Trump's 100 Days Signal New World Order | Balance of Power: Late Edition

Speaker A [00:00:02]:

From the world of politics to the world of business, this is Balance of Power.

Speaker B [00:00:19]:

Live from Washington, D.C. 100 days ago this week, we inherited the wreckage of four years of economic disaster under the previous administration. It was an economic disaster. It was a disaster at the border like nobody had ever seen before. And you probably see we've closed up the border 99.999%, meaning three people got in. 3. As opposed to hundreds of thousands of people coming in on a monthly basis. Millions of people. Actually. The periods where we had millions and millions of people pouring in on a monthly basis, we had three people. They buried companies in crippling regulations, waged war on American energy, pushed massive tax hikes, and gave us the worst inflation in the history of our country. 

In Biden's final year, the United States had the worst trade deficit ever recorded, and we lost 106,000 manufacturing jobs. Other than that, he's done a fantastic job. But now all that is changing, and all that's changing very fast because we finally have the president who wants to put our country first. You have a president who believes in America first in the first quarter. GDP numbers just out today. Core gdp now we're removing distortions from imports, inventories, and government spending was up plus 3%. 

But this is Biden's economy because we took over on January 20th, and I think you have to get us a little bit of time to get moving. But this is the Biden economy. But we still had a. And we've had a lot of things happen since November 5th that helped this economy because it was indicating a strong private sector growth. And it was only. It only started after November 5. The private sector started really heating up after the election. Even though I wasn't there, people knew what we were going to be doing. And the private sector growth was actually very good. Very importantly, gross domestic investment was up an incredible 22%, which they had never seen before. 

Every new investment, every new factory, and every new job created is a sign of strength in American economy and a declaration of confidence in America's future. We really do. We've never seen anything like this. Even Samsung, which, whose name isn't mentioned here, but I heard that they announced this morning that they're going to be building a very big plant because they want to be able to beat the tariffs. 

That's the only way to beat them. The entire Trump economic agenda is about making it easier to do business in America, to create jobs in America, to hire American workers, and to build your factories here in America, not in China or any other country. And we're dealing with many, many countries right now. I will say, and I think I can say for Scott and for Howard and for some of the people that are dealing too many to handle. I mean, to be honest with you, I'd have to hire about. I'd love to hire some of the people running these companies. 

Boy, would you do, Would you do a good job? I could have Jensen negotiate. He'd blow my people away. Wouldn't you? I think even Howard, even Howard would say that. Howard would say we'll take them. He'd blow them away with big deals. One, one deal would be the end. That would be it. But we've terminated the green new scam. It was a scam and halted tens of billions of dollars of money. Wasteful deficit spending. It was like throwing money right out the window. And in the coming weeks, we'll pass the largest tax cuts in American history. 

And I think even more so, we'll be doing things for business like you've never seen before. You saw it in a little smaller version at the beginning of our last term. You know, we had the most successful four years that any president has ever had. The stock market was up 88%. The other markets were up almost 100%. And that's despite Covid and all the crazy things happening. 

But we had a tremendous four years. We're giving credit for that actually. But our big beautiful bill, as I call it, our big beautiful bill, we may name it, that actually will include 100% expensing retroactive to January 20th. So that's all the way back to just about the beginning of the year. So expensing one year, you take a deduction one year so you can build your factories right now essentially almost tax free. If you think about it, nobody's ever been given that. 

And we're going to make that expensing for a four year period at a full 100%. So last time we made it one year and you had deductions, you do, from 100% to 80 to 60 to 40 to 20 to Zippo. And now what we're going to do is we're going to keep it at that level and we're going to have it for four years. So I believe that was one of the reasons that we had such unbelievable growth. Also we allowed you to bring money back from outside of the country. It was impossible. You had to have, have 15 different law firms representing you was so complicated and worse was that the tax rate was 65%. I lowered the rate substantially, but still a lot. 

You know, we shouldn't take your money, just hold you hostage, right? So we lowered it to a reasonable amount and we took in trillions of dollars, came back, Apple brought in a tremendous amount of money. A lot of the companies here brought in a lot of money. And the businesses represented today clearly understand that if you build your factory in the United States, your tariff rate is zero. And you have other advantages, too, and not the least of which is what I just said having to do with the bill. Now, we have to get that bill approved. 

So call your local representative, please, and make sure that we get it approved, because I don't want to talk too early, but we're doing well with the Republican Congress. We have. The Senate is doing great and the House is doing great. John Thune has been spectacular. Mike Johnson has been speaker, has been spectacular. Marcia, you're in there working very hard and doing well. What do you think? Are we going to get it passed? We have to, Marcia. We don't get it passed. I'm blaming you. We have to. We have to get it passed. 

We will. I think we will. But I don't think we'll have any Democrat votes if we don't get it passed. What would happen is your taxes go up 68%. Think of that. And we may not get one vote because they just vote against. It's Trump derangement syndrome. Or maybe it's just they hate Republicans or they hate what we're doing because they've lost their confidence. They've totally lost their confidence. They don't know what the hell is going on. And we are going to get it done. It's probably going to be fully Republican. Fortunately, we have the House, we have the Senate, and we may or may not have a couple of grandstanders. I don't know. But if we do, it would be good if you could work on anybody. I mean, if I were a Democrat, I'd be voting for it 100%.

Speaker C [00:07:37]:

President Donald Trump speaking from the White House live on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Welcome to a special edition of Balance OF Power alongside Joe Matthew. I'm Kailey Leinz. As we hear the president speaking at an Investing in America event as he marks 100 days in office. Now in the second set of 100 days, the President contending, Joe, that there has been more than $2 trillion announced by the companies. 

The room at the White House in new investment says there's been a total of close to $8 trillion. All told that we know some of that money was actually committed prior. That's to him retaking the presidency. But interesting to hear from him as well. Not just on tax bill working its way through Congress in which he says in the coming weeks he expects the largest tax cuts in American history will be passed, but also the economic data of today referring to import distortions in the weak GDP print. We got, of course, a decline of 3, 10 of 1%, saying you need to give us a little time to get moving. But this is the Biden economy.

Speaker D [00:08:30]:

To use the Biden economy, the Biden markets, as he suggested today. And we should be clear, there really was not much news coming out of this. It was a room full. Even Jensen Huang from Nvidia in the room there. But no new investments were announced. The real news today is indeed the reading on gdp. And joining us now with more is Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who joins us live from Capitol Hill. Senator, it's great to have you back. So here we are with our first economic contraction since 2022. Are we already in a recession?Speaker E [00:09:01]:Well, some economists think we're already in a recession. And the overwhelming majority say if we're not already, we are certainly sliding into one. The damage done by the chaos around the Trump tariffs has really delivered a body blow to our economy. And of course, we've seen it in the stock market, we've seen it in the bond market. But look, where we really are on this is that families are struggling and they're delivering that message. 

Remember how Donald Trump won? He said he would lower costs on day one. Those were his words. On day one, he gets elected. He immediately says that is one of the main reasons he won. We are 100 days in and what has happened, the economy has shrunk and the price of groceries is up for families all across this country. That's a bad economic outlook.

Speaker C [00:09:58]:

Well, when we consider that outlook, then, Senator, knowing we are a week away from the Federal Reserve's next rate decision, if they choose not to cut next week to wait to June or July or even after that, would President Trump be right, that Chairman Powell risks being too late?

Speaker E [00:10:13]:

You know, the problem now is, is the crisis that Donald Trump has created. Chairman Powell said as soon as Donald Trump started announcing these red light, green light tariffs, that we were going to have tariffs across the board on virtually every nation, on virtually every product, that the consequence of that would be to do two things. One is to drive up prices, in other words, an increase in inflation, and two, to drive up unemployment. Unemployment. And you all know what that means. That's Stagflation, and it neuters the Fed's only tool, and that is changing the interest rates. 

Because if they increase the interest rates, that will help push down inflation, but it will drive up unemployment. And of course, the reverse is true. If they lower interest rates, they run the risk of setting inflation afloat. Flame at this point. So Donald Trump has created a crisis and now the tool that the Fed would use becomes much less effective for the Fed to actually be able to use it. This is Donald Trump's problem and he has created it and now compounded it.

Speaker D [00:11:29]:

Well, we want to get to your reaction, Congressional reaction, Democratic reaction to the tariff policies, Senator, because shortly after this interview, you're going to force a vote that our audience should know about over the president's tariff authority here. I know you have a couple of Republicans on board, but this appears to be going nowhere in the House. And I wonder, is there anything that Democrats can do beyond a symbolic gesture to become a check on the president's policy here?

Speaker E [00:11:55]:

So, so let's just remember, just so everyone understands, why is it that the President of the United States can wake up in the morning and announce one tariff policy and by mid afternoon be in a second one and by evening be in a third one? It's all because there is a statutory provision that says in an emergency the president can impose sanctions, but Congress can say, hey, there's no emergency, so we get to roll that back. 

And that's what Senator Wyden and I have now proposed. This is the bill that will be on the floor later today to just roll back Donald Trump's authority to move in and say, tariffs up, tariffs down, exception for you, higher tariffs for you over there. The significance of this is, look, all the Democrats support it. That's not an issue. It's really to put the Republicans on the record. You understand what kind of damage this tariff red light, green light is creating. Republicans. So you have the opportunity right here to take a stand and say, we're actually going to put some curbs on what Donald Trump does. 

They can vote for the resolution or they can continue to say, nope, the only power in Washington is with Donald Trump. They can bend a knee to Donald Trump and say to all Americans who are suffering because of higher prices and a shrinking economy and to all of the world that says the United States is not a reliable trading partner. We have the opportunity, if the Republicans will join us, to put some curbs on Donald Trump and to reverse the damage he's doing. We'll find out if the Republicans are only here to take a knee to Donald Trump or if they actually are willing to stand up for the American people.

Speaker C [00:13:49]:

Well, last we spoke with you, Senator, you argued that it was not just about Republicans in Congress, but about others in the Trump administration, including the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessen, who should be taking action here. We know that Besson is testifying in the House Financial Services Committee next week. Do you expect him to appear before the Banking Committee? And what will he need to answer for if he does so look, Secretary.

Speaker E [00:14:12]:

Besson is going to have to expect explain he's out here as the number one apologist for Donald Trump. And some of the things I want to know from Secretary Bessen is what is he doing going in front of a closed door group of well heeled stock traders and people who are active in the market and giving advance information about where tariff policy is headed. 

I just want to make sure that Secretary Bessen understands, understands he doesn't just work for a handful of Wall street investors and how to make them richer. He's actually here to work for the American people and to provide stability in the stock market. And part of that is to reassure people that it is not corruption, that it is not a rigged game. I'd like to hear from Secretary Bessant about that and in fact have already sent him a letter about that. But I'd like to get him in a hearing and just be able to ask him a little more about that.

Speaker D [00:15:08]:

Sounds like you want to talk to Jeff Bezos as well. And you did send a letter.

Speaker E [00:15:11]:

I do.

Speaker D [00:15:12]:

To him this morning. Senator, you're calling on Mr. Bezos to disclose information about his conversation with President Trump following reports that Amazon was going to itemize the cost of tariffs on products for consumers. Of course, Amazon is not doing that. The White House called that idea hostile and political. So here we are. Senator, should publicly traded companies in the United States assume that Donald Trump is the de facto chairman of their boards?

Speaker E [00:15:39]:

I like the way you have put it. That certainly is how he wants to behave. But listen to that underlying message. What Donald Trump is saying is if the American people can see clearly what his tariffs are costing them, that creates a real problem for Donald Trump and for the Republicans in Congress. 

So his solution is not to do something more sensible on tariffs. His solution is to try to end access to the information and to persuade Jeff Bezos that he needs to erase that information. And yes, I want to hear about that conversation. In fact, I want to hear about all of the conversations that Donald Trump has with his million dollar donors and what it is he is both promising and threatening as he tries to create even more chaos and corruption in our economy.

Speaker C [00:16:41]:

Senator, I'd like to ask you about something else. As he's working on making deals with trading partners, or at least his administration is. They're also working on a deal with Ukraine suggesting a major minerals deal specifically could be signed as early as this afternoon if Ukraine is willing. Should that be taking the form of a formal treaty? Should the Senate have a chance to weigh in on that?

Speaker E [00:17:01]:

Yes, the Senate should have an opportunity to weigh in. Look, the Senate has, and the House long supported Ukraine. It's Donald Trump who has persuaded a handful of extremists that somehow this country needs to be on the side of the aggressor, on the side of Russia. That is fundamentally wrong. 

The Ukrainians are fighting on the front lines for democracy. And understand this. If Vladimir Putin can get away with an invasion of Ukraine, it's not like he will be full and he will stop there. He's going to continue to come after more and more of his neighbors. That is a threat to all of Europe, but it is also ultimately a threat to the United States of America. I know that Donald Trump seems to have some kind of love relationship with Vladimir Putin, although lately they seem to have had a spat. But at the end of the day, the interests of the United States are with Europe and, and with Ukraine. We need to be once again a dependable ally. That's what matters most.

Speaker C [00:18:17]:

All right, Senator, we know you have that vote to get to that we were just discussing, but we appreciate you joining us. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Banking Committee. We appreciate your time, and we are still keeping an eye on the White House as President. Trump is speaking at an Investing in America event, basically reiterating much we've heard from him in the past, but if he does make any news, we will be bringing that to you here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. 

We've already heard him discussing his push to extend his 2017 tax cuts and take them even further. Promises that he now has to rely on Congress to keep. In addition to the remarks he just made, here's some other things he shared in the last 100 days.

Speaker B [00:18:53]:

I'll be working with Congress to get a bill on my desk that cuts taxes for workers, families, small businesses, and very importantly, keeps my promise, no tax on tips. We're going to make a lot of money and we're going to cut taxes for the people of this country. 

It'll take a little while before we do that, that but we're going to be cutting taxes and it's possible we'll do a complete tax cut because I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax. We call it the one big beautiful bill. With us, it'll be the biggest tax cut in American history.

Speaker C [00:19:28]:

And joining us now for more here on Bloomberg TV and radio is the former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Kevin Brady. He's now a spokesperson for the alliance of Competitive Tax for Competitive Taxation and senior consultant at Aiken. Mr. Chairman, welcome back to Balance of Power. When we consider all of the promises the president has made here, it really is a go time for Congress to try to work all of that into legislation that can pass. If there is anything the president isn't going to get that he's asked for, what would it be?

Speaker F [00:19:59]:

Well, I don't know. You know, he's, he's moved with incredible pace these first 100 days. There have been second terms for presidents. I don't think there's ever been one where the president had a halftime to go to the locker room, rest up, have a strategy and just come blowing out of that locker room. That's what we're seeing today. 

I think on the plus side here with, with the economy, certainly the pace congressional Republicans have set for the tax cuts and getting the reconciliation bill agreed to right now and moving forward, it is very impressive on a very difficult challenge. So getting that done this summer would be a huge achievement. So that's key. Secondly, deregulation. President Biden even, even his colleagues would admit he set levels of regulatory costs that no other president has even come close to nearly $2 trillion. So President Trump has responded by pulling back some of those very politically motivated regulation and trying to eliminate more regulations than you add. 

I think that's been key new investment in the US Announcements we've seen from businesses I think are very helpful from that standpoint. I think the main thing for him right now, certainly Americans support the president's idea that unfair trade practices and unfair tariff levels, you know, make it more difficult for Americans to sell our products and goods around the world. They, they also want to see more manufacturing on those essential products we need here in America. Covid sort of showed us the way on some of that. What they're concerned about is the approach, what tariffs will do for rising prices, what it could do, you know, for the retirement for the economy as a whole. 

And so from that standpoint, I think the key to answer your question, you know, what the President and what Congress will want to do is really lock down some of these tariff agreements. You know, create more certainty for the economy for businesses to invest whatever size you are as well. So I think the next six, 90 days, Excuse me, are really going to be critical for him to sort of sell the country that, that this vision, this approach is going to work for them.

Speaker D [00:22:14]:

Mr. Chairman, it's good to have you back. I'm sure your antennas are up. As four House committees begin marking up legislation that's going to be part of the reconciliation process. Your former Ways and Means Committee has an enormous amount of work to do when it comes to extending the Trump tax cuts. 

I think one of the concerns we're hearing though, on Capitol Hill is the goalposts keep moving. Mr. Chairman, in Michigan last night, Donald Trump said, forget cutting Medicaid, Republicans will increase Medicaid spending. At what point are we going to set the baseline so lawmakers can do their job?

Speaker F [00:22:45]:

What I think, Joe, what's happening here is that as Republicans have looked into the Medicaid program and clearly in this bill, they are not going to cut Medicaid. They're going to end up growing it by between a trillion and trillion half dollars. 

So they're looking at slowing that growth. What they're finding is besides improper payments, people who are ineligible Americans who should be back working, you know, rather than just sitting home and collecting Medicaid, that there are opportunities to, to help the most vulnerable populations in Medicaid, which is what you would hope if you're cutting away the waste and the abuse and, and the wrong use of those dollars, apply those and you have more to apply to those most at risk. And I think that's what the president was referring to yesterday, that those savings and the integrity provisions can help bolster the most vulnerable.

Speaker D [00:23:40]:

Kevin Brady, the former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, senior consultant at Aiken. Mr. Chairman, we've got something interesting happening. An important moment at the White House that we want to bring our viewers and listeners to. Right now, the CEO of In Video, Jensen Huang, is speaking live with President Trump. Let's listen on Bloomberg.

Speaker G [00:23:57]:

United States wouldn't have accelerated to this pace. Manufacturing. Manufacturing isn't about low cost labor anymore. Manufacturing is about technology. And most of the factories that build these systems today are the most advanced factories in the future. And we're going to use artificial intelligence and robotics and Omniverse digital twin technology to make it possible for us to create the factories of the future. 

And we ought to build it. We ought to build it Right here. The real amazing thing is that this computer is the engine of a whole new industry. And this new industry is called artificial intelligence. And this new industry is a manufacturing industry in itself. That's a factory machine. Just as several hundred years ago the dynamo was invented, water would come in and electricity would come out. Now electricity goes into this machine and incredible tokens come out. 

Artificial intelligence. In order for this industry to thrive, we need to build these systems, of course, but we also need a progressive growth and industry oriented energy policy, which this President has really put his weight behind. I really appreciate that. Without energy, we can't possibly have new growth industries. And we now have the backing of the administration, the backing of President Trump to support the creation of a whole new industry. This industry is going to enable a whole bunch of other industries. 

What we now call the AI infrastructure is going to revolutionize every industry that we know. All of the many CEOs in the room today are great partners of ours. For that reason, we're working on artificial intelligence for many industries, from healthcare to drug discovery to life sciences, financial services, education, so many different industries. And that's going to be possible because we have the fundamental infrastructure here in the United States. And so I want to thank you, sir, for everything that you've done and the strong encouragement and the great policies that make it possible for us. Thank you, sir.

Speaker B [00:26:01]:

Thanks.

Speaker C [00:26:06]:

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, speaking alongside President Trump at this White House Investing in America event, referring to manufacturing not being now about low cost manufacturing, but instead about technology and praising the President for the encouragement and bringing about that investment in technology in the United States. We want to go back now to Kevin Brady, the former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. 

It's not just Nvidia represented in the room right now, Mr. Chairman. It's executives from the likes of Amazon, from GE Aerospace, Toyota Venture Global. I mean, the list is incredibly long as he's trying to tout what he's doing for business here. But how can we consider what maybe more pro business tax policy the President would like to pursue against the contention of tariffs that businesses have to deal with? And there is there a risk that there isn't actually excess investment capacity to go around if they're dealing with higher costs?

Speaker F [00:26:56]:

Yeah, it's a great question. So I think the key to that announcement is, is the fact America didn't become the strongest economy on the planet by manufacturing things. We did it by manufacturing things for the future. And so, you know, trying to bring back shoes or television sets or flip flops. Whatever it is won't grow our economy, investing instead in medical devices, in AI, in advanced manufacturing and technology that's going to drive the future for America at every income level. 

And I think it's as the president goes about his tariff strategy, I think it's important not to levy broad based tariffs that, that drive up the prices or make less available a broad range of products. Think about strategically what we need to be manufacturing here and what we can manufacture and anchor here and then run it through reliable trading partners around the world. There's a big difference. And I think the president has an opportunity, I think really now with the polling being where it is, I think a responsibility to really explain that difference within this strategy.

Speaker D [00:28:02]:

All right. Kevin Brady, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, senior consultant at Aiken with us live on Bloomberg. It's good to have your insights with breaking news on the terminal. The US And Ukraine signed the natural resources deal, the minerals deal that we've spent so much time talking about that according to a person familiar. 

And we're going to have more on this in a couple conversation with Michael Allen from Beacon Global Strategies. This just breaking now as we have anticipated the signing of a minerals deal with Ukraine, Treasury Secretary Scott Bess and indicated earlier could happen as soon as today. The news appears to reinforce that we'll have more on it for you as we learn it. President Trump meantime, has been making remarks regarding Fed independence and trade, all of it feeding into the performance of the financial markets in his second term. 100 days in with us now with a closer look, Bloomberg's Romaine Bostick live from world headquarters in New York. Remain 100 days.

Speaker H [00:28:54]:

100

Speaker D [00:28:54]:

A lot to show for it.

Speaker H [00:28:55]:

Not a lot to show for it. I mean, at least if you're using the financial markets as a scorecard, this is the third worst start for US Equity markets for a president in the modern era, basically, essentially since the S and P and the Dow were established at the start of the last century. What's interesting though is that the S and P has staged a pretty impressive rally over the last seven days. It's recouped. Most of the losses is that were really sparked around that Liberation Day announcement at the beginning of the month. 

Though we should point out the index is still down about 7% from when Trump took office. You're also seeing some of the sub indices also significantly lower from when he took office. And it's not just confined to equities as well. 

There was a lot of pain in Other asset classes, as a lot of people sought out the safety of bonds. Now, remember, you know, when people buy bonds, that pushes up the price, but of course it pushes down the yield. And in fact, yields actually fell over the last hundred days are right now down maybe about 60 to 70 basis points, 6 to 7, 10 of 1% from where they were at the start of his term. What these numbers don't show you, Joe, is a lot of the volatility that occurred in between, and that's really what the market has been trying to wrestle with. 

And maybe if we do get some more developments like mineral deals, like trade deals, and, well, maybe some concrete investments from some of the companies that today are in the White House, maybe that then becomes a catalyst here for more positive returns in this market. The one aspect, the one area, Joe, that I would advise you to really keep a close eye on, though, is the dollar. 

The dollar had an awful month of April. It's had an awful three months since Trump took office. And a lot of investors say that what happens in the space will probably be much more telling than what happens in equities and treasuries.

Speaker C [00:30:35]:

Well, and we've hit almost all the asset classes. I want to touch on commodities with you as well remain, because we actually heard a lot today in the Cabinet meeting President Trump assembled from the Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, about how low oil prices are. But are we sure they're low for positive reasons?

Speaker H [00:30:50]:

This is going to be really intriguing. I mean, we're Talking about an 18% drop right now in WTI crude over the last few weeks. And the problem is, is that this isn't really under Trump's control. I mean, he can sort of rattle his saber and say things to try to sort of, you know, move the price in the way he wants. 

But this is much more about OPEC plus the, the big oil bloc that, for the most part pretty much kind of determines where prices go because they effectively determine how much oil they're going to pump onto the market. And right now that's sort of. I don't know if it's working against the president. He said that he wanted oil prices down, and he certainly got that. Again, though, I'm not sure it's for the quite reasons you're talking about. Oil prices here in the United states now below 60 bucks a barrel. If you're a consumer, that's great. If you're a driller, not so much.

Speaker D [00:31:33]:

So Bloomberg's Romaine Bostick. Romaine, thank you so much. We'll see what we can do in the next hundred days. President Trump throughout this first hundred, has laid out his plans for international affairs with one of his top goals, of course, to end the war in Ukraine.

Speaker B [00:31:48]:

Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable. We've made a lot of progress on Russia, Ukraine. We're going to stop that ridiculous war. He has a different idea.

Speaker D [00:32:04]:

And I think it's worth paying attention to this.

Speaker B [00:32:07]:

Hamas is bullies. The weakest people are bullies. You know that, right? A dictator without elections. Zelensky better move fast or he's not going to have a country left. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. I'm not telling you because you're in no position to dictate that. I think Iran is wanting to talk. I hope they're wanting to talk. Russia and Ukraine, I think they're coming along, we hope, very fragile. And Iran, I think, is going very well. I was very disappointed that missiles were flying by Russia.

Speaker D [00:32:40]:

And breaking news today, the US has signed a natural resources deal with Ukraine, a major step forward in the president's foreign policy agenda. For more, we turn now, as we mentioned, to Michael Allen, managing director partner of Beacon Global Strategies. Michael, it's great to have you with us with breaking news at hand. Here's a little bit about what we know. This deal will grant the US Privileged access to new investment projects to develop Ukraine's natural resources, including aluminum, graphite, oil and natural gas. Is this the next step to peace?

Speaker I [00:33:11]:

I think it's helpful along the way because in order for a peace to become everlasting, I think the Ukrainians have to be able to deter the Russians, and they're never going to be able to deter the Russians unless they have enough of the treasury to support enough of a fighting force in order to for Russia and for Vladimir Putin to say in the future, you know what, this is too risky for me to try again. And so if they feel like they can purchase military assistance on their own and even reimburse the United States for things that we can uniquely supply, I think it's good for peace ultimately.

Speaker C [00:33:45]:

Well, when we consider the president, and the president suggested as much today when he was talking about the minerals deal, that this is in part a physical presence of us at the very least, interest, if not personnel on the ground in Ukraine, will there not be any required US Military backing to ensure the safety of those people or assets?

Speaker I [00:34:04]:

Will be interesting to see how President Trump plays it. I don't know that he really wants to put U.S. troops on the ground, even if it's in support of a high profile economic mission like this, but with Americans on the, on the ground and as serious. President Trump takes this, I think he considers it, and that's the most important thing. 

He considers it as part of a security guarantee, broadly defined. So I think we should go for that in the sense that anything that's putting Ukraine and its democracy on the side of the United States and not with Russia, I think it's good for Ukraine, it's good for us, it's good for the EU and it's something that we ought to pursue and help facilitate.

Speaker D [00:34:41]:

We should mention that President Trump is still speaking at this Invest in America event that's underway with the likes of Jensen Huang and other major CEOs. Of course he's talking about investing here in the U.S. michael Allen, I have questions about the U.S. investing in Ukraine. Does a deal like this on natural resources bring more private dollars to Kiev?

Speaker I [00:35:00]:

I think ultimately it definitely does because what they're going to do is they're going to see this is sort of the pioneering force of people that are going to go in around a critical national security type thing, which is the critical minerals agreement. 

So I think this is sort of the, the first force and there'll be other follow on investment over time because that's what they're going to need. We're going to want to get in and co invest with them on certain defense products, not only so that they can become self sustaining, but I think ultimately we have a lot to learn from them. They're the ones that are fighting a big war on the ground. We have so much to learn in terms of drones, infantry and the rest. I think it's good for our defense industries and European defense industries if they're helping out in Ukraine.

Speaker C [00:35:42]:

Keeping in mind that the president is speaking this afternoon just as he was last night, marking 100 days in office after having repeatedly said on the campaign trail it would be on day one that he could bring about not just a minerals deal with Ukraine, but an entire end to this war. If we're at day 101 and this still hasn't happened, Michael, on what day, realistically will it.

Speaker I [00:36:01]:

Yeah, it's a hard thing to be able to calculate. But look, if I were anyone involved in the White House, I'd blame this like they're beginning to do on Vladimir Putin. He's the one that's recalcitrant. He's the one that has started the war and is continuing it. It's Ukraine, after all, that has said we will take a 30 minute, a 30 day cease fire unconditionally. 

It's Putin who said they won't. He's the one that's being cute about saying, I'll do a one day on Easter, I'll do a three day, one, which is apparently during the time he wants to have a big military parade in Moscow. So I think Keith Kellogg sees Russia playing games. I think think the President of the United States is starting to see that. And I think that's the way to go.

Speaker D [00:36:41]:

President Zelensky has been calling for security guarantees. President Trump has said they are implied essentially in a deal like this. If we're going to have Americans on the ground, to Kelly's point earlier, doing work when it comes to natural resources, that would be quite the deterrent for Vladimir Putin to start bombing areas of Ukraine. You may take issue with that. But what would be Putin's response here? What will we hear from Moscow about this deal?

Speaker I [00:37:04]:

I think he's going to say it's the United States trying to be exploitative and otherwise. This is an example of NATO creeping in and trying to threaten Russia. Of course we have to reject that out of hand. I don't think the. What's in the, what's not in the cards is that Ukraine is not going to join Naito. 

No one really believes that that's the case. It's increasingly unlikely, I think that a Naito force, even if it's called a resilience force and it's just some number of troops, will be inside of Ukraine. So we're really getting down to what does security assistance look like to Ukraine. I think it has to look like European and US Military assistance over a long period of time until Ukraine can do this all by themselves.

Speaker C [00:37:46]:

When we consider that the President is not just navigating this Ukraine issue, but we have not seen a resumption of a cease fire between Israel and Hamas in the Middle East. There is still effort being made, but no deal in hand with Iran. China still remains a threat in the Asia Pacific. When we look at the kind of foreign policy performance of The President's first 100 days in total, Michael, does he really have that much to show?

Speaker I [00:38:08]:

I don't think he's got a lot in terms of tangible things and agreements to point to yet. But what he has done is that he has launched a tremendous amount of activity of a diplomatic nature across the world. 

He has so far turned his, he's shunned those who want to be able to do military strikes on Israel, on Iran and Israel is the case that they're definitely lobbying us for that. But also he's sort of resisted other examples of him using force across the globe. So I think he's trying to manage a lot diplomatically. He's got a long way to go because I think these are fundamentally almost unsolvable issues.

Speaker D [00:38:48]:

We should note that President Trump has wrapped up the Invest in America event at the White House. Are we going to be in a world a couple of months down the road? Assuming that this does move into an actual peace agreement where the Halliburtons of the world, the former Blackwaters of the world, are doing work actively in Ukraine, is that going to be essentially the security force, if you will, from America?

Speaker I [00:39:10]:

I think it's conceivable to the degree that all of these US Companies want to get that expeditionary, that that is a definite possibility. But I don't know that that's the real security guarantee that's going to make or break it for Ukraine. I think they have to have some sort of Western presence. If it's not the resilience force I mentioned, which is the British and the French, it has to be a very strong, mighty Ukraine military. 

And I don't think we're there yet. I think it's going to take them five to 10 years to build that. After all, look how many, how much trouble we have with our own defense industrial base since the Cold War. They have even longer to go to build that up in their own country.

Speaker C [00:39:47]:

All right, Michael Allen, managing director and partner at Beacon Global Strategies, thank you so much for joining us, helping us react to the breaking news. According to people familiar with the matter, the US And Ukraine have signed that natural Resources Agreement. 

And while that is one deal that seems has been finalized, there's of course many trade deals the administration is still working on. And in the meantime, a question about tariffs overall, where exactly they will stand. As President Trump has made it clear the tariff is his favorite word in the dictionary.

Speaker B [00:40:15]:

Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens. There could be some temporary short term disruption and people will understand that April 2nd is going to be Liberation Day for America. I will sign a historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on on countries throughout the world. 

Reciprocal. I did a 90 day pause for the people that didn't retaliate because I told them if you retaliate, we're going to double it. And that's what I did with China, because they did retaliate, it's possible we'll do a complete tax cut because I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.

Speaker C [00:41:00]:

The saga of tariffs in the first 100 days, and we still have 100 more, actually more than a thousand to go here. So joining us with her insight is economist Diana Firchcott Roth. She is director of the center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation. Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. 

Diana, when we consider this tariff policy, and we heard iterations of this from President Trump again today, that it's going to take a while for the economy to feel the positive benefit of it, given that GDP data today would suggest only so far, we're seeing some degree of negative impact. Just how long will these policies take to pay off, if indeed they're ultimately implemented at all?

Speaker J [00:41:40]:

Well, tariffs are just one part of prices, Kelly, and people are interested in their jobs, people are interested in prices. And President Trump is keeping taxes low. He's deregulating, including in the energy environmental area, in the DEI area. That helps businesses keep prices low so consumers face low prices and they have a wide variety of jobs to choose from. So that's very positive about President Trump's first hundred days.

Speaker D [00:42:10]:

Yet we've seen some real concern about, well, I guess the uncertainty before anything else, never mind the chaos that we've discussed before here. Diana, with on again, off again tariff policy, Kelly referred to this as a saga. I don't know if this is a trilogy or how we're going to term this, but the sequel is usually not as good as the original here. 

What is the next hundred days bring for President Trump's tariff policies? Because this review will resume and we're going to have to get to reciprocal tariffs. Will it include trade deals with the likes of India or China?

Speaker J [00:42:45]:

Well, President Trump has said that he is standing up for American manufacturers. He has paused almost all the tariffs. He's using the tariffs as a negotiating tactic. He's paused most of them to 10%. He has kept tariffs on China, but China subsidizes energy, subsidizes labour, subsidizes capital. 

I mean, China is selling a car for €10,000 in Europe. And meanwhile, Volkswagen is closing some plants and laying off workers. So it's really important to note that trade with China is not fair. Trade with China is not free. And it's important to place tariffs on our adversaries. And the other countries are coming in to negotiate. There's a pause on those tariffs. It's only 10%. And other countries have a value added tax. So when our goods go to their countries, they're hit right away with around a 20% tax, which is not a tariff, but it's a 20% fee. And when their goods come here, they are not hit with that fee.

Speaker C [00:43:49]:

Diana we heard from President Trump a few times today, specifically talking about the economic situation in China. He's says that things are going terribly for China, even suggesting that he feels bad for them, that he doesn't want this to be happening to to Xi Jinping. Can you just characterize the economic pain China is really feeling or whether or not they have the capacity to withstand this, to not be the one that blinks first in this trade fight with the United States?

Speaker J [00:44:14]:

Well, China, Russia, Iran, they are all feeling very poor economic conditions with very high prices. China in particular relies on its exports, and if those are reduced, then China is less well off. So you can see that things are tough for China. Things are also tough for Russia. Things are tough for Iran with prices sky high there. I mean, these countries need to rejoin the global alliance. They need to behave like Western countries so that their economies can prosper like ours do.Speaker D [00:44:51]:Well, Scott Bessant has indicated that de escalation is in the offing because this standoff is unsustainable. Diana, who blinks first? When do we start talking?

Speaker J [00:45:03]:

I don't know who's going to blink first, but it's really important that Americans see low prices, that they have opportunities to work, that the unemployment rate stays low. And President Trump's focus on deregulation and low taxes and for example, getting rid of the electric vehicle mandate so that people can choose the cars they want to drive. I mean, those are very, very important to Americans. And prices are more than tariffs. It's about how much the economy grows. It's about regulations, it's about taxes. And President Trump is making huge strides.

Speaker D [00:45:35]:

Diana Firt, Scott Roth, director of the center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage foundation, we thank you again, again for the insights. The Department of Government Efficiency, the Doge, was heralded by the president, of course, as the shining example of his new administration. 

The mechanism that would end redundancies in government. And with 280,000 planned layoffs impacting 27 different agencies, the DOGE has the capacity to dramatically downsize the federal government. And ahead will drill down on those cuts. The work of Elon Musk and what's next for the Doge? Balance of power on Bloomberg TV and radio continues.

Speaker B [00:46:24]:

To restore competence and effectiveness to our federal government. My administration will establish the brand new Department of Government Efficiency. One of the most important initiatives is doge, and we have cut billions and billions and billions of dollars. Many more have been found out and exposed and swiftly terminated by a group of very intelligent, mostly young people headed up by Elon. And we appreciate it. He really helped the country, saved us a lot of money. And I heard him say that he'll start easing, which is always, he was always at this time going to ease out.

Speaker D [00:47:07]:

President Trump on the doge, one of his biggest projects, I think we can say for his first hundred days in office. Now it seems like Elon Musk is getting ready to step away from the department. We expect he will wind things down by the end of May. And joining us now with their analysis, our political panel, Kristen Hahn, partner at Rock Solutions, our Democratic strategist alongside Republican strategist Ashley Davis, partner at S3 Group. 

Great to see you both here. Ladies, welcome back to Balance of Power. So Elon Musk started actually with a goal of $2 trillion. I think was the, the lofty promise to cut 2 trillion. He today in the cabinet meeting with the president said probably going to come in around 160 billion. Is this a success or a failure?

Speaker A [00:47:44]:

Well, the Democrats said Yesterday it was 860 billion. So I mean, I think these numbers, no one really knows yet matter.

Speaker D [00:47:51]:

Is it the spirit of this?

Speaker A [00:47:52]:

I think it's the spirit. I mean, Kristen's work in government, I've worked in government. We realize that it's very bloated. And I obviously there were many mistakes made. There were many people that were fired. You saw that CDC brought people back today or this week that were fired. So there's going to be a lot of cleanup. 

What I don't know and probably why he did put someone like Elon in charge was how do you break something that's so big without doing it drastically and make mistakes along the way and try then try to put it back together. But it's going to be something that's going to an Elon became the lightning rod. Right. 

So he's going to have to go back and run his companies, fix Tesla and whatever. And so it's going to be a controversial mark. But I think the spirit no one really disagrees with, the government is bloated.

Speaker C [00:48:40]:

Well, so if it's really about the spirit of the thing, certainly it has resulted in spirited town halls for Republicans. Kristen, there's been a lot of actually concern on the part of the American public about at least the way in which this was done, if not the underlying principle, is that something that can last when Elon Musk is no longer in the news every day?

Speaker A [00:48:57]:

I mean, I think it's going to be difficult because you can have. I mean, I would agree with the fact that we need a lean, mean government, but I think what we're seeing is how you go about that is just as important as anything else. So when you have, you know, going into departments and at times indiscriminately cutting jobs, you know, you're going to the EPA and you're saying not going to fund the Superfund project anymore when you've already identified, you know, contaminated wastewater in these, in these, in these districts and now you can't clean it up anymore. 

And the EPA is going, well, what do we do now? And you're having to reinstate people's jobs. I think that that's really important. So who's going to be the lightning rod now and how is this going to continue? I think also when you look at the amount that they were able to cut when they had said we're going to cut 2 trillion, just underscores how difficult that is to do without looking at entitlement reform.Speaker D [00:49:49]:Part of the narrative surrounding this was Elon Musk was shielding Donald Trump politically. He was taking all the heat in the media. He was essentially a scapegoat, according to some. Now that he leaves the building, does Donald Trump need another.

Speaker A [00:50:03]:

I don't think he gets another, Elon. I think he just institute institutionalizes this group or department. I mean, it's obviously not a really a department, but I mean, I think he institutionalizes this. And it does. And it, the chaos of it, which I'm quoting Elizabeth Warren, which you can't believe that that she said in your earlier segment. But that brings, you know, I think that it stabilizes a little bit, but the same cuts still happen.

Speaker C [00:50:27]:

Well, of course, we've seen some of this running into challenges in court as some of these cuts have been contested and judges at times have ruled against the administration. Something else that's currently being challenged in court, of course, is policies around deport, deporting migrants and specifically, specifically the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who President Trump was actually asked about in an interview he did with ABC to mark 100 days. Just listen to this exchange.Speaker B [00:50:53]:This is not an innocent, wonderful gentleman from Maryland, not saying he's a good guy. It's about the rule of law. The order from the Supreme Court stands into our country illegally. You could get him back. There's a phone on this desk. I could. You could pick it up and all.

Speaker C [00:51:07]:

The power of the presidency.

Speaker B [00:51:08]:

You could call up the president of El Salvador and say, send him back right now. And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that. But the court has ordered you to facilitate that. I'm not the one making this decision. We have lawyers want to do this, the buck stops. No, no, no, no. I follow the law. You want me to follow the law.

Speaker C [00:51:29]:

Keeping in mind, the Supreme Court has said the administration needs to facilitate his return from El Salvador, given there was a court order, Kristen, that barred him from being deported to El Salvador from back in 2019. He literally said there. I could. Is the fact that he is not evidence that we have seen defiance of the courts and the rule of law in this first 100 days.

Speaker A [00:51:47]:

I think we absolutely have. Whether you agree with the fact that he should come back or not, the courts. We have three equal branches of government. It's as simple as that. So if you're looking at constitutional crises and, you know, and I always hate to be, you know, blow things up or, you know, make things a bigger, bigger deal than they are, but I think it is that big of a deal. You have a president that is not listening to the courts, which, like I said, equal branch of government and just defying. 

Defying the rule of law. So it's interesting that he's saying, you know, I'm following the law, when in fact, he is not.

Speaker D [00:52:19]:

I know you wear a couple of hats on this with your background in national security and in homeland security before there was a department called that. But politically speaking, this is still playing well for him.

Speaker A [00:52:29]:

I want. I want Senator Chris Van Hollen to continue to go out every day and talk about.

Speaker D [00:52:35]:

You talked about 13 on the knuckles and kind of misspelled placing the tattoos for what was clearly Photoshopped and that that's what a lot of people ended up talking about coming out of this.

Speaker A [00:52:44]:

And no one's going to. First of all, that's wrong. This is kind of the problem with kind of the world we live in right now. But no one's going to remember that it's Photoshop. They're just going to know that that happened initially. But listen, here's the bottom line, and I agree with you with the courts, and I said this, and I hate the, like, weaponization of our courts in general, whether it's this administration, previous administration, like, I don't like it. 

However, he. If he comes back to the country. If the president of El Salvador says here, take him back, he's going to come back and he's going to get arrested and then he's going to be deported to another country.

Speaker C [00:53:19]:

With due process.

Speaker A [00:53:20]:

With due process. I have a very strong feeling that we have people in this country that are here illegally, that whether Garcia or not, I'm not picking him. And they're going to tie up our first of all, he did go through the system twice, the immigration court system twice. They're going to come tie up our court system because of something they did wrong. I just don't. And they're not U.S. citizens. So I have, you know, I'm very conservative on this. 

I just feel Trump know he's not changing the topic on, on deportations, on immigration. He'll talk about it all day long. Because if you go out to any other part of this country besides where we live, maybe New York, Louisiana, they wanted this to happen. I mean, over half this country voted for him and this was his number one issue.

Speaker C [00:54:04]:

We have less than a minute left, Kristen. But as we move into the second 100 days, is it going to be so much about the president or does our attention now basically solely shift to Congress?

Speaker A [00:54:12]:

I don't think you ever fully shift to Congress. You know, I think that a lot of these members and candidates are going to go out in districts and they're going to be running for offices throughout the country in states. And there's going to be a really tough fight for the particularly the control of the House. 

At the end of the day, the buck stops with the president and people voted for him. So he's going to have to answer for the economy whatever happens. You know, if there's an economic downturn, he answers for that. And if prices don't go down, he answers for that.

Speaker C [00:54:40]:

All right, Kristen Hahn and Ashley Davis, our political panel this evening. Thank you so much for joining us. And of course, for more, check out the Washington Edition newsletter on the terminal and online.

Speaker D [00:54:48]:

We'll see you back here tomorrow. On Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio.