for a bigger cooperation between US and Ukraine. And there are many areas we can do that. I mean, mineral deals is one of them. Energy, infrastructure, innovations and engineering everywhere, all these sectors where Ukraine can be a solution to so many global problems and where we together can actually add to security and to prosperity of both of our countries. So our first Vice Prime Minister and Secretary of Vesant are in active discussions and the more we can do together on the economic and investment front, the better for both.

Of our countries.

Of our countries.

Of course, peace is something that is on everyone's mind. We need for Russia to stop disaggression and we need to return to peace. But there is a lot we can do together.

Of course, peace is something that is on everyone's mind. We need for Russia to stop disaggression and we need to return to peace. But there is a lot we can do together.

Well, you mentioned energy. There is it going to stop it just the minerals deal because we now have the administration flowing ideas around controlling Ukrainian nuclear power plants, for example, having an ownership role to play. Can you shed some light on those conversations.

Well, you mentioned energy. There is it going to stop it just the minerals deal because we now have the administration flowing ideas around controlling Ukrainian nuclear power plants, for example, having an ownership role to play. Can you shed some light on those conversations.

Well, again, as I said, there are many industries where we can cooperate and Ukraine energy is one of the top four or five industries where Ukraine even during the war, at the beginning of this full fledged Warfhase, Ukraine was exporting electricity. That's why Russia is a take in our energy because this is one of the competitive advantages that we had. Similar with agribusiness, similar with infrastructure, and again defense tech and everything else. We really would like to cooperate more with US, of course with European partners and others, but I think there is a lot we can do with American companies.

Well, again, as I said, there are many industries where we can cooperate and Ukraine energy is one of the top four or five industries where Ukraine even during the war, at the beginning of this full fledged Warfhase, Ukraine was exporting electricity. That's why Russia is a take in our energy because this is one of the competitive advantages that we had. Similar with agribusiness, similar with infrastructure, and again defense tech and everything else. We really would like to cooperate more with US, of course with European partners and others, but I think there is a lot we can do with American companies.

Ambassador, I just want to put a finer point on a couple of things that we've brought up with the spirit of cooperation in mind. And I understand the sentiment of that statement that you're making, But is a minerals deal about to be signed or will more negotiations be acquired? And is an energy infrastructure cease fire actually in effect? Has it been signed?

Ambassador, I just want to put a finer point on a couple of things that we've brought up with the spirit of cooperation in mind. And I understand the sentiment of that statement that you're making, But is a minerals deal about to be signed or will more negotiations be acquired? And is an energy infrastructure cease fire actually in effect? Has it been signed?

Well, we had discussing it very actively. Definitely is not going to be I mean, I think both teams are very focused on doing it and doing it pretty fast. But of course, you know, as we all know in investment and finance, I mean, you have to discuss everything. The more you agree and discuss everything before you sign, the better and partnership afterwards. But we're doing it at a very quick pace.

Well, we had discussing it very actively. Definitely is not going to be I mean, I think both teams are very focused on doing it and doing it pretty fast. But of course, you know, as we all know in investment and finance, I mean, you have to discuss everything. The more you agree and discuss everything before you sign, the better and partnership afterwards. But we're doing it at a very quick pace.

Speaking of quick pace, the White House appears to be targeting for a full seasfire to start April twentieth. Is that a timeline that Ukraine seas as realistic? It's just weeks away at this.

Speaking of quick pace, the White House appears to be targeting for a full seasfire to start April twentieth. Is that a timeline that Ukraine seas as realistic? It's just weeks away at this.

Point, well even more than a week ago. Our president said we're ready for it. So again it takes two to dance, and Ukraine wants this sea is fire. We're ready for seasfire. We actually want a full fledged and just peace, you know, but it's not going to be Ukraine that is going to be impediment for that.

Point, well even more than a week ago. Our president said we're ready for it. So again it takes two to dance, and Ukraine wants this sea is fire. We're ready for seasfire. We actually want a full fledged and just peace, you know, but it's not going to be Ukraine that is going to be impediment for that.

That was our conversation or part of it with the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Oxana Makarova yesterday, of course showed today the narrative seems to have changed slightly, although we still lack a great deal of clarity as to the actual implementation of this partial ceasefire, and just getting some headlines out of Riad Saudi Arabia, where Ukrainian officials still are It's Defense minister saying Ukraine is ready for a new meeting to work out true details, suggesting there is still things that need to be worked out.

That was our conversation or part of it with the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Oxana Makarova yesterday, of course showed today the narrative seems to have changed slightly, although we still lack a great deal of clarity as to the actual implementation of this partial ceasefire, and just getting some headlines out of Riad Saudi Arabia, where Ukrainian officials still are It's Defense minister saying Ukraine is ready for a new meeting to work out true details, suggesting there is still things that need to be worked out.

Yeah, we may have been a little over our skis, and by that I mean Ukraine and the US helping them announce these headlines at noontime Eastern today. It's not even two o'clock yet, and we have a sense that this may not have been exactly what it appeared. A great timing to have Mara Rudman with us in studio today, joining us here on Balance of Power, professor at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, former US diplomat Great to see you and thank you so much for coming. Read between the lines for us here what feels real at the moment. Did Ukraine speak too soon?

Yeah, we may have been a little over our skis, and by that I mean Ukraine and the US helping them announce these headlines at noontime Eastern today. It's not even two o'clock yet, and we have a sense that this may not have been exactly what it appeared. A great timing to have Mara Rudman with us in studio today, joining us here on Balance of Power, professor at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, former US diplomat Great to see you and thank you so much for coming. Read between the lines for us here what feels real at the moment. Did Ukraine speak too soon?

I'm not sure if Ukraine spoke too soon because the United States had also put out statements. I think Ukraine is trying to navigate being forward leaning in terms of responding to what the United States wants and how they want it said and put and knowing that their Russian counterpart is not doing the same and it's perhaps being measured by different terms. So I think that the Ukrainians put out what they were what they had thought they had agreed to, which is the Baltic See issue, the black seat issues, which by the way benefit Russia on more than Ukraine. So they were coming in putting that out, showing their willingness, and the Russians had been silent and apparently have been have come out now more recently something but much more measured. So it could be a failure of the United States negotiators to recognize they were in parallel negotiations that they hadn't gotten Russia. It could be them trying to push Russia further publicly by showing what Ukraine is willing to do, but in any case, it continues to put Ukraine an uncomfortable position.

I'm not sure if Ukraine spoke too soon because the United States had also put out statements. I think Ukraine is trying to navigate being forward leaning in terms of responding to what the United States wants and how they want it said and put and knowing that their Russian counterpart is not doing the same and it's perhaps being measured by different terms. So I think that the Ukrainians put out what they were what they had thought they had agreed to, which is the Baltic See issue, the black seat issues, which by the way benefit Russia on more than Ukraine. So they were coming in putting that out, showing their willingness, and the Russians had been silent and apparently have been have come out now more recently something but much more measured. So it could be a failure of the United States negotiators to recognize they were in parallel negotiations that they hadn't gotten Russia. It could be them trying to push Russia further publicly by showing what Ukraine is willing to do, but in any case, it continues to put Ukraine an uncomfortable position.

Well, and when we consider what Russia said, it was that yes, they agreed to a Black Sea ceasefire, but it was on a contingent upon sanctions relief. What do you make, Mara, of the suggestion that sanctions relief could already be coming despite it not being a full ceasefire agreement.

Well, and when we consider what Russia said, it was that yes, they agreed to a Black Sea ceasefire, but it was on a contingent upon sanctions relief. What do you make, Mara, of the suggestion that sanctions relief could already be coming despite it not being a full ceasefire agreement.

I make that the Russians believe at least that they are calling the shots here and that they say jump and the United States says how high and then translates that to the Ukrainians. So they're trying to get more from a deal. The questions whether they said that in the room to Steve Witkoff and others, or whether they're now saying it after the fact.

I make that the Russians believe at least that they are calling the shots here and that they say jump and the United States says how high and then translates that to the Ukrainians. So they're trying to get more from a deal. The questions whether they said that in the room to Steve Witkoff and others, or whether they're now saying it after the fact.

At this point, we see a couple of headlines crossing the terminal that I just want to mention. Russia says it is not considering the trans for of the Zaparijia nuclear power plant, which is something that had been floated by President Trump at one point he said, we're dividing up land. We're talking about power plants, also announcing the White House here that the President will be meeting with US ambassadors a bit later two forty five pm, and I wonder if the signal story is going to come up. This is something that we've been talking about. I don't know why else you're corralling all US ambassadors. There's a bit of concern about the way this is being received, not just at home, but also by our allies abroad, the sharing of war plans on the signal app inadvertently to a journalist. We saw some pretty tough testimony today on Capitol Hill with the two top intelligence officials in this administration, Tulsea Gabbard, CIA Director Ratcliffe, suggesting that classified information was not shared on this app How do we say that with a straight face?

At this point, we see a couple of headlines crossing the terminal that I just want to mention. Russia says it is not considering the trans for of the Zaparijia nuclear power plant, which is something that had been floated by President Trump at one point he said, we're dividing up land. We're talking about power plants, also announcing the White House here that the President will be meeting with US ambassadors a bit later two forty five pm, and I wonder if the signal story is going to come up. This is something that we've been talking about. I don't know why else you're corralling all US ambassadors. There's a bit of concern about the way this is being received, not just at home, but also by our allies abroad, the sharing of war plans on the signal app inadvertently to a journalist. We saw some pretty tough testimony today on Capitol Hill with the two top intelligence officials in this administration, Tulsea Gabbard, CIA Director Ratcliffe, suggesting that classified information was not shared on this app How do we say that with a straight face?

So I'm glad I wasn't the one in the position of having to say it. Judging from my past experience in the as a staffer or senior staffer at the National Security Council, I would say that the only way you can interpret that last statement as accurate is if the Secretary of Defense, I think they're pointing at this, for example, on his own unilaterally declassified information, for example, information about war planning. He would have had to have moved that information from the high side the classified side to what is an unclassified system signal, whether encrypted or not. So somehow they may be interpreting that in the process of doing that, that should be read as a de facto declassification in an audit, it would be if there is that kind of thorough audit. I think some on the Hill want it. It's not clear that others do. I've got as I was surprised with Chairman Tom Conton, who is, by any measure of warhawk on, someone who I'm sure is very careful himself about security operations. I was surprised at his unwillingness to lean into those questions.

So I'm glad I wasn't the one in the position of having to say it. Judging from my past experience in the as a staffer or senior staffer at the National Security Council, I would say that the only way you can interpret that last statement as accurate is if the Secretary of Defense, I think they're pointing at this, for example, on his own unilaterally declassified information, for example, information about war planning. He would have had to have moved that information from the high side the classified side to what is an unclassified system signal, whether encrypted or not. So somehow they may be interpreting that in the process of doing that, that should be read as a de facto declassification in an audit, it would be if there is that kind of thorough audit. I think some on the Hill want it. It's not clear that others do. I've got as I was surprised with Chairman Tom Conton, who is, by any measure of warhawk on, someone who I'm sure is very careful himself about security operations. I was surprised at his unwillingness to lean into those questions.

Well, we certainly saw the leaning in on the behalf of others Democratic senators specifically on this, And I wonder, as we consider the troubling nature of a number of factors of this story, is it so much about the way in which these officials were communicating with each other or what it may signal in terms of not just internal US government intelligence sharing, but external intelligence sharing with partners who may not want their classified information transmitted through means such as signal.

Well, we certainly saw the leaning in on the behalf of others Democratic senators specifically on this, And I wonder, as we consider the troubling nature of a number of factors of this story, is it so much about the way in which these officials were communicating with each other or what it may signal in terms of not just internal US government intelligence sharing, but external intelligence sharing with partners who may not want their classified information transmitted through means such as signal.

Sure, I think it's in all of the above. So certainly what they were communicating was a huge problem. How they were communicating, it was a huge problem. And then I would go further to say, in the context of what they were communicating, they show they have a very different view of who our friends and partners and allies are than is commonly understood. It differs from the history of the United States in terms of the importance of our relationship with Europe, of Canada, of Australia, of those who are in the Five Eyes Agreement, which is not Russia and not China. And yet in the kinds of language they use and how they talk about things, and in what they're doing on these essentially open systems. Signal is encrypted, but it's an open source means of communicating. They're showing an utter disregard for those for whom the United States has traditionally and I would argue needs to rely in the future partnerships or partnerships for a reason we.

Sure, I think it's in all of the above. So certainly what they were communicating was a huge problem. How they were communicating, it was a huge problem. And then I would go further to say, in the context of what they were communicating, they show they have a very different view of who our friends and partners and allies are than is commonly understood. It differs from the history of the United States in terms of the importance of our relationship with Europe, of Canada, of Australia, of those who are in the Five Eyes Agreement, which is not Russia and not China. And yet in the kinds of language they use and how they talk about things, and in what they're doing on these essentially open systems. Signal is encrypted, but it's an open source means of communicating. They're showing an utter disregard for those for whom the United States has traditionally and I would argue needs to rely in the future partnerships or partnerships for a reason we.

Got to stavement from the White House earlier. Today. It doesn't mention signal, but refers to a coordinated effort to distract from the successful actions taken by President Trump and his administration to make America's enemies pay and keep Americans safe. Refers to the Biden administration sitting back as a band of pirates exacted a toll system and one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. Does that give you a sense of how the White House is going to handle this. It doesn't sound like anyone's getting fired.

Got to stavement from the White House earlier. Today. It doesn't mention signal, but refers to a coordinated effort to distract from the successful actions taken by President Trump and his administration to make America's enemies pay and keep Americans safe. Refers to the Biden administration sitting back as a band of pirates exacted a toll system and one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. Does that give you a sense of how the White House is going to handle this. It doesn't sound like anyone's getting fired.

It gives me a sense of a lack of appreciation, may bee willful lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the situation. It also, you know, I have to say I did not serve in the Biden administration, but I was an acute observer from the outside. And it's a serious, serious allegations and quite unfair allegations about what the Biden musician did or didn't do with respect to the Hutus. They certainly took a number of actions. You can disagree with the intensity of their actions, but using that kind of language is as problematic as using the language that was reported to be on the signal chat about European allies.

It gives me a sense of a lack of appreciation, may bee willful lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the situation. It also, you know, I have to say I did not serve in the Biden administration, but I was an acute observer from the outside. And it's a serious, serious allegations and quite unfair allegations about what the Biden musician did or didn't do with respect to the Hutus. They certainly took a number of actions. You can disagree with the intensity of their actions, but using that kind of language is as problematic as using the language that was reported to be on the signal chat about European allies.

We just have a minute left. But to the point you were making on the discussions of europe Pete hegseeth suggesting their freeloaders JD. Van saying he doesn't want to bail them out again. Do you see that as a misunderstanding of what actually is at stake in the Red Sea, because they seemed to think it was mostly Europe's problem, that the US didn't really necessarily need to be doing this.

We just have a minute left. But to the point you were making on the discussions of europe Pete hegseeth suggesting their freeloaders JD. Van saying he doesn't want to bail them out again. Do you see that as a misunderstanding of what actually is at stake in the Red Sea, because they seemed to think it was mostly Europe's problem, that the US didn't really necessarily need to be doing this.

I would view it more broadly as a miss and more in a deeper sense, as a misunderstanding of how to best achieve US security and protect the American people, and free international shipping lanes are part of that, and also having a strong partnership with allies in Europe, our NATO, allies who have been with US and who have benefited from being with us, but the United States has also benefited in return. So I think you put the United States at serious jeopardy with those kinds of statements and allegations.

I would view it more broadly as a miss and more in a deeper sense, as a misunderstanding of how to best achieve US security and protect the American people, and free international shipping lanes are part of that, and also having a strong partnership with allies in Europe, our NATO, allies who have been with US and who have benefited from being with us, but the United States has also benefited in return. So I think you put the United States at serious jeopardy with those kinds of statements and allegations.

All Right, Former US diplomat Maura Rudman, now at University of Virginia's Miller Center, here with us in our Washington, d C studio on this story.

All Right, Former US diplomat Maura Rudman, now at University of Virginia's Miller Center, here with us in our Washington, d C studio on this story.

Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.