April 17, 2025 • 38 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
President Donald Trump said during a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni that he expects to reach a trade deal with the European Union, but indicated he is in no hurry to finalize an agreement to reduce tariffs.
“There’ll be a trade deal,” Trump said Thursday, adding “I fully expect it, but it’ll be a fair deal.”
The president offered no time line for when he expected the first of the agreements to be finalized with trading partners seeking to avoid high tariffs, saying only that they would happen “at a certain point” and insisting that other nations would need to make concessions.
“We’re in no rush,” Trump added. “We are going to have very little problem making a deal with Europe or anyone else.”
Bloomberg Washington Correspondents Joe Mathieu and Kailey Leinz deliver insight and analysis on the latest headlines from the White House and Capitol Hill, including conversations with influential lawmakers and key figures in politics and policy. On this edition, Joe and Kailey speak with:
- Bloomberg's Michael McKee and Tyler Kendall.
- Bloomberg Politics Contributor Rick Davis and Democratic Strategist Caitlin Legacki.
- Atlantic Council Nonresident Senior Fellow Rachel Rizzo.
- Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, former-Scientist with NASA Keith Cowing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
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
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
President Trump and the Italian Prime Minister Georgia Maloney week especially.
We will hear from the two of them shortly as
reporters are led in to the Oval Office, and in
the meantime, I wonder if President Trump is making some
comparisons between the Central Bank Maloney is working with right
now compared to the Central Bank that he is working with.
The FED and the ECB obviously on two different tracks.
(00:45):
Is the ECB cut rates for a seventh time today
and the Chairman of the Fed obviously signaling that the
Fed is going to stay on hold. President Trump taking
note of that, not too happy with it, as he
posts on true Social too late. Jerome Powell of the Fed,
who is always too late and wrong, yesterday issued a
report which was another and typical complete mess, going on
to say too late should have lowered interest rates like
(01:07):
the ECB long ago, but he certainly should lower them.
Now Powell's termination Joe cannot come fast enough.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Okay, So fast forward to Section ten of the Federal
Reserve Act and you start wondering exactly what authority the
president has here. That's what we wanted to spend some
time with Mike McKee. He knows this stuff inside and out,
of course. Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent with us
from World Headquarters in New York.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Mike, great to see.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
I'm sure your antennas went up as soon as the
truth social post went here. Here's the deal can be
quote removed for cause by the president unquote. Does not
cutting rates equal cause?
Speaker 5 (01:50):
Uh No, that's the general consensus of the legal world.
I must say that so far, the consensus on social
media is that always late is probably the worst nickname
Trump has ever given anybody.
Speaker 6 (02:07):
It just has no rhythm to it.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Always late and wrong.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Traditionally, for cause has been seen as malfeasance or illegality,
something like that. A policy difference is not for cause. However,
this president is not traditional, and he has tried to
fire people who, in theory he could not because they had.
Speaker 6 (02:34):
Four clause.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
For cause clauses in their founding acts, including the head
of the National Labor Relations Board, and that case has
been going back and forth through the court system. She's
been hired and fired back several times by different judges.
The Supreme Court hasn't agreed to necessarily take that yet,
(03:00):
but Chief Justice John Roberts has issued a stay of
an appeals.
Speaker 6 (03:06):
Court order that ordered her back to work.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
So the suggestion is the court may take it now.
If the court does rule against gwyn Wilcox is the
woman's name, then there is some thought that that could
apply to the FED as well. However, there is one
other and I'm gonna bore you with this information, if
one other case called Sela Law, which was when the
(03:30):
administration tried to fire the head of the Consumer Finance
Protection Bureau and the court ruled that a single agency
head independent agency like the CFPB, the president could get
rid of. But the FED is not a single head.
Speaker 6 (03:47):
While J. Powell is the chair, it's a.
Speaker 5 (03:49):
Seven member board and the actions the FED takes can
only be taken because the entire board agrees.
Speaker 6 (03:58):
So that was the basis for why J.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
Powell said yesterday in Chicago that he didn't think that
the lawsuit that is proceeding on the NLRB would apply
to the FED.
Speaker 6 (04:10):
But Donald Trump, that's all you got to say. Nobody knows.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Well.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, and of course this isn't necessarily a new topic
of conversation, as Joe alluded to, the President has expressed
a displeasure with Jerom Powell before, which is why yesterday
before this true social post even hit, when he was
speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago, Chairman Powell was
asked directly about this question of independence and whether he
could be fired. This was his response, as you heard live.
Speaker 7 (04:38):
In the room, Mic, Our independence is a matter of law.
Congress has in our statute were not removable except for
cause we serve very long terms, seemingly endless terms. So's
we're protected in the law. So you know, Congress could
change that law. But there's I don't think there's any
(04:59):
danger that FED independence has pretty broad support across both
political parties.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
And it seems that there's support from elsewhere in the
administration for FED independence, Mike, even if not from the
President himself. It was just on Monday that the Treasury
Secretary Scott Besson told our colleague Anne Marie Hordern that
the independence of monetary policy is a jewel box that
needs to be preserved. Does that actually maybe indicate that
there are voices who would act to check the president
(05:28):
on this one?
Speaker 6 (05:29):
Well, I think there definitely are voices.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
Anybody who's had experience with financial markets would know that
any attempt to fire the chairman of the Fed.
Speaker 6 (05:37):
Would be received very badly.
Speaker 5 (05:40):
And there's a report from Politico today that Scott Bessen
has been over to the White House saying, kind of
knock these tweets off the idea, don't say you're going
to fire him. And there was a report earlier that
a senior White House officier was saying this wasn't a threat,
this was just the President venting. Now that it's going
(06:00):
to keep happening, nobody's going to shut Downald Trump up
and when he doesn't like something or wants something out
of the Fed, like everybody else, he's going to he's
going to attack them. So the question really does he
follow up? And probably he wouldn't make a decision until
in our National Labor Relations Board decision comes down from
(06:21):
the Supreme Court and he gets advice on whether it
could possibly apply. So I don't think there's any danger
in the short term, this is going to happen, and
probably we won't hear more from the President given everything
else he's doing right now until we get close to
the next FED meeting on May seven, all right, which.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Of course Michael McKee will have covered for us as always.
Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent joining us from New York.
Thank you so much, And as we consider Joe the
kind of legal questions here was what just weeks ago
after the firing of the two Democratic commissioners at the
Federal Trade Commission, that we spoke with then ousted Commissioner
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who told us, look, if it can
happen to me, there is nothing to say that it's
(07:04):
not also applicable to the chair of the Federal.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Desert or connected the dots straight to the top of
the FED as we're discussing here today.
Speaker 6 (07:11):
Look, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
There are a lot of different ways that you can
look at this. We'll see if they try to establish
some sort of cause or maybe just the President having
a cathartic moment online. It wouldn't be the first time.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Oh no, it certainly would not. So on that note,
let's turn to our political panel who was all too
familiar with us asking them about each and every post
on true Social Rick Davis is with US partner at
Stone Court Capital and Republican Strategists alongside Democratic strategist Caitlin
Lngaki Today, Rick, I do wonder if you see this
as just venting or when the President says that someone
can't be terminated fast enough that he's suggesting he wants
(07:44):
to do that in short order.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (07:46):
Look, I mean, you know, we have to look at
what this administration has been doing, and they are testing
the powers of the presidency on a systematic basis by
taking actions that heretofore have been considered extra legal and
letting the courts tell them whether or not it's okay
or not. And I think it's kind of an eighty
twenty thing for this administration. I wouldn't be surprised that
(08:10):
there isn't a conversation that's been had, not just a
random Trump tweet. That is why in the world wouldn't
the president have a higher fire authority over the leadership
of the FED, regardless of who's in charge, And should
we try to test that in the courts because he's
(08:31):
got a compliance Supreme Court, they are more likely to
be supportive of his strong executive branch actions than any
other court we've seen a long time, and so I
see no reason why this doesn't fit into that same category,
whether it's a good deer or not. I mean, we
would want to defer to Secretary Besson who says it's
(08:53):
a jewel box, and I like jewel boxes, we should
keep those.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Box or if it's the lock box that al Gore
was talking about here. Caitlin in an interview with Bloomberg
business Week on June twenty fifth, right, so less than
a year ago. This is campaign trail. Donald Trump said,
if reelected, he would let Powell finish his term, adding quote,
especially if I thought he was doing the right thing unquote,
(09:21):
which Trump, do you believe?
Speaker 9 (09:24):
I believe the Trumps. It's tweeting in the middle of
the night. M He's very skilled at telling people what
they want to hear in the moment that he's trying
to get what he wants. But we have seen over
and over again that Trump does not like it when
people put up any sort of resistance to him or
(09:48):
his goals. And it's clear from his truth social posts
or his tweets or whatever you want to call them,
that he's getting very frustrated with Powell, and so I
think it's hugely concerning. I think that they're absolutely trying
to test the fences and see what they can get
away with. And I wouldn't be surprised if they try
(10:11):
to see what is on the table in terms of
changing leadership at the FED.
Speaker 10 (10:17):
Well.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
As we've been discussing Caitlin, A lot of that may
actually be left up to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the NLRB case. Given that we have seen
kind of splits in the justices in terms of when
they are and are not willing to rule with this
administration on the efforts it's made in the last nearly
ninety days, how do you expect the Court ultimately comes
down on this, knowing that it hasn't always been kind
(10:40):
to kind of regulatory authorities in general.
Speaker 9 (10:44):
Yeah, I think that Rick was right when he said
that Trump's working with a compliant and a friendly Supreme Court.
I think where there is some measure of hope for
Democrats or Powell supporters or people who are just opposed
to Trump, is that ultimately someday the shoe will be
on the other foot, And I think there are a
(11:05):
number of you know, Supreme Court justices who wouldn't want
to extend that same power to democrats or progressives when
they are in power. And so I think that's an
important kind of seat belt and restraining factor keeping some
of these norms in place. But it's still very much
(11:26):
the kind of court that seems inclined to expand executive power.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
You know, there was a time, Kaylee, we were talking
to Scott Bessant before he got the job. This also
was during the campaign about the idea of a shadow
that's right, and we haven't heard a lot about that
idea since. You wonder Rick Davis, if maybe that's no
forget firing the FED chair, but could you cut him
off at the knees or lower his authority by putting
in place a shadow chair doing something like that to
(11:54):
check j Powell without actually showing him the door.
Speaker 8 (11:58):
Yeah, I think this is the distinction between are you
upset with the individual J. Palell or you upset with
the actions of the FED. And if you're upset with
the actions of the Fed, and he's indicated as much
in this recent tweet. He likes what the ECP's do
and they've cut rates seven times in the last eight meetings.
That's what he wants. Cut more rates, give me lower interests.
(12:18):
It will help me get over some of the effect
of inflation on the on because of the tariffs, and
so I think it's more driven by I think policy,
and so he's going to try and work the ref
and make it very uncomfortable for Pal not to be
more aggressive on rate cuts. And I think he's going
(12:38):
to try and look, I'm sure at like, what are
the options to be able to pack the FED with
people who will be more compliant to his point of view.
And in that regard, that's a game that other administrations
have played for as long as there's been a FED.
And whether or not you could actually get somebody in
there who's a shadow governor, who has so much access
(13:01):
and authority to Trump that they would overshadow Pal, I
think that's a real long shot. I think he's back
to saying, Hey, I want to get rid of Pal.
I want someone in there. It will do my bidding.
And by the way, that's what he's done in every
agency right now that reports to the executive branch, but not.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Every agency has the kind of sway over financial markets
that the Federal Reserve does. In Kaitlin, Mike McKee was
just alluding to this notion. We already saw last week
President Trump looking at what he described as queasiness in
the bond market, and under a guidance from Commerce Secretary
Howard Luttnik and Treasury Secretary Besson, decided to pull back
his tariff policy. What's to say that the threat of
(13:41):
financial market disruptions will not also be a deterrent to
him perhaps acting on his impulses when it comes to
Chairman Powell.
Speaker 9 (13:50):
I think that's the main thing and the only thing
that is keeping him from acting on his impulses related
to Powell, because it does if he takes the unprecedent
step of trying to fire Chairman Powell, the markets will
freak out. And I think it feeds into a larger
narrative that Trump is facing headwinds on right now, which
is that he is acting recklessly to ruin the economy,
(14:14):
and this would simply feed into that. And so I
think it is appropriate that Scott Vessett has raised these
issues with him. I think it is pretty much the
only thing that's keeping Trump in check right now. But
it's a real concern and I think it's a very
powerful deterrent that is working in Powell's favor.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
Fascinating conversation with our panel, Rick Davis and kate Lin Leghaki.
Thank you both for being with us today on the
Thursday edition. We'll let you know, of course, what transpires
on this front if we hear any more from Donald Trump.
We are going to be hearing from the President. We
expect a bit later on this hour from the Oval
Office in his bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Italy,
Georgia Maloney is in Washington and in the White House,
(14:54):
and Kaylie, we'll talk a little bit more coming up
here as we bring our listeners and viewers to the
White House about reciprocal tariffs and whether Italy can carve
out a deal on its own.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Yeah, especially when the administration is looking for not just
action on tariff but non tariff barriers, maybe defense spending
as well. We'll get into all of that ahead here
on Bloomberg TV and radio.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Alpha 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 play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Keeping an eye on the White House, where we are
still waiting for the doors to open back up. In
the meeting between President Trump and the Italian Prime Minister
Georgia Maloney, they of course spoke to press briefly in
the cabinet room as they were sitting down to lunch.
They're expected to once again take some questions in the
Oval Office really any minute now. But noteworthy, of course
that this visit is coming when it is, and with
who it is. Considering, Georgia Maloney may very well be
(15:58):
one of the closest allies President Trump has in Europe,
most ideologically aligned, perhaps, and she's here as an emissary
for the wider European Union.
Speaker 9 (16:05):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
To talk trade, that's.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
Right, and of course to speak about maybe some carve
outs for Italy, which I suspect we'll be hearing about.
We actually saw them both together at the beginning of
their lunch. They gathered in the cabinet room let reporters
in for a couple of questions, I think she's a
great Prime minister, he said, we're very proud of her.
I knew her right from the beginning. She's one of
the real leaders of the world. And he looked up
and said, I can't do better than that, and she
(16:26):
had a Shocklal. So, clearly this is going to be
a little bit different than a meeting with some other
European leaders who may be in Washington. Not an accident,
and Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall is at the White House right
now ahead of their meeting in the Oval Office.
Speaker 11 (16:39):
Tyler, yeah, hey, Joe, Well you said it there. President
Trump really greeting Maloney with some high praise, as this
meeting is largely seen as a test of their relatively
warm relationship and whether or not that will be enough
to push ahead trade talks with the European Union, which
our reporting indicates haven't really made much progress in recent weeks. Take,
for example, earlier this week Bloomberg News reporting that the
(17:00):
EUS trade chief left a meeting here in Washington with
very little clarity about what this White House needs in
order to get a deal done now. For his part,
President Trump did tail reporters earlier that he sees no
trouble with getting a deal done with the European Union.
He said he's confident, but also in no rush. He
also said, as you're about to hear here, despite these
(17:20):
ongoing negotiations, that ten percent baseline terff across the board
could ultimately get a little higher, indicating that even as
the talks are getting underway, there's likely no plans to
abandon the tariffs completely.
Speaker 12 (17:32):
We're getting a ten percent baseline. We took that down
just because it was, you know, the appropriate thing to
do until we decide what the number will be. And
we're taking in a lot of money, which we've never
done before. Frankly with Biden. We will lose it a
fortune on trade, but we're you know, we're moving along
very nicely and we're going to end up with a
(17:54):
baseline of a substantial number.
Speaker 9 (17:59):
Well.
Speaker 11 (17:59):
This White House is previously said that it would be
looking for the European Union to boost its energy imports
of USL ANDNG for example, as well as has made
a priority asking our allies to up their defense spending.
When it comes to NATO commitments. We'll have to see
as this goes. Because Bloomberg News reporting you today that
the EU is actually working on a proposal to potentially
introduce some restrictions on some US exports if negotiations don't
(18:23):
go as planned, So already starting to work on that
backup plan here as the Italian Prime Minister says that
she's hoping President Trump will make an official visit to
Italy so he can meet with some other EU leaders
face to face.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
All right, Bloomberg Tyler Kendall live at the White House
for us here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Thank you
so much, and we want to get more analysis on
what exactly we can or should expect coming from this meeting.
And turn to Rachel Rizzo. Now she's non resident Senior
Fellow at the Atlanta Council's Europe Center, joining us here
on balance of power. Rachel, welcome back. It's good to
have you as we consider Georgia Maloney is kind of
(18:56):
the messenger and first immediate negotiator here, if you will,
Is she the best hope Europe has trying to carve
out a deal?
Speaker 13 (19:05):
Well, I think so. I know that there's a lot
of nervousness around the European Union that she would try
to carve out benefits for Italy specifically, rather than coming
to the White House and putting on a united front
on behalf of the European Union. I'm not as nervous
(19:26):
about that because I do think Prime Minister Maloney does
understand that she's in sort of a special position here.
She really gets along with Elon Musk, who, as we know,
is very close to the President, and she has a
very similar worldview, especially when it comes to domestic issues
(19:47):
as Trump and his team. So I think what this
means is that she's a good bridge between the United
States and the EU during this time, and she speaks
this sort of Trumpian language that I don't think other
European leaders know how to speak. I mean, I know
that vonder Lyon, for example, Ursula vonder Lyon, the President
(20:07):
of the Commission, would probably love to come to Washington
and meet with Trump one on one, but he doesn't
want to meet with her. He does want to meet
with Maloney, and this visit comes after a special invitation
from Trump and his team.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Well, so what is vonder Lyon or the rest of
EU leadership think about the role that she's playing today
the way you just framed it, is she there emissary.
Speaker 13 (20:29):
In a way I think she is. I mean, as
I mentioned, I think that there is some trepidation on
behalf of EU leaders. You've seen some statements come out,
you know, talking about the fact that Maloney had a
special conversation with vonder Lyon or vonder Lyon did make
it clear that she better come to Washington and speak
on behalf of the EU rather than focusing specifically on Italy.
(20:54):
You've had some statements from you know, ministers of Europe.
For example, the friend Minister for European Affairs, Benjamin Haddad
in the Foreign Ministry said the same thing over the
last couple of days that if Maloney comes into Washington
talking on behalf of Italy, the European Union's twenty seven
members are going to look divided, and that is, at
(21:17):
the end of the day, a benefit for Trump and
his team. So there's a lot riding on this visit
for her. But I do think when you look at
the relationship she has with Trump and his team compared
to all of these other European leaders, she's the best
person in my opinion, to play this sort of role
as an emissary between the two sides. This is a
super stressful time between the two trying to hammer out
(21:39):
a lot of issues in terms of defense spending and trade,
and I think that she's cut out for the job.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Well to that point, Rachel, administration officials briefed reporters earlier
today ahead of the visit and said, well, trade and
tariffs will come up, that it wasn't going to be
the focus of their conversation, but that they were going
to talk about things like cooperation in space or energy
or to events. To your point, can we really though,
separate those other issues from the trade negotiations that they
(22:06):
want to get underway? Knowing that this administration has talked
not just about trade specific tariff specific barriers, but non
tariff barriers and other components that you wouldn't necessarily lump
into a bucket with trade policy is still being contingent
on the outcome of these negotiations.
Speaker 13 (22:21):
Yeah, I mean, no matter what you say about these
meetings or whatever the White House says about these meetings,
trade and tariff barriers and non tariff barriers are going
to be a discussion here. There's really no way around it.
But this is also where Maloney comes in in a
pretty interesting position, because you know, Trump has focused a
(22:44):
lot on, for example, defense spending, not just during his
second term, but on his first term. During his first
term as well. You know, he pushed NATO allies to
spend two percent of their GDP on defense in line
with NATO targets, and Italy is famously below a target.
They're only spending about one point five of their GDP
on defense right now. And so I think part of
(23:06):
the other discussion that's going to happen in the White
House today, there might be some stuff on Ukraine. We're
not sure yet, but I do think Maloney is going
to come in, as reports have said, and tell Trump
that Italy is planning on getting to the two percent
of GDP defense target that Trump and his team are
really pushing now. Unfortunately, this also comes at a time
(23:28):
head of a NATO summit in June where Trump and
his team are expected to push NATO allies even farther
upwards of three percent. So this is a delicate balance
that she's playing here. So there's a lot of factors
that come into play when it comes to these potential conversations.
But again, I think when it comes to who the
EU is going to send as sort of an emissary,
she's probably the best bet.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Well, how about just doing business for herself here? Could
she secure carve outs for Italy. We've talked about this today,
whether it be cars, wine, or anything that's specific to
the country that would then lead other European leaders to
the White House to try to do the same. Is
that something the EU was worried about happening?
Speaker 13 (24:09):
Yeah, I think there is some worry here, and you're
exactly right when it comes to major Italian exports to
the United States, things like wine, cheese, pasta. There's a
nervousness I think on behalf of Italian exporters that this
is going to hit them pretty hard, and American importers
(24:31):
as well, you know, people that own these like small
businesses that rely on Italian imports, and so I think
what you're what we're nervous about seeing is that if
she's able to get these carve outs, even if it's
not on paper, even if it's just Trump talking in
front of a bunch of reporters saying oh, yeah, we
worked this out during lunch and we're going to carve
out X, Y and Z, that other EU leaders will
(24:54):
see that as a sign that perhaps they should also
take their own special trips to the White House to
try to get their own carve outs, and that's I
think where you could potentially see some trouble. But I
think for this White House, what they're really pushing the
Europeans to do is to work together with the United
States on Chinese exports, on Chinese overcapacity, and I think
(25:15):
that's what we need to keep in mind as well.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
But is there a risk Europe actually gets pushed closer
to China in the process.
Speaker 13 (25:22):
Rachel, absolutely, and I think that this is a very
delicate balance that this administration needs to strike. I mean,
if you want the European Union to work together along
with the United States against China's unfair trade practices, you
have to make sure that you're not targeting the European
(25:43):
Union for your own tariffs and your own trade war,
which in turn would lead them to seek other partners
and potentially deepen their partnership with China because the United
States is now seen as an unreliable ally and unreliable
partner in terms of trade, and so I do think
there's a nervousness there. But with this ninety day pause,
(26:05):
I think that does give some space that some wiggle room.
Trump said today that there will be some sort of
deal between the United States and the European Union, and
I think that is potentially going to hinge on where
the EU falls in terms of its own approach to China,
and we just have to wait and see, I think,
with time over the next ninety days into July, what
that ends up looking like.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Rachel. It's always great to have you, Rachel Rizzo at
the Atlantic Council's Europe Center with important analysis today as
we prepare to hear from the President and the Prime Minister.
Thank you as always. They're still having lunch, Kayleie. We
haven't seen a readout on the menu, right, What do
you serve the Prime Minister of Italy when they come
over for lunch?
Speaker 2 (26:43):
I would imagine you don't want to take your swing
at Italian.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Because she can probably would be my guest. Yeah, well done.
Stakes and burgers don't play that great in Rome either, though.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Coarclay,
and Android Auto with the Blue Birk Business app. Listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us
live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
Wonder what they're serving for lunch at the White House?
Speaker 4 (27:13):
Do we get to read out on it?
Speaker 3 (27:14):
I'll let you know what we love with possible signs
of life in the news today, not the White Houses.
Seems to be a lot of life downe there, but
beyond our orbit and our solar system.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Did you see this story?
Speaker 3 (27:29):
This is pretty cool stuff and it has to do
with the remarkable scientists who use the James Web Space Telescope.
If you missed this in your social media doom scroll
this morning, let me be the first to tell you
that this is the coolest story of the day. This
team of researchers offering what it contends is the strongest
indication yet of extraterrestrial life. You've heard stories like this, right,
(27:53):
They found some blob out there, maybe it had water
on it. Now this is closer to the mark than
we've ever come. A massive planet known as K two
eighteen b okay, that orbits a star one hundred and
twenty light years from Earth. Somebody is writing a really
cool movie around this, I hope already. And the reason
(28:15):
why it works out is because the two gases involved
in Web's observations of the planet are generated on Earth
by living organisms, suggesting that the planet may be teeming
with life. This is the kind of stuff we live for,
right this idea of hope beyond our own horizons. Unless
(28:37):
the Doge is knocking, and this is something that we
need to spend some time with Keith Cowing talking about.
If you look at the approach that the Doge is
making to not just NASA, but this particular program, space
dot Com, suggesting the team overseeing NASA's Space James Webb's
(28:58):
Space Telecoscope have been direct to prepare for up to
twenty percent in budget cuts that would touch on every
aspect of the flagship observatories operations. Keith Cowing's NASA Watch
has been all over this as well, and he's with
us right now. We usually have a launch underway when
we get to talk to Keith, the editor nasawatch dot com,
Astrobiology dot com, former scientists with NASA, but we just
(29:21):
got to talk today Keith, and I'm wondering if this
is something that worries you or you're gonna tell me, Joe.
They're gonna make it even more efficient and the web
Telescope is going to work better than ever.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
Well, here's the thing.
Speaker 14 (29:33):
You make this discovery, and I don't want to put
too much dampening on it, but it is kind of
interesting and it does cost money. The web cost us
tax dollars a.
Speaker 4 (29:41):
Lot of money. The thing is doing.
Speaker 14 (29:43):
More than it was ever expected to do, and it's
making these discoveries as promised. So you hear all us
talk about America great in space again and all that.
So what is their solution? Cut the funding to the
people who are doing that. So it's a bit of
a conundrum. Do you want the space stuff or not?
You know, But in terms of the discovery itself, you know,
(30:04):
I'm an astrobiologist by training, used to work at nassah.
Speaker 4 (30:07):
Blah blah blah blah blah. Did they find evidence of life?
Speaker 14 (30:11):
No, okay, Just to answer your question, there's no proof
that there's anybody, little green men or anything like that
living there, okay, But they found something in the atmosphere
that on Earth comes from plankton and so forth in
the ocean.
Speaker 4 (30:26):
Now you can also say that it comes from pollution.
Speaker 14 (30:29):
So maybe we found a world is polluted by aliens
or are there other reasons.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Why it could be there. But again, this is so
far away.
Speaker 14 (30:37):
It's like, you know, one hundred and twenty four light years,
it's like seven hundred trillion miles and they can see
this sort of stuff if they could see this, and
maybe it isn't why they think it is. They can
see this stuff and they can look elsewhere.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
So it's more.
Speaker 14 (30:51):
It may be more about how learning how not to
find things and then eventually find it. And you got
to make you know the mistakes once or twice before
you get things right.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I love that. That's just perfect analysis and context from Keith.
But the cuts in context. Then if you're working at
the Space Telescope Science Institute in Maryland and you've got
to lop off twenty percent, what does that mean for
your future innovation?
Speaker 14 (31:16):
Well, right off the bat, if you meet these papers,
they say, hey, you know, we looked at this planet
and we see this stuff. We need to go back
and get maybe ten or twelve more hours hours you know,
of use with the web telescope. That means a bunch
of people have to point it and watch it and
get the data and so forth. And they're not the
only ones using the web. There's a people all over
the US and all over the world. If you cut
(31:38):
back the ability to study this stuff, you cut back
to science, and it may take you longer to get
your answers because you may have to wait an extra
year to get that observing time. So you know, money
equals science, more money, more science, less money, less science.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
It's simple, it's math.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
It's okay, Well you made that pretty simple. And I'm
guessing that goes for the agency as a whole. What
STVEE you're going to do to NASA.
Speaker 14 (32:02):
Well, you know, it's an ever changing thing. I mean,
first of all, I started we Have to Watch thirty
years ago when there was another reduction in force and
I tried to shut it off. Then I couldn't. I
tried to retire this time, and it came back.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
This time. It's coming back with a vengeance.
Speaker 14 (32:18):
And oftentimes you think that DOGE looks at the cost
of things but not the value, and that can be problematic,
especially with things like Webb in the space science.
Speaker 4 (32:28):
And just imagine this year, you're in your dream job.
Speaker 14 (32:30):
You could make more money outside of the government, but
you could you do science for food if you had to.
And now they're saying you've got your dream job, but
we're gonna cut you know, one corner of your staff.
Figure out how to do it, and we're not going
to tell you who's gonna get cut until the last minute.
All Right, I'm sitting there with a dream job on
one shoulder saying it's good, it's good, and then you
(32:51):
got Doge on the other shoulder saying you're probably out
of here.
Speaker 4 (32:54):
So how do you function in that environment?
Speaker 14 (32:55):
Luckily, people are pretty motivated at NASA, so they're still going.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Keith Cowing says, they keep pulling me back in entered
Jared Isaacman, I want to know your thought on this,
because I think you're a fan based on our prior conversations.
This is the incoming the new NASA administrator. Here's a
moment of him and a back and forth with Senator
Ed Markey and his confirmation hearing just last week.
Speaker 14 (33:20):
Was Elon Musk in your meeting when Trump offered you
the NASA position at man.
Speaker 10 (33:24):
Laca Center, I was interviewed by the President of the
United States.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Was Elon Musk in the meeting when he offered.
Speaker 10 (33:30):
You the job center My meeting was with the President
of the United.
Speaker 9 (33:33):
St Elon Musk was not in the meeting.
Speaker 10 (33:35):
So just center, I was being interviewed and speaking with
the President of the United States.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Didn't just say he was not in the meeting. Was
he in the meeting or not in the meeting?
Speaker 10 (33:44):
I center, I'm trying to be as transparent as I can.
I was being interviewed by the President of the United States.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
Keith.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
I'm not going to ask you if Elon was in
the meeting. But you've got a billionaire here, a pilot,
a commercial astronaut, and an innovator and someone you I
believe could help to reinvigorate this agency and maybe spend
less money. Could he do more with less?
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 14 (34:06):
Look, I've been a part of covering the answer for
thirty years and I've done got just like that. Yeah,
are you you know, are you who did do or whatever?
And it's a classic thing and you know they do
it in the Congress too. But you know, when you
here Washington, when you have a meeting with the president,
there's like five Secret Service guys in the room, five
or six age they're there just to be you know, accessories.
The meeting was between him and Trump and that you know, you.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
Don't talk about that.
Speaker 14 (34:29):
That's just kind of the way it works in Washington
that said, do I think Jared's the man?
Speaker 12 (34:33):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (34:34):
I do, I really do.
Speaker 14 (34:35):
He's doesn't know any better than to read science fiction
and to take something that he wanted to do his
little kid, and as he got rich by coincidence, he
could go make those dreams happen. And he flies in
space and he makes sure his screw is diverse. Half
women have been, they do, and they do science, go
out of their way to be the pincushions for the
needles and all that. And oh, by the way, you
(34:57):
know a lot of people are talking about the six
women who went to space the other day saying it
was you know whatever. He raised a quarter of a
billion dollars for Saint Jude at the same time. So,
if I'm going to look at somebody who a billionaire
who's going to run NASA, you want one with a heart,
you want one with a vision, and you want one
that pays attention to the real world as he makes
(35:18):
these difficult decisions. So I mean, if I were working
there now, I'd be very comfortable with him about to
come on board.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
Does Elon Musk play a role in that or does
this not matter? Because he's on a plane to Texas soon.
Speaker 14 (35:31):
I've known Nelon for everybody's known Elon forever.
Speaker 4 (35:34):
I mean, Elon is a presence.
Speaker 14 (35:36):
He has a company which is composed of thousands and
thousands of very smart people who are creating a technology
that makes it easier and more cost efficient for NASA
to do things. So he's a factor, but he's going
to be a factor like Jeff Bezos and a whole
bunch of other people. The trick for Isaacmund is to
step beyond that and think of the American people's interest
in their space agency and exploration of space, and he
(35:58):
brings us up all the time, inspiring young people to
want to join in and be part of that adventure.
To me is that I'm about to turn seventy.
Speaker 4 (36:05):
I'm a child of the Apollo era.
Speaker 14 (36:07):
Nothing is more important than grabbing kids at a young age,
getting them fired up, and then giving them a path
to become part of the adventure. So to me, that's
the most important thing that Jared does, and he does
in spades.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
Well, that's wonderful and I appreciate the spirit of that comment. Keith,
Does he have the charisma to convince Donald Trump of
that Obviously, Trump's very close with Elon Musk and has
understood the benefits of privatization. What does Jared tell Donald
Trump when they're alone, Jared.
Speaker 14 (36:37):
He's walked the walk, he's flown twice, he's gone into space,
and it's not without risk. You know that rocket could
have they could have a bad day. So you're taking
a personal risk. You know, I've been on expeditions to
remote places. You're taking a risk, but there's a benefit
that comes from that. And as far as you know
the whole what's going on in this White House. Look,
I live twenty two miles away and I can't figure
(36:57):
it out. But you know that said, you pick the
right guy to be able to say to the president.
You know two and two is four seven days of
a week. You want to go do this great stuff
in space. I can't do it for free. I can
find some fat, but at some point you.
Speaker 4 (37:12):
Got to write a check.
Speaker 14 (37:13):
You got to give me the ability to get my
inspired people back on track and then stand back because
we'll do some really cool stuff.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
So these proposed cuts in our remaining moment Keith Cowing
may not be fixed. This is still up for debate.
NASA may in fact have the resources that it needs.
Speaker 14 (37:31):
It may they may cut some parts and not others. Again,
you know this is this is all a bunch of
kabuki theater. You don't know who's moving the puppets around,
and it changes in a moment's notice. Here and as
you now know, we don't have one news cycle every day,
we have seventeen.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Oh god, I know it's true. What if they just
renamed the Artemis the Trump Program, wouldn't that help get
us back to the moon?
Speaker 4 (37:51):
Yeah, you think about that. I don't know.
Speaker 14 (37:53):
Artemis is sort of like you know, he started. He
sort of started it, and then you know, Biden kept
it going. So it's got the ability to transcend politics.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
I wouldn't touch it. I wouldn't touch it.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
Great to have you back, Keith. Thank you for helping
us make sense of this amazing discovery. I'm holding out
hope here. I just don't think we're ever gonna make
it that faraway. Nasawatch dot com is where you can
find the great Keith Cowing. Thanks for listening to the
Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you
haven't already, at Apple, Spotify.
Speaker 6 (38:28):
Or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (38:30):
And you can find us live every weekday from Washington,
DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.
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
(00:20):
you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
President Trump and the Italian Prime Minister Georgia Maloney week especially.
We will hear from the two of them shortly as
reporters are led in to the Oval Office, and in
the meantime, I wonder if President Trump is making some
comparisons between the Central Bank Maloney is working with right
now compared to the Central Bank that he is working with.
The FED and the ECB obviously on two different tracks.
(00:45):
Is the ECB cut rates for a seventh time today
and the Chairman of the Fed obviously signaling that the
Fed is going to stay on hold. President Trump taking
note of that, not too happy with it, as he
posts on true Social too late. Jerome Powell of the Fed,
who is always too late and wrong, yesterday issued a
report which was another and typical complete mess, going on
to say too late should have lowered interest rates like
(01:07):
the ECB long ago, but he certainly should lower them.
Now Powell's termination Joe cannot come fast enough.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Okay, So fast forward to Section ten of the Federal
Reserve Act and you start wondering exactly what authority the
president has here. That's what we wanted to spend some
time with Mike McKee. He knows this stuff inside and out,
of course. Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent with us
from World Headquarters in New York.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Mike, great to see.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
I'm sure your antennas went up as soon as the
truth social post went here. Here's the deal can be
quote removed for cause by the president unquote. Does not
cutting rates equal cause?
Speaker 5 (01:50):
Uh No, that's the general consensus of the legal world.
I must say that so far, the consensus on social
media is that always late is probably the worst nickname
Trump has ever given anybody.
Speaker 6 (02:07):
It just has no rhythm to it.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Always late and wrong.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Traditionally, for cause has been seen as malfeasance or illegality,
something like that. A policy difference is not for cause. However,
this president is not traditional, and he has tried to
fire people who, in theory he could not because they had.
Speaker 6 (02:34):
Four clause.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
For cause clauses in their founding acts, including the head
of the National Labor Relations Board, and that case has
been going back and forth through the court system. She's
been hired and fired back several times by different judges.
The Supreme Court hasn't agreed to necessarily take that yet,
(03:00):
but Chief Justice John Roberts has issued a stay of
an appeals.
Speaker 6 (03:06):
Court order that ordered her back to work.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
So the suggestion is the court may take it now.
If the court does rule against gwyn Wilcox is the
woman's name, then there is some thought that that could
apply to the FED as well. However, there is one
other and I'm gonna bore you with this information, if
one other case called Sela Law, which was when the
(03:30):
administration tried to fire the head of the Consumer Finance
Protection Bureau and the court ruled that a single agency
head independent agency like the CFPB, the president could get
rid of. But the FED is not a single head.
Speaker 6 (03:47):
While J. Powell is the chair, it's a.
Speaker 5 (03:49):
Seven member board and the actions the FED takes can
only be taken because the entire board agrees.
Speaker 6 (03:58):
So that was the basis for why J.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
Powell said yesterday in Chicago that he didn't think that
the lawsuit that is proceeding on the NLRB would apply
to the FED.
Speaker 6 (04:10):
But Donald Trump, that's all you got to say. Nobody knows.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Well.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, and of course this isn't necessarily a new topic
of conversation, as Joe alluded to, the President has expressed
a displeasure with Jerom Powell before, which is why yesterday
before this true social post even hit, when he was
speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago, Chairman Powell was
asked directly about this question of independence and whether he
could be fired. This was his response, as you heard live.
Speaker 7 (04:38):
In the room, Mic, Our independence is a matter of law.
Congress has in our statute were not removable except for
cause we serve very long terms, seemingly endless terms. So's
we're protected in the law. So you know, Congress could
change that law. But there's I don't think there's any
(04:59):
danger that FED independence has pretty broad support across both
political parties.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
And it seems that there's support from elsewhere in the
administration for FED independence, Mike, even if not from the
President himself. It was just on Monday that the Treasury
Secretary Scott Besson told our colleague Anne Marie Hordern that
the independence of monetary policy is a jewel box that
needs to be preserved. Does that actually maybe indicate that
there are voices who would act to check the president
(05:28):
on this one?
Speaker 6 (05:29):
Well, I think there definitely are voices.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
Anybody who's had experience with financial markets would know that
any attempt to fire the chairman of the Fed.
Speaker 6 (05:37):
Would be received very badly.
Speaker 5 (05:40):
And there's a report from Politico today that Scott Bessen
has been over to the White House saying, kind of
knock these tweets off the idea, don't say you're going
to fire him. And there was a report earlier that
a senior White House officier was saying this wasn't a threat,
this was just the President venting. Now that it's going
(06:00):
to keep happening, nobody's going to shut Downald Trump up
and when he doesn't like something or wants something out
of the Fed, like everybody else, he's going to he's
going to attack them. So the question really does he
follow up? And probably he wouldn't make a decision until
in our National Labor Relations Board decision comes down from
(06:21):
the Supreme Court and he gets advice on whether it
could possibly apply. So I don't think there's any danger
in the short term, this is going to happen, and
probably we won't hear more from the President given everything
else he's doing right now until we get close to
the next FED meeting on May seven, all right, which.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Of course Michael McKee will have covered for us as always.
Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent joining us from New York.
Thank you so much, And as we consider Joe the
kind of legal questions here was what just weeks ago
after the firing of the two Democratic commissioners at the
Federal Trade Commission, that we spoke with then ousted Commissioner
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who told us, look, if it can
happen to me, there is nothing to say that it's
(07:04):
not also applicable to the chair of the Federal.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Desert or connected the dots straight to the top of
the FED as we're discussing here today.
Speaker 6 (07:11):
Look, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
There are a lot of different ways that you can
look at this. We'll see if they try to establish
some sort of cause or maybe just the President having
a cathartic moment online. It wouldn't be the first time.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Oh no, it certainly would not. So on that note,
let's turn to our political panel who was all too
familiar with us asking them about each and every post
on true Social Rick Davis is with US partner at
Stone Court Capital and Republican Strategists alongside Democratic strategist Caitlin
Lngaki Today, Rick, I do wonder if you see this
as just venting or when the President says that someone
can't be terminated fast enough that he's suggesting he wants
(07:44):
to do that in short order.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (07:46):
Look, I mean, you know, we have to look at
what this administration has been doing, and they are testing
the powers of the presidency on a systematic basis by
taking actions that heretofore have been considered extra legal and
letting the courts tell them whether or not it's okay
or not. And I think it's kind of an eighty
twenty thing for this administration. I wouldn't be surprised that
(08:10):
there isn't a conversation that's been had, not just a
random Trump tweet. That is why in the world wouldn't
the president have a higher fire authority over the leadership
of the FED, regardless of who's in charge, And should
we try to test that in the courts because he's
(08:31):
got a compliance Supreme Court, they are more likely to
be supportive of his strong executive branch actions than any
other court we've seen a long time, and so I
see no reason why this doesn't fit into that same category,
whether it's a good deer or not. I mean, we
would want to defer to Secretary Besson who says it's
(08:53):
a jewel box, and I like jewel boxes, we should
keep those.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Box or if it's the lock box that al Gore
was talking about here. Caitlin in an interview with Bloomberg
business Week on June twenty fifth, right, so less than
a year ago. This is campaign trail. Donald Trump said,
if reelected, he would let Powell finish his term, adding quote,
especially if I thought he was doing the right thing unquote,
(09:21):
which Trump, do you believe?
Speaker 9 (09:24):
I believe the Trumps. It's tweeting in the middle of
the night. M He's very skilled at telling people what
they want to hear in the moment that he's trying
to get what he wants. But we have seen over
and over again that Trump does not like it when
people put up any sort of resistance to him or
(09:48):
his goals. And it's clear from his truth social posts
or his tweets or whatever you want to call them,
that he's getting very frustrated with Powell, and so I
think it's hugely concerning. I think that they're absolutely trying
to test the fences and see what they can get
away with. And I wouldn't be surprised if they try
(10:11):
to see what is on the table in terms of
changing leadership at the FED.
Speaker 10 (10:17):
Well.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
As we've been discussing Caitlin, A lot of that may
actually be left up to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the NLRB case. Given that we have seen
kind of splits in the justices in terms of when
they are and are not willing to rule with this
administration on the efforts it's made in the last nearly
ninety days, how do you expect the Court ultimately comes
down on this, knowing that it hasn't always been kind
(10:40):
to kind of regulatory authorities in general.
Speaker 9 (10:44):
Yeah, I think that Rick was right when he said
that Trump's working with a compliant and a friendly Supreme Court.
I think where there is some measure of hope for
Democrats or Powell supporters or people who are just opposed
to Trump, is that ultimately someday the shoe will be
on the other foot, And I think there are a
(11:05):
number of you know, Supreme Court justices who wouldn't want
to extend that same power to democrats or progressives when
they are in power. And so I think that's an
important kind of seat belt and restraining factor keeping some
of these norms in place. But it's still very much
(11:26):
the kind of court that seems inclined to expand executive power.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
You know, there was a time, Kaylee, we were talking
to Scott Bessant before he got the job. This also
was during the campaign about the idea of a shadow
that's right, and we haven't heard a lot about that
idea since. You wonder Rick Davis, if maybe that's no
forget firing the FED chair, but could you cut him
off at the knees or lower his authority by putting
in place a shadow chair doing something like that to
(11:54):
check j Powell without actually showing him the door.
Speaker 8 (11:58):
Yeah, I think this is the distinction between are you
upset with the individual J. Palell or you upset with
the actions of the FED. And if you're upset with
the actions of the Fed, and he's indicated as much
in this recent tweet. He likes what the ECP's do
and they've cut rates seven times in the last eight meetings.
That's what he wants. Cut more rates, give me lower interests.
(12:18):
It will help me get over some of the effect
of inflation on the on because of the tariffs, and
so I think it's more driven by I think policy,
and so he's going to try and work the ref
and make it very uncomfortable for Pal not to be
more aggressive on rate cuts. And I think he's going
(12:38):
to try and look, I'm sure at like, what are
the options to be able to pack the FED with
people who will be more compliant to his point of view.
And in that regard, that's a game that other administrations
have played for as long as there's been a FED.
And whether or not you could actually get somebody in
there who's a shadow governor, who has so much access
(13:01):
and authority to Trump that they would overshadow Pal, I
think that's a real long shot. I think he's back
to saying, Hey, I want to get rid of Pal.
I want someone in there. It will do my bidding.
And by the way, that's what he's done in every
agency right now that reports to the executive branch, but not.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Every agency has the kind of sway over financial markets
that the Federal Reserve does. In Kaitlin, Mike McKee was
just alluding to this notion. We already saw last week
President Trump looking at what he described as queasiness in
the bond market, and under a guidance from Commerce Secretary
Howard Luttnik and Treasury Secretary Besson, decided to pull back
his tariff policy. What's to say that the threat of
(13:41):
financial market disruptions will not also be a deterrent to
him perhaps acting on his impulses when it comes to
Chairman Powell.
Speaker 9 (13:50):
I think that's the main thing and the only thing
that is keeping him from acting on his impulses related
to Powell, because it does if he takes the unprecedent
step of trying to fire Chairman Powell, the markets will
freak out. And I think it feeds into a larger
narrative that Trump is facing headwinds on right now, which
is that he is acting recklessly to ruin the economy,
(14:14):
and this would simply feed into that. And so I
think it is appropriate that Scott Vessett has raised these
issues with him. I think it is pretty much the
only thing that's keeping Trump in check right now. But
it's a real concern and I think it's a very
powerful deterrent that is working in Powell's favor.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
Fascinating conversation with our panel, Rick Davis and kate Lin Leghaki.
Thank you both for being with us today on the
Thursday edition. We'll let you know, of course, what transpires
on this front if we hear any more from Donald Trump.
We are going to be hearing from the President. We
expect a bit later on this hour from the Oval
Office in his bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Italy,
Georgia Maloney is in Washington and in the White House,
(14:54):
and Kaylie, we'll talk a little bit more coming up
here as we bring our listeners and viewers to the
White House about reciprocal tariffs and whether Italy can carve
out a deal on its own.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Yeah, especially when the administration is looking for not just
action on tariff but non tariff barriers, maybe defense spending
as well. We'll get into all of that ahead here
on Bloomberg TV and radio.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Alpha 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 play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Keeping an eye on the White House, where we are
still waiting for the doors to open back up. In
the meeting between President Trump and the Italian Prime Minister
Georgia Maloney, they of course spoke to press briefly in
the cabinet room as they were sitting down to lunch.
They're expected to once again take some questions in the
Oval Office really any minute now. But noteworthy, of course
that this visit is coming when it is, and with
who it is. Considering, Georgia Maloney may very well be
(15:58):
one of the closest allies President Trump has in Europe,
most ideologically aligned, perhaps, and she's here as an emissary
for the wider European Union.
Speaker 9 (16:05):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
To talk trade, that's.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
Right, and of course to speak about maybe some carve
outs for Italy, which I suspect we'll be hearing about.
We actually saw them both together at the beginning of
their lunch. They gathered in the cabinet room let reporters
in for a couple of questions, I think she's a
great Prime minister, he said, we're very proud of her.
I knew her right from the beginning. She's one of
the real leaders of the world. And he looked up
and said, I can't do better than that, and she
(16:26):
had a Shocklal. So, clearly this is going to be
a little bit different than a meeting with some other
European leaders who may be in Washington. Not an accident,
and Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall is at the White House right
now ahead of their meeting in the Oval Office.
Speaker 11 (16:39):
Tyler, yeah, hey, Joe, Well you said it there. President
Trump really greeting Maloney with some high praise, as this
meeting is largely seen as a test of their relatively
warm relationship and whether or not that will be enough
to push ahead trade talks with the European Union, which
our reporting indicates haven't really made much progress in recent weeks. Take,
for example, earlier this week Bloomberg News reporting that the
(17:00):
EUS trade chief left a meeting here in Washington with
very little clarity about what this White House needs in
order to get a deal done now. For his part,
President Trump did tail reporters earlier that he sees no
trouble with getting a deal done with the European Union.
He said he's confident, but also in no rush. He
also said, as you're about to hear here, despite these
(17:20):
ongoing negotiations, that ten percent baseline terff across the board
could ultimately get a little higher, indicating that even as
the talks are getting underway, there's likely no plans to
abandon the tariffs completely.
Speaker 12 (17:32):
We're getting a ten percent baseline. We took that down
just because it was, you know, the appropriate thing to
do until we decide what the number will be. And
we're taking in a lot of money, which we've never
done before. Frankly with Biden. We will lose it a
fortune on trade, but we're you know, we're moving along
very nicely and we're going to end up with a
(17:54):
baseline of a substantial number.
Speaker 9 (17:59):
Well.
Speaker 11 (17:59):
This White House is previously said that it would be
looking for the European Union to boost its energy imports
of USL ANDNG for example, as well as has made
a priority asking our allies to up their defense spending.
When it comes to NATO commitments. We'll have to see
as this goes. Because Bloomberg News reporting you today that
the EU is actually working on a proposal to potentially
introduce some restrictions on some US exports if negotiations don't
(18:23):
go as planned, So already starting to work on that
backup plan here as the Italian Prime Minister says that
she's hoping President Trump will make an official visit to
Italy so he can meet with some other EU leaders
face to face.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
All right, Bloomberg Tyler Kendall live at the White House
for us here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Thank you
so much, and we want to get more analysis on
what exactly we can or should expect coming from this meeting.
And turn to Rachel Rizzo. Now she's non resident Senior
Fellow at the Atlanta Council's Europe Center, joining us here
on balance of power. Rachel, welcome back. It's good to
have you as we consider Georgia Maloney is kind of
(18:56):
the messenger and first immediate negotiator here, if you will,
Is she the best hope Europe has trying to carve
out a deal?
Speaker 13 (19:05):
Well, I think so. I know that there's a lot
of nervousness around the European Union that she would try
to carve out benefits for Italy specifically, rather than coming
to the White House and putting on a united front
on behalf of the European Union. I'm not as nervous
(19:26):
about that because I do think Prime Minister Maloney does
understand that she's in sort of a special position here.
She really gets along with Elon Musk, who, as we know,
is very close to the President, and she has a
very similar worldview, especially when it comes to domestic issues
(19:47):
as Trump and his team. So I think what this
means is that she's a good bridge between the United
States and the EU during this time, and she speaks
this sort of Trumpian language that I don't think other
European leaders know how to speak. I mean, I know
that vonder Lyon, for example, Ursula vonder Lyon, the President
(20:07):
of the Commission, would probably love to come to Washington
and meet with Trump one on one, but he doesn't
want to meet with her. He does want to meet
with Maloney, and this visit comes after a special invitation
from Trump and his team.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Well, so what is vonder Lyon or the rest of
EU leadership think about the role that she's playing today
the way you just framed it, is she there emissary.
Speaker 13 (20:29):
In a way I think she is. I mean, as
I mentioned, I think that there is some trepidation on
behalf of EU leaders. You've seen some statements come out,
you know, talking about the fact that Maloney had a
special conversation with vonder Lyon or vonder Lyon did make
it clear that she better come to Washington and speak
on behalf of the EU rather than focusing specifically on Italy.
(20:54):
You've had some statements from you know, ministers of Europe.
For example, the friend Minister for European Affairs, Benjamin Haddad
in the Foreign Ministry said the same thing over the
last couple of days that if Maloney comes into Washington
talking on behalf of Italy, the European Union's twenty seven
members are going to look divided, and that is, at
(21:17):
the end of the day, a benefit for Trump and
his team. So there's a lot riding on this visit
for her. But I do think when you look at
the relationship she has with Trump and his team compared
to all of these other European leaders, she's the best
person in my opinion, to play this sort of role
as an emissary between the two sides. This is a
super stressful time between the two trying to hammer out
(21:39):
a lot of issues in terms of defense spending and trade,
and I think that she's cut out for the job.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Well to that point, Rachel, administration officials briefed reporters earlier
today ahead of the visit and said, well, trade and
tariffs will come up, that it wasn't going to be
the focus of their conversation, but that they were going
to talk about things like cooperation in space or energy
or to events. To your point, can we really though,
separate those other issues from the trade negotiations that they
(22:06):
want to get underway? Knowing that this administration has talked
not just about trade specific tariff specific barriers, but non
tariff barriers and other components that you wouldn't necessarily lump
into a bucket with trade policy is still being contingent
on the outcome of these negotiations.
Speaker 13 (22:21):
Yeah, I mean, no matter what you say about these
meetings or whatever the White House says about these meetings,
trade and tariff barriers and non tariff barriers are going
to be a discussion here. There's really no way around it.
But this is also where Maloney comes in in a
pretty interesting position, because you know, Trump has focused a
(22:44):
lot on, for example, defense spending, not just during his
second term, but on his first term. During his first
term as well. You know, he pushed NATO allies to
spend two percent of their GDP on defense in line
with NATO targets, and Italy is famously below a target.
They're only spending about one point five of their GDP
on defense right now. And so I think part of
(23:06):
the other discussion that's going to happen in the White
House today, there might be some stuff on Ukraine. We're
not sure yet, but I do think Maloney is going
to come in, as reports have said, and tell Trump
that Italy is planning on getting to the two percent
of GDP defense target that Trump and his team are
really pushing now. Unfortunately, this also comes at a time
(23:28):
head of a NATO summit in June where Trump and
his team are expected to push NATO allies even farther
upwards of three percent. So this is a delicate balance
that she's playing here. So there's a lot of factors
that come into play when it comes to these potential conversations.
But again, I think when it comes to who the
EU is going to send as sort of an emissary,
she's probably the best bet.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Well, how about just doing business for herself here? Could
she secure carve outs for Italy. We've talked about this today,
whether it be cars, wine, or anything that's specific to
the country that would then lead other European leaders to
the White House to try to do the same. Is
that something the EU was worried about happening?
Speaker 13 (24:09):
Yeah, I think there is some worry here, and you're
exactly right when it comes to major Italian exports to
the United States, things like wine, cheese, pasta. There's a
nervousness I think on behalf of Italian exporters that this
is going to hit them pretty hard, and American importers
(24:31):
as well, you know, people that own these like small
businesses that rely on Italian imports, and so I think
what you're what we're nervous about seeing is that if
she's able to get these carve outs, even if it's
not on paper, even if it's just Trump talking in
front of a bunch of reporters saying oh, yeah, we
worked this out during lunch and we're going to carve
out X, Y and Z, that other EU leaders will
(24:54):
see that as a sign that perhaps they should also
take their own special trips to the White House to
try to get their own carve outs, and that's I
think where you could potentially see some trouble. But I
think for this White House, what they're really pushing the
Europeans to do is to work together with the United
States on Chinese exports, on Chinese overcapacity, and I think
(25:15):
that's what we need to keep in mind as well.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
But is there a risk Europe actually gets pushed closer
to China in the process.
Speaker 13 (25:22):
Rachel, absolutely, and I think that this is a very
delicate balance that this administration needs to strike. I mean,
if you want the European Union to work together along
with the United States against China's unfair trade practices, you
have to make sure that you're not targeting the European
(25:43):
Union for your own tariffs and your own trade war,
which in turn would lead them to seek other partners
and potentially deepen their partnership with China because the United
States is now seen as an unreliable ally and unreliable
partner in terms of trade, and so I do think
there's a nervousness there. But with this ninety day pause,
(26:05):
I think that does give some space that some wiggle room.
Trump said today that there will be some sort of
deal between the United States and the European Union, and
I think that is potentially going to hinge on where
the EU falls in terms of its own approach to China,
and we just have to wait and see, I think,
with time over the next ninety days into July, what
that ends up looking like.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Rachel. It's always great to have you, Rachel Rizzo at
the Atlantic Council's Europe Center with important analysis today as
we prepare to hear from the President and the Prime Minister.
Thank you as always. They're still having lunch, Kayleie. We
haven't seen a readout on the menu, right, What do
you serve the Prime Minister of Italy when they come
over for lunch?
Speaker 2 (26:43):
I would imagine you don't want to take your swing
at Italian.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Because she can probably would be my guest. Yeah, well done.
Stakes and burgers don't play that great in Rome either, though.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Coarclay,
and Android Auto with the Blue Birk Business app. Listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us
live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
Wonder what they're serving for lunch at the White House?
Speaker 4 (27:13):
Do we get to read out on it?
Speaker 3 (27:14):
I'll let you know what we love with possible signs
of life in the news today, not the White Houses.
Seems to be a lot of life downe there, but
beyond our orbit and our solar system.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Did you see this story?
Speaker 3 (27:29):
This is pretty cool stuff and it has to do
with the remarkable scientists who use the James Web Space Telescope.
If you missed this in your social media doom scroll
this morning, let me be the first to tell you
that this is the coolest story of the day. This
team of researchers offering what it contends is the strongest
indication yet of extraterrestrial life. You've heard stories like this, right,
(27:53):
They found some blob out there, maybe it had water
on it. Now this is closer to the mark than
we've ever come. A massive planet known as K two
eighteen b okay, that orbits a star one hundred and
twenty light years from Earth. Somebody is writing a really
cool movie around this, I hope already. And the reason
(28:15):
why it works out is because the two gases involved
in Web's observations of the planet are generated on Earth
by living organisms, suggesting that the planet may be teeming
with life. This is the kind of stuff we live for,
right this idea of hope beyond our own horizons. Unless
(28:37):
the Doge is knocking, and this is something that we
need to spend some time with Keith Cowing talking about.
If you look at the approach that the Doge is
making to not just NASA, but this particular program, space
dot Com, suggesting the team overseeing NASA's Space James Webb's
(28:58):
Space Telecoscope have been direct to prepare for up to
twenty percent in budget cuts that would touch on every
aspect of the flagship observatories operations. Keith Cowing's NASA Watch
has been all over this as well, and he's with
us right now. We usually have a launch underway when
we get to talk to Keith, the editor nasawatch dot com,
Astrobiology dot com, former scientists with NASA, but we just
(29:21):
got to talk today Keith, and I'm wondering if this
is something that worries you or you're gonna tell me, Joe.
They're gonna make it even more efficient and the web
Telescope is going to work better than ever.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
Well, here's the thing.
Speaker 14 (29:33):
You make this discovery, and I don't want to put
too much dampening on it, but it is kind of
interesting and it does cost money. The web cost us
tax dollars a.
Speaker 4 (29:41):
Lot of money. The thing is doing.
Speaker 14 (29:43):
More than it was ever expected to do, and it's
making these discoveries as promised. So you hear all us
talk about America great in space again and all that.
So what is their solution? Cut the funding to the
people who are doing that. So it's a bit of
a conundrum. Do you want the space stuff or not?
You know, But in terms of the discovery itself, you know,
(30:04):
I'm an astrobiologist by training, used to work at nassah.
Speaker 4 (30:07):
Blah blah blah blah blah. Did they find evidence of life?
Speaker 14 (30:11):
No, okay, Just to answer your question, there's no proof
that there's anybody, little green men or anything like that
living there, okay, But they found something in the atmosphere
that on Earth comes from plankton and so forth in
the ocean.
Speaker 4 (30:26):
Now you can also say that it comes from pollution.
Speaker 14 (30:29):
So maybe we found a world is polluted by aliens
or are there other reasons.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Why it could be there. But again, this is so
far away.
Speaker 14 (30:37):
It's like, you know, one hundred and twenty four light years,
it's like seven hundred trillion miles and they can see
this sort of stuff if they could see this, and
maybe it isn't why they think it is. They can
see this stuff and they can look elsewhere.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
So it's more.
Speaker 14 (30:51):
It may be more about how learning how not to
find things and then eventually find it. And you got
to make you know the mistakes once or twice before
you get things right.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I love that. That's just perfect analysis and context from Keith.
But the cuts in context. Then if you're working at
the Space Telescope Science Institute in Maryland and you've got
to lop off twenty percent, what does that mean for
your future innovation?
Speaker 14 (31:16):
Well, right off the bat, if you meet these papers,
they say, hey, you know, we looked at this planet
and we see this stuff. We need to go back
and get maybe ten or twelve more hours hours you know,
of use with the web telescope. That means a bunch
of people have to point it and watch it and
get the data and so forth. And they're not the
only ones using the web. There's a people all over
the US and all over the world. If you cut
(31:38):
back the ability to study this stuff, you cut back
to science, and it may take you longer to get
your answers because you may have to wait an extra
year to get that observing time. So you know, money
equals science, more money, more science, less money, less science.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
It's simple, it's math.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
It's okay, Well you made that pretty simple. And I'm
guessing that goes for the agency as a whole. What
STVEE you're going to do to NASA.
Speaker 14 (32:02):
Well, you know, it's an ever changing thing. I mean,
first of all, I started we Have to Watch thirty
years ago when there was another reduction in force and
I tried to shut it off. Then I couldn't. I
tried to retire this time, and it came back.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
This time. It's coming back with a vengeance.
Speaker 14 (32:18):
And oftentimes you think that DOGE looks at the cost
of things but not the value, and that can be problematic,
especially with things like Webb in the space science.
Speaker 4 (32:28):
And just imagine this year, you're in your dream job.
Speaker 14 (32:30):
You could make more money outside of the government, but
you could you do science for food if you had to.
And now they're saying you've got your dream job, but
we're gonna cut you know, one corner of your staff.
Figure out how to do it, and we're not going
to tell you who's gonna get cut until the last minute.
All Right, I'm sitting there with a dream job on
one shoulder saying it's good, it's good, and then you
(32:51):
got Doge on the other shoulder saying you're probably out
of here.
Speaker 4 (32:54):
So how do you function in that environment?
Speaker 14 (32:55):
Luckily, people are pretty motivated at NASA, so they're still going.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Keith Cowing says, they keep pulling me back in entered
Jared Isaacman, I want to know your thought on this,
because I think you're a fan based on our prior conversations.
This is the incoming the new NASA administrator. Here's a
moment of him and a back and forth with Senator
Ed Markey and his confirmation hearing just last week.
Speaker 14 (33:20):
Was Elon Musk in your meeting when Trump offered you
the NASA position at man.
Speaker 10 (33:24):
Laca Center, I was interviewed by the President of the
United States.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Was Elon Musk in the meeting when he offered.
Speaker 10 (33:30):
You the job center My meeting was with the President
of the United.
Speaker 9 (33:33):
St Elon Musk was not in the meeting.
Speaker 10 (33:35):
So just center, I was being interviewed and speaking with
the President of the United States.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Didn't just say he was not in the meeting. Was
he in the meeting or not in the meeting?
Speaker 10 (33:44):
I center, I'm trying to be as transparent as I can.
I was being interviewed by the President of the United States.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
Keith.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
I'm not going to ask you if Elon was in
the meeting. But you've got a billionaire here, a pilot,
a commercial astronaut, and an innovator and someone you I
believe could help to reinvigorate this agency and maybe spend
less money. Could he do more with less?
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 14 (34:06):
Look, I've been a part of covering the answer for
thirty years and I've done got just like that. Yeah,
are you you know, are you who did do or whatever?
And it's a classic thing and you know they do
it in the Congress too. But you know, when you
here Washington, when you have a meeting with the president,
there's like five Secret Service guys in the room, five
or six age they're there just to be you know, accessories.
The meeting was between him and Trump and that you know, you.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
Don't talk about that.
Speaker 14 (34:29):
That's just kind of the way it works in Washington
that said, do I think Jared's the man?
Speaker 12 (34:33):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (34:34):
I do, I really do.
Speaker 14 (34:35):
He's doesn't know any better than to read science fiction
and to take something that he wanted to do his
little kid, and as he got rich by coincidence, he
could go make those dreams happen. And he flies in
space and he makes sure his screw is diverse. Half
women have been, they do, and they do science, go
out of their way to be the pincushions for the
needles and all that. And oh, by the way, you
(34:57):
know a lot of people are talking about the six
women who went to space the other day saying it
was you know whatever. He raised a quarter of a
billion dollars for Saint Jude at the same time. So,
if I'm going to look at somebody who a billionaire
who's going to run NASA, you want one with a heart,
you want one with a vision, and you want one
that pays attention to the real world as he makes
(35:18):
these difficult decisions. So I mean, if I were working
there now, I'd be very comfortable with him about to
come on board.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
Does Elon Musk play a role in that or does
this not matter? Because he's on a plane to Texas soon.
Speaker 14 (35:31):
I've known Nelon for everybody's known Elon forever.
Speaker 4 (35:34):
I mean, Elon is a presence.
Speaker 14 (35:36):
He has a company which is composed of thousands and
thousands of very smart people who are creating a technology
that makes it easier and more cost efficient for NASA
to do things. So he's a factor, but he's going
to be a factor like Jeff Bezos and a whole
bunch of other people. The trick for Isaacmund is to
step beyond that and think of the American people's interest
in their space agency and exploration of space, and he
(35:58):
brings us up all the time, inspiring young people to
want to join in and be part of that adventure.
To me is that I'm about to turn seventy.
Speaker 4 (36:05):
I'm a child of the Apollo era.
Speaker 14 (36:07):
Nothing is more important than grabbing kids at a young age,
getting them fired up, and then giving them a path
to become part of the adventure. So to me, that's
the most important thing that Jared does, and he does
in spades.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
Well, that's wonderful and I appreciate the spirit of that comment. Keith,
Does he have the charisma to convince Donald Trump of
that Obviously, Trump's very close with Elon Musk and has
understood the benefits of privatization. What does Jared tell Donald
Trump when they're alone, Jared.
Speaker 14 (36:37):
He's walked the walk, he's flown twice, he's gone into space,
and it's not without risk. You know that rocket could
have they could have a bad day. So you're taking
a personal risk. You know, I've been on expeditions to
remote places. You're taking a risk, but there's a benefit
that comes from that. And as far as you know
the whole what's going on in this White House. Look,
I live twenty two miles away and I can't figure
(36:57):
it out. But you know that said, you pick the
right guy to be able to say to the president.
You know two and two is four seven days of
a week. You want to go do this great stuff
in space. I can't do it for free. I can
find some fat, but at some point you.
Speaker 4 (37:12):
Got to write a check.
Speaker 14 (37:13):
You got to give me the ability to get my
inspired people back on track and then stand back because
we'll do some really cool stuff.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
So these proposed cuts in our remaining moment Keith Cowing
may not be fixed. This is still up for debate.
NASA may in fact have the resources that it needs.
Speaker 14 (37:31):
It may they may cut some parts and not others. Again,
you know this is this is all a bunch of
kabuki theater. You don't know who's moving the puppets around,
and it changes in a moment's notice. Here and as
you now know, we don't have one news cycle every day,
we have seventeen.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Oh god, I know it's true. What if they just
renamed the Artemis the Trump Program, wouldn't that help get
us back to the moon?
Speaker 4 (37:51):
Yeah, you think about that. I don't know.
Speaker 14 (37:53):
Artemis is sort of like you know, he started. He
sort of started it, and then you know, Biden kept
it going. So it's got the ability to transcend politics.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
I wouldn't touch it. I wouldn't touch it.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
Great to have you back, Keith. Thank you for helping
us make sense of this amazing discovery. I'm holding out
hope here. I just don't think we're ever gonna make
it that faraway. Nasawatch dot com is where you can
find the great Keith Cowing. Thanks for listening to the
Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you
haven't already, at Apple, Spotify.
Speaker 6 (38:28):
Or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (38:30):
And you can find us live every weekday from Washington,
DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!