April 16, 2025 • 28 mins
Watch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
US President Donald Trump said he’ll attend a meeting Wednesday with Japan to negotiate tariffs, American military support and “trade fairness.”
“Hopefully something can be worked out which is good (GREAT!) for Japan and the USA!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
The Treasury and Commerce departments are leading the discussions in Washington.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said Japan is likely to be prioritized because it stepped forward quickly. He envisions reaching agreements with Japan and other military allies so they could come up with a collective effort to apply economic pressure on China.
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 Ed Ludlow and Tyler Kendall.
- Bloomberg Politics Contributors Rick Davis and Jeanne Sheehan Zaino.
- Bloomberg's Nancy Cook.
- Immigration Attorney and Chair of the Immigration Practice Group at UB Greensfelder David Leopold.
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):
The Nvidia price action comes after the news the company
revealed last night, which is that the US government has
put new restrictions on its ability to send its each
twenty chip to export it to China. The company says
this is going to result in a five point five
billion dollar write down in the current quarter tied to
inventory and previous commitments for the chip, and video is
(00:46):
not the only one. AMD also expecting a charge of
as much as eight hundred million dollars after the administration
put restrictions on it too, specifically its ability to export
its Mi I three to eight products to China. All
of this is the US is trying to restrict China's
access to an ability to develop advanced semiconductor technology and
the things that that technology ultimately powers. So for more,
(01:10):
we turned to Ed Ludlow, who was co host of
Bloomberg Technology. Thanks for being here, Ed, Obviously there were
already restrictions in place that companies like in Vidia were
grappling with. But this EACH twenty chip was supposed to
be a way to get around the problem of export controls.
Now it is once again falling victim to controls.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Yeah, that's exactly what both are sort of political and
markets audience needs to understand that the specific technology that
is as of this morning, you know, subject to these
additional license requirements, was already a result of what the
Biden administration had put in place. Like in Vidia's H
twenty for example, they designed it in twenty twenty three
with the hopes that it would get around circumvent those restrictions.
(01:51):
You know, from Vidia a five point five billion dollar
write down. That's literally basically that the loss of being
unable to sell inventory that was already admitted to customers
is a pain, you know. But for AMD, even though
their dollar sales is much less than in Vida, proportionately,
China is so important, and the context you need to
remember is like these are American companies. They are the
(02:13):
biggest technology companies in the world. In Vidia literally the
biggest player in AI markets, and there was a time
where China was the most important end market for cloud computing,
and video has already moved away. You know, twenty twenty two,
China was about twenty five twenty six percent revenue. It's
now low double digits, and most people see it going
to single digits. But this is the trade off the
(02:35):
administration needs to work with these companies on. They want
to onshore them in the US, but need to consider
the end markets they're now being cut off from.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Well, yeah, and how that may impact that these companies'
ability to invest in things like a greater capacity in
the United States. Are we to assume ed that actually
getting licenses to continue exporting these ships is completely out
of the question.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Well, I had the opportunity this morning to ask the
President's advisor and Director of the Office for Science Technology Policy,
Michael Kratzios, and he declined to answer, and the audience
can read into that what they will It was a
very specific question, will you advise the President to allow
AMD and VIDIA to have a license? The point is
that these chips are much lower performance than the leading
(03:20):
edge product that both of them produce. The concern and
anxiety from the White House is that they're still capable
of going into an AI supercomputer, and that from a
national security perspective, China could use that lower level technology
for the things it's concerned about. But again he declined
to comment. It's going to be really interesting to see
how they play it. My question to your panel throughout
the week in the shows is what happens next, right,
(03:42):
because the thing we've hadn't talked about is which Chinese
companies were buying those chips Ali, Barba, ten Cent, Byte Dance.
I'd be really curious if the If America thinks about
something called an entity list and goes much more specific
on how it prevents the transfer of technology.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Yeah, we have a lot.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Of questions about how much further this could snowball. Add
to your point about this being kind of a lower
capability chip than others, are there still further rungs on
the ladder that the administration could decide to go down
and restrict exports when it comes to one in Vidia
and am D make.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Yeah, an entity list is interesting because you basically say, okay,
American companies, you cannot sell to these specific Chinese companies.
We've listed them for you, but those are the biggest customers.
There's another way of thinking about this. You know the
expression that takes two to tango and in a trade
or tariffs or restrictions environment. Think about it from China's perspective,
(04:35):
Huawei is becoming their national champion of cutting edge technology.
They have a similar chip that does what Nvidia and
AMD's lower level chips can do. But those Chinese companies
wanted to use the American technology. There is an argument
made by some on my show earlier today, Denny Fish,
who has billions of dollars of those stocks, that All
America is doing inadvertently or indirectly is allowing China to
(04:59):
move forward with on shoring and elevating its own domestic industry.
So that's a very interesting thing, right, You're cutting off
sales of your main American technology companies on the hope
that they shift activities for us and that they have
other customers outside of China.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
All right, Ed Ludlow, co host of Bloomberg Technology, thank
you so much. And we want to keep the focus
on China and specifically the prospect of trade negotiations opening
up between Washington in Beijing. As we learned today some
details about what China might be asking for before they're
willing to go to the table, And it's to Bloomberg's
Tyler Kendall, who is life at the White House, that
we turn to for those details. So, Tyler, obviously there's
(05:37):
a number of things here based on our reporting. How
likely is the administration to acquiesce to what China wants?
Speaker 5 (05:43):
Yeah, hey, Killy, Well, that really remains to be seen.
Considering that one of the big points here that we're learning,
per a person familiar with the Chinese government's thinking, is
that Beijing would like to see a point person appointed
to lead these talks other than President Trump. And we
know that this White House has repeatedly said that he
would be directly involved, and even the President and himself
has said that he is waiting for Xijingping's call. Still,
(06:04):
this is kind of our first insight that we've really
seen into potentially what could break what has been weeks
of escalation between the two countries. Also, importantly, the source
familiar telling Bloomberg News that the most important precondition is
going to be for Chinese officials to feel that they
are treated with respect. It appears that Beijing would like
to see President Trump start to disavow when his cabinet
(06:25):
members for example, criticized China, even if President Trump himself
says that he has a good relationship with Jijingping. So far,
we have to see where this goes, because we do
know that the White House would like China to ultimately
reach out directly, and we should say that that tactic
has helped expedite negotiations in some cases. Take today, for example,
(06:46):
Japan is here with negotiators in Washington, and Japan was
one of those countries that did reach out directly to
President Trump with a phone call between the Prime Minister
and the White House, and officials have repeatedly pointed us
to the fact that Japan would get priority status because
as they felt that they reached out very quickly to negotiate.
And while we talk about who is talking and who's
not talking, we have to always keep in mind, of
(07:07):
course Japan, but also those other countries like South Korea
and Vietnam geographically close to China that this White House
seems to be prioritizing and calls. As Jijipan completes his
own tour of Southeast Asia countries, as he tries to
talk to those leaders directly to shore up his support.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Yeah and Bloomberg has some fresh reporting out today Tyler
about how the administration may be asking countries like Japan
to be considering putting their own tariffs on China as
part of these negotiations. What other asks could the Japanese
who are in Washington today face from the administration.
Speaker 5 (07:38):
Right And that reporting is particularly interesting because Bloomberg News
had actually reported that a few months ago, remember when
those Mexico tariff talks were underway, that the US had
been pressuring Mexico to lift its own terraffs against China.
So this does appear to be a repeat of a
potential strategy here by the administration, as we've heard Scott
Bessen for example, say that he would like to see
(07:59):
a coalition form together and then they could tackle ultimately
what happens there with China remains to be seen. Exactly
what's going to be put on the table when it
comes to these talks with Japan. President Trump of coursing
and his truth social posts that they'll be talking about
trade imbalances as well as American military support. As you
well know, all of these talks are going well beyond
just those tariff barriers. We could keep in mind that
(08:19):
Japan has already pledged, for example, that it would boost
US LNG imports into the country, So perhaps that could
be one of the factors here on the table as
we wait to learn more. But one thing that we
do know, Keiley. President Trump says he's going to be
directly involved in these talks today, even though they're not
at the leader level. He's going to appear alongside his
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik and Treasury Secretary Scott Besson.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
All Right, bloombergs Tyler Kendall live at the White House
here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Thank you so much
for your reporting, and now we get analysis from our
political panel, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzy. You know both
of them Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick also a Republican strategists
and partner at Stone Court Capital. Genie democratic analyst and
senior Democracy fellow at the Center for the Study of
the Presidency. And Rick, when we consider these negotiations that
(09:02):
are now beginning, knowing that there is a ninety day
window that is getting ever shorter that the administration has
left for itself here to ink all of these various
trade deals, how important is it for them to have
quick victories, quick deals to announce.
Speaker 6 (09:17):
You know, I don't think it's really that critical for
them to have a lot of quick deals show momentum.
I mean, maybe if they're trying to regain some of
the footing that's lost in the markets, that would make
some sense. But I think, really this is a much
bigger thing. And I think you conversation with Tyler kind
of kicks it off, and that is this is about
isolating China, right. You'll notice everybody else got a reprieve
(09:39):
with them. This has been a real focus of Donald
Trump since his first presidency, is to basically divide the
world along the lines of their friends of China and
their friends of the United States. And we haven't seen
this kind of alignment since the Soviet Union, you know,
sphere of influence strategies that the US used to have
to go through during the Cold War. And so at
(10:01):
the end of the day, I think what you see
is this decoupling. You see trying to isolate China, and
you see the use of the military in the Pacific.
You see the use of diplomacy abroad, you see the
use of economics at home and abroad, and I think
these are all the toolkits at Trump's using to try
and basically created deterrent to Chinese influence around the world.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Well, but he still says he wants China to pick
up the phone and call He'd like to make a deal.
As the contention of him and others in the White
House Genie and Tyler was just outlining some of the
things China, according to our reporting, wants to see first
guarantees that they'll be respected, there will be one point person,
that there will be consistency in US policy. Do you
see those things as likely to be delivered by the
Trump administration.
Speaker 7 (10:46):
We haven't seen a sign of it yet. You know,
Donald Trump has famously described himself as a great deal maker,
and yet on the very issues he needs to make deals,
so far in the last eighty days he has fallen short. Now, granted,
we have to give him some time. But you know,
as I'm listening to Rick, I'm thinking that may have
all been true for Donald Trump one point oh, But
(11:07):
in Donald Trump two point oh, if we are trying
to decouple from China, if we are trying to isolate China,
we are doing a heck of a job doing that.
Why the tariffs on every country in the world. Why
start with Canada and Mexico. Why drive so many of
our allies to seek relationships with China? Why is Jijinping
(11:31):
traveling around the world right now shoring up those relationships.
So if that was the intent, and I actually agree
with the intent, then it is a heck of a
way to roll out that policy. And I think that's
the problem here. There was a smart way to do
targeted tariffs on China to get where we need to go,
and we do need to get there, but this is
(11:52):
not the way. And so now Donald Trump is caught
up in trying to negotiate with every country around the
world as opposed to focusing, like a laser beam, where
we should be focused, which is on China.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Well, he obviously was not shy about talking about China
on the campaign trail, which is how we got to
Trump two point zero. Rick is in part because he
campaigned on this, but he also campaigned on just the
idea that he thinks tariffs are the way to revive
the American manufacturing economy and make the US greater than
it was before. Can we quantify the actual domestic support
for any of these policies, whether it comes to China
(12:29):
or the wider tariff regime that is in place.
Speaker 6 (12:33):
Yeah, I mean, obviously, you're right. It's not just a
weapon or a tool of diplomacy and foreign relations. It's
a way, in Donald Trump's mind that you take off
pressures from taxation on the American public and allow the
world to fund our country in our government. And so
he hasn't really invested too heavily in selling that. Obviously
(12:55):
it was a big part of his campaign, but you'll
notice that most of the tariff discussion has not been
as a way of avoiding taxing our citizens in his
rhetoric up until this point in time. And I would
say without that, the American public is basically seeing, and
we're seeing it in the consumer surveys and the polling
(13:17):
that they don't like it very much. It's destabilizing the economy.
They are very pessimistic about the future. They think it'll
help increase inflation. I mean, basically, all the detractors who
have been anti tariffs have been seemingly getting through to
these consumers and voters much more clearly than Donald Trump has.
Speaker 8 (13:39):
Well.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
And you're starting to see that showing up in town halls,
or arguably we've already been seeing it. But take the
example of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Genie, who just
got an earful Although he already was kind of skeptical
of tariffs, he was one of the co sponsors of
that bipartisan legislation that would reassert Congress's authority over the
matter that got a veto threat from the right House already.
(14:00):
But for the others in Congress who are at home
in their districts right now for the Eastern recess, do
you expect they could return to Washington, d C. On
the other side of it with a different attitude when
it comes to.
Speaker 7 (14:10):
Tariff's Absolutely, because they will be talking to constituents who
are hurt by this tariff taxation plan that the President
has put into place. You know, the President is sitting
in the Oval Office saying, well, you know, I like
Tim Cook. I just talked to Tim Cook. I made
an exception for Tim Cook. But these representatives and senators
(14:31):
will be talking to their constituents, big and small business owners,
people who have jobs that rely on trade and free
trade around the world. And the way the President has
gone about this is reckless and we're seeing it, as
Rick said in the Consumer Confidence, we're seeing it in
the polls. And the President has yet to explain what
(14:51):
the goal is. If the goal is to reshore and
build manufacturing, exemptions work in the opposite direction, why the
exemptions right? If the goal is to raise revenue, why
the exemptions right? So he not only has done this
in a reckless way, he has been unable to articulate
(15:12):
the goal, and he has been able to articulate how
long this pain will be felt by the American public.
Congressmen and women will hear all of that overbreak, and
they may return saying we need to claim back some
of our power. Although it's Congress, Kayley, so I wouldn't
hold my bet they'll do anything right away.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Fair enough, Jeanie Shanzeno and Rick Davis, our political panel.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power Podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple,
Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You
can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship
New York station, Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
I'm Kaylee Lines in Washington, where there is a jack.
Theanese delegation also today specifically here to meet with members
of the administration, and according to President Trump, the President himself,
all of this of course about trade. President Trump posting
on True Social earlier today, Japan is coming in today
to negotiate tariffs, the cost of military support, and this
(16:19):
is in capitals and quotes trade fairness. He says, I
will attend the meeting along with the Treasury and Commerce secretaries.
Hopefully something can be worked out, which is good, great
for Japan and the USA. So we want to get
more on this now with Nancy Cook Bloomberg, Senior National
political correspondent. Nancy, we've known that the US was really
prioritizing Japan and this series of trade negotiations with many
(16:42):
different countries that have yet to unfold. I believe it
was the first country we actually heard Secretary Bessent say
they're opening formal conversations with what exactly will the objective
be when it comes to Japan specifically.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Well, I think that a big thing that the administration
is trying to do is, you know, come up with
trade deals with each individual country, and part of those
trade deals involve sort of lessening the trade imbalance that
the US has with any other country. But a big
part of the negotiations, I'm told by White House officials,
is also sort of making sure that the other countries
(17:15):
have some criteria to also impose potentially secondary tariffs on China.
So as part of those negotiations, it's not just that
they want sort of a better deal with Japan, let's say,
in the US, they also want Japan to take some
sort of measures towards China, and they're going to be
asking that. The administration is going to be asking that
of a lot of the countries that they negotiate with,
(17:37):
and so it'll be really interesting to see how that
goes because this is sort of going to be one
of the first negotiations that we really see out in
the open.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Well, So is that just all in an attempt to
gain more leverage for when negotiations with China eventually opened,
because Bloomberg's reporting is indicating today there's a number of
steps China would like to see this administration take before
they're willing to begin those talks.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Of course, I mean, I think China does not want
to be embarrassed by the situation, and they want a
bunch of steps. They want initial contact contact, They want
to feel like there's going to be a measure of
respect when President g and President Trump like finally do
speak sort of leader to leader, and that is sort
of their way of doing things. But meanwhile, what the
US government is trying to do is really sort of
(18:20):
create new alliances and make sure that our trading partners
are key. Trading partners like Japan are also sort of
trying to decouple from China a little bit as well.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
So how does that impact the timeline? Because China also Hijinping,
has been fanning out across parts of Asia to ink
trade deals with countries like Vietnam, for example, to counter
US tariffs. Does that kind of escalate the speed with
which the administration wants to make sure to move to
get some of these deals actually inked.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Well.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
I think the administration is trying to move quickly to
cut these deals on a number of fronts because they
just put things on a ninety day pause and so
they have sort of their own self imposed deadline. We
have seen President Trump, I've covered him for many years.
We have seen him change those deadlines and move things forward.
But I think it's going to be like a race
between China and the US about sort of who can
(19:08):
cut deals with different countries and what that level of
diplomacy looks like.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
And no deal is going to be cut without President
Trump's direct sign off. Right, He's in these talks in
addition to Lutnik investment. This is not letting kind of
members of the cabinet do things. He is intimately involved
in this process.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Yes, absolutely, I mean he is the one really calling
the shots on the tariffs. I think that there is
you know, there has been some disagreement among the top
economic advisers about what the tariff should look like, how
sort of extreme they should be, how nuanced they should be,
But he is always in the driver's seat on making
those decisions.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I'd like to ask you about something else pertaining to
the administration that has been capturing a lot of news coverage, certainly,
and that is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. After
we earlier this week saw the president of El Salvador
visiting the White House. This is of course a man
who was wrongly deported to El Salvador is currently imprisoned there.
The administration says it's up to Bukla if he wants
to return him, but Ukle says no, even though the
(20:04):
Supreme Court said this must be facilitated. But there is
no sign that the administration is shifting its even tone
on this of anything. Nancy, They're quadrupling down, it seems.
Speaker 7 (20:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
What I have been so struck by just throughout Trump's
second term so far, and you know, we're not even
at the one hundred day mark, is that they are
not super concerned about following the norms or necessarily the
checks and balances that the court system imposes. And I
think this is just another instance of them thinking, well,
you know, world defy the Supreme Court if we want, like,
what is in it for us? What is going to
(20:37):
be the consequence. Republicans on Capitol Hill, you know, have
really made very little public noise about what Trump has done.
And I think it's another example of the administration sort
of testing the boundaries of law and what is going
to be legally permissible.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
All right, Bloomberg's Nancy Cook, senior national political reporter for
US here in Washington, Thank you so much, And we
want to dig further into the Abrego Garcia case and
issues of immigration with this administration. Further now with an
immigration attorney, David Leopold is joining me. He's a group
leader in immigration at UBI Greensfelder and also former president
of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who's going to be
(21:14):
joining me in a minute, as we consider Abrego Garcia's case,
which of course has captured enough attention that a Senator
from Maryland, the Democrat Chris van Holland, has actually made
tracks to Venezuela or El Salvador rather himself today to
try to see him in prison as he continues to
plead his case. We heard from the Senator as he
was ready to board the plane at Dulles earlier.
Speaker 8 (21:35):
My overall purpose here is to send the signal that
we are not going to stop fighting for his return
until he is actually released. I may be the first
senator or first member of Congress to go down to
El Salvador, but people are going to keep on coming
until he comes home. This is about the rule of law,
(21:56):
This is about due process. This is about not letting
people be whisked off the street, which the Trump administration
admits was done in error. And I just want people
to think about what that means.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
So let's get David Leopold's take on the rule of
law here he is joining me. Now, David really appreciate
the time. Obviously, the Supreme Court had ruled that the
administration needed to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia. But
did they leave just too much room for interpretation? Is
there a great area here that you see the administration
taking advantage of or they're just literally flatting the courts.
Speaker 9 (22:33):
They're clearly flatting the court. Look if it'd gone the
other way, right, if you had a Supreme Court telling
the Trump administration to facilitate the deportation of somebody, do
you think there'd be any misunderstanding to that usage of
the term. They're clearly an open defiance of not only
the district court, but at the Supreme Court of the
United States. And as Senator Van Halen just said, this
(22:55):
is about the rule of law, and the rule of
law affects us all. Whereas you know we can this
is a focus obviously on an immigration issue and a
removal and improper and legal removal to a hellhole prison
in Al Salvador. This effects all of us, is this
effects everyone. The through line is to US citizens and Americans.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
But specifically Abrego Garcia is not a US citizen, which
the administration has been very quick to point out whenever
this is raised, that he actually came illegally from Al Salvador,
and it is to El Salvador where he was returned,
even though a court had ruled he should not be
deported to El Salvador specifically because of threats he faced there.
Does that indicate, though, David, that even if he were
(23:41):
to be brought back to the US from the prison
where he currently is, that he could very easily just
deported and sent literally anywhere else beyond El Salvador.
Speaker 9 (23:51):
Well, let's remember why he was in the United States.
That's because the Trump administration in twenty nineteen found that
he was facing a threat to his life or his
liberty if he was sent to El Salvador. This was
in twenty nineteen, and this was an immigration court. What
is an immigration court. It's an agency of the Department
(24:13):
of Justice. It's not an Article three court. It's an
agency of the Department of Justice. So the Trump administration itself,
after extensive vetting of criminal background, after extensive vetting of
public safety risks, etc. Found that mister Abrego Garcia would
be would suffer a loss to his liberty or his
(24:33):
life if he was sent back to El Salvador. So
for them to now come out and use this increasingly
hostile and hateful rhetoric going from we made a mistake
to now he's a terrorist is absolutely absurd, absolutely absurd.
So if he's brought back to the United States, he
would be restored to the status that he was in
(24:54):
and that says a lawfully present non citizen in the
United States under we call withholding of removal because because
he faces a loss of liberty or life in El Salvador.
That's why this part of it, you know, the whole
thing is horrible, but that makes it particularly horrible.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Well, and that is just the case of this one
man who was on planes that were full of hundreds
of people who were deported and sent to this prison.
And of course, the very nature of whether or not
those planes ultimately should have landed in Al Salvador was
a question in the case being overseen by Judge Boseburg,
who today said he sees reason to hold administration officials
in content for violating his verbal order to turn the
(25:36):
planes around. I feel free to weigh in on whether
that contempt kind of proceeding will change anything here. But
what about due process for those individuals who are on
board those aircraft?
Speaker 9 (25:49):
What about due process? I mean they the fairness of this,
there is no fairness. To process really means fairness. It
means an opportunity to present yourself to a court. It
means an opportunity to tell the government, no, you know what,
I'm not I'm not supposed to be part of this.
And here's why. And nobody who was sent to people
that were sent to L. Salvador to the Seacat prison,
(26:10):
a notoriously brutal prison run by the two bit dictator
O'Kelly from L. Salvador. Those folks, you know, they didn't
get any chance to defend themselves. Whether we see that
mistakes were made, whether it was the barber or whether
it was the women who were sent down there, we
see that mistakes were made, and we see that mistakes
(26:31):
can be corrected. What's going on here is that the government,
the Trump administration, is doubling down and you know, does
not want to follow the courts, an open defiance of
the United States Supreme Court, playing with words like effectuate
facil We all know what that means, it means get
him home for God's sake. That's what the district court said,
(26:52):
and that's what the Supreme Court affirmed. You know, and
you think of this horrible rhetoric that's coming out of
the Oval Office about him being a terrorist, and remind
people that, you know, you can lie in the Oval Office,
but you can't lie in the court room. And so
you don't hear that same rhetoric from the DOJ. The
(27:12):
Department of Justice attorneys who are arguing these cases. They're
hemming in halling, for sure, but you know, they all
have ethical duties to present good faith arguments to the court,
and you're not hearing that hateful regularly, those name calling
and that sort of thing from the attorneys.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
David, we just have thirty seconds left. But if any
of those attorneys or others were to be held in
contempt of court, is there anything President Trump can do
to interfere.
Speaker 9 (27:39):
In that, Well, you know, there's certainly, you know, I
would hope not I would hope that the president would
respect the rule of law. I mean, clearly we've seen
indications that that is not to be affected. With the
partner the January sixth insurrection.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Good point David Leopold, immigration attorney here on Balance of Power.
Thank you for joining Bloomberg.
Speaker 8 (28:09):
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern 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):
The Nvidia price action comes after the news the company
revealed last night, which is that the US government has
put new restrictions on its ability to send its each
twenty chip to export it to China. The company says
this is going to result in a five point five
billion dollar write down in the current quarter tied to
inventory and previous commitments for the chip, and video is
(00:46):
not the only one. AMD also expecting a charge of
as much as eight hundred million dollars after the administration
put restrictions on it too, specifically its ability to export
its Mi I three to eight products to China. All
of this is the US is trying to restrict China's
access to an ability to develop advanced semiconductor technology and
the things that that technology ultimately powers. So for more,
(01:10):
we turned to Ed Ludlow, who was co host of
Bloomberg Technology. Thanks for being here, Ed, Obviously there were
already restrictions in place that companies like in Vidia were
grappling with. But this EACH twenty chip was supposed to
be a way to get around the problem of export controls.
Now it is once again falling victim to controls.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Yeah, that's exactly what both are sort of political and
markets audience needs to understand that the specific technology that
is as of this morning, you know, subject to these
additional license requirements, was already a result of what the
Biden administration had put in place. Like in Vidia's H
twenty for example, they designed it in twenty twenty three
with the hopes that it would get around circumvent those restrictions.
(01:51):
You know, from Vidia a five point five billion dollar
write down. That's literally basically that the loss of being
unable to sell inventory that was already admitted to customers
is a pain, you know. But for AMD, even though
their dollar sales is much less than in Vida, proportionately,
China is so important, and the context you need to
remember is like these are American companies. They are the
(02:13):
biggest technology companies in the world. In Vidia literally the
biggest player in AI markets, and there was a time
where China was the most important end market for cloud computing,
and video has already moved away. You know, twenty twenty two,
China was about twenty five twenty six percent revenue. It's
now low double digits, and most people see it going
to single digits. But this is the trade off the
(02:35):
administration needs to work with these companies on. They want
to onshore them in the US, but need to consider
the end markets they're now being cut off from.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Well, yeah, and how that may impact that these companies'
ability to invest in things like a greater capacity in
the United States. Are we to assume ed that actually
getting licenses to continue exporting these ships is completely out
of the question.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Well, I had the opportunity this morning to ask the
President's advisor and Director of the Office for Science Technology Policy,
Michael Kratzios, and he declined to answer, and the audience
can read into that what they will It was a
very specific question, will you advise the President to allow
AMD and VIDIA to have a license? The point is
that these chips are much lower performance than the leading
(03:20):
edge product that both of them produce. The concern and
anxiety from the White House is that they're still capable
of going into an AI supercomputer, and that from a
national security perspective, China could use that lower level technology
for the things it's concerned about. But again he declined
to comment. It's going to be really interesting to see
how they play it. My question to your panel throughout
the week in the shows is what happens next, right,
(03:42):
because the thing we've hadn't talked about is which Chinese
companies were buying those chips Ali, Barba, ten Cent, Byte Dance.
I'd be really curious if the If America thinks about
something called an entity list and goes much more specific
on how it prevents the transfer of technology.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Yeah, we have a lot.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Of questions about how much further this could snowball. Add
to your point about this being kind of a lower
capability chip than others, are there still further rungs on
the ladder that the administration could decide to go down
and restrict exports when it comes to one in Vidia
and am D make.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Yeah, an entity list is interesting because you basically say, okay,
American companies, you cannot sell to these specific Chinese companies.
We've listed them for you, but those are the biggest customers.
There's another way of thinking about this. You know the
expression that takes two to tango and in a trade
or tariffs or restrictions environment. Think about it from China's perspective,
(04:35):
Huawei is becoming their national champion of cutting edge technology.
They have a similar chip that does what Nvidia and
AMD's lower level chips can do. But those Chinese companies
wanted to use the American technology. There is an argument
made by some on my show earlier today, Denny Fish,
who has billions of dollars of those stocks, that All
America is doing inadvertently or indirectly is allowing China to
(04:59):
move forward with on shoring and elevating its own domestic industry.
So that's a very interesting thing, right, You're cutting off
sales of your main American technology companies on the hope
that they shift activities for us and that they have
other customers outside of China.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
All right, Ed Ludlow, co host of Bloomberg Technology, thank
you so much. And we want to keep the focus
on China and specifically the prospect of trade negotiations opening
up between Washington in Beijing. As we learned today some
details about what China might be asking for before they're
willing to go to the table, And it's to Bloomberg's
Tyler Kendall, who is life at the White House, that
we turn to for those details. So, Tyler, obviously there's
(05:37):
a number of things here based on our reporting. How
likely is the administration to acquiesce to what China wants?
Speaker 5 (05:43):
Yeah, hey, Killy, Well, that really remains to be seen.
Considering that one of the big points here that we're learning,
per a person familiar with the Chinese government's thinking, is
that Beijing would like to see a point person appointed
to lead these talks other than President Trump. And we
know that this White House has repeatedly said that he
would be directly involved, and even the President and himself
has said that he is waiting for Xijingping's call. Still,
(06:04):
this is kind of our first insight that we've really
seen into potentially what could break what has been weeks
of escalation between the two countries. Also, importantly, the source
familiar telling Bloomberg News that the most important precondition is
going to be for Chinese officials to feel that they
are treated with respect. It appears that Beijing would like
to see President Trump start to disavow when his cabinet
(06:25):
members for example, criticized China, even if President Trump himself
says that he has a good relationship with Jijingping. So far,
we have to see where this goes, because we do
know that the White House would like China to ultimately
reach out directly, and we should say that that tactic
has helped expedite negotiations in some cases. Take today, for example,
(06:46):
Japan is here with negotiators in Washington, and Japan was
one of those countries that did reach out directly to
President Trump with a phone call between the Prime Minister
and the White House, and officials have repeatedly pointed us
to the fact that Japan would get priority status because
as they felt that they reached out very quickly to negotiate.
And while we talk about who is talking and who's
not talking, we have to always keep in mind, of
(07:07):
course Japan, but also those other countries like South Korea
and Vietnam geographically close to China that this White House
seems to be prioritizing and calls. As Jijipan completes his
own tour of Southeast Asia countries, as he tries to
talk to those leaders directly to shore up his support.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Yeah and Bloomberg has some fresh reporting out today Tyler
about how the administration may be asking countries like Japan
to be considering putting their own tariffs on China as
part of these negotiations. What other asks could the Japanese
who are in Washington today face from the administration.
Speaker 5 (07:38):
Right And that reporting is particularly interesting because Bloomberg News
had actually reported that a few months ago, remember when
those Mexico tariff talks were underway, that the US had
been pressuring Mexico to lift its own terraffs against China.
So this does appear to be a repeat of a
potential strategy here by the administration, as we've heard Scott
Bessen for example, say that he would like to see
(07:59):
a coalition form together and then they could tackle ultimately
what happens there with China remains to be seen. Exactly
what's going to be put on the table when it
comes to these talks with Japan. President Trump of coursing
and his truth social posts that they'll be talking about
trade imbalances as well as American military support. As you
well know, all of these talks are going well beyond
just those tariff barriers. We could keep in mind that
(08:19):
Japan has already pledged, for example, that it would boost
US LNG imports into the country, So perhaps that could
be one of the factors here on the table as
we wait to learn more. But one thing that we
do know, Keiley. President Trump says he's going to be
directly involved in these talks today, even though they're not
at the leader level. He's going to appear alongside his
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik and Treasury Secretary Scott Besson.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
All Right, bloombergs Tyler Kendall live at the White House
here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Thank you so much
for your reporting, and now we get analysis from our
political panel, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzy. You know both
of them Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick also a Republican strategists
and partner at Stone Court Capital. Genie democratic analyst and
senior Democracy fellow at the Center for the Study of
the Presidency. And Rick, when we consider these negotiations that
(09:02):
are now beginning, knowing that there is a ninety day
window that is getting ever shorter that the administration has
left for itself here to ink all of these various
trade deals, how important is it for them to have
quick victories, quick deals to announce.
Speaker 6 (09:17):
You know, I don't think it's really that critical for
them to have a lot of quick deals show momentum.
I mean, maybe if they're trying to regain some of
the footing that's lost in the markets, that would make
some sense. But I think, really this is a much
bigger thing. And I think you conversation with Tyler kind
of kicks it off, and that is this is about
isolating China, right. You'll notice everybody else got a reprieve
(09:39):
with them. This has been a real focus of Donald
Trump since his first presidency, is to basically divide the
world along the lines of their friends of China and
their friends of the United States. And we haven't seen
this kind of alignment since the Soviet Union, you know,
sphere of influence strategies that the US used to have
to go through during the Cold War. And so at
(10:01):
the end of the day, I think what you see
is this decoupling. You see trying to isolate China, and
you see the use of the military in the Pacific.
You see the use of diplomacy abroad, you see the
use of economics at home and abroad, and I think
these are all the toolkits at Trump's using to try
and basically created deterrent to Chinese influence around the world.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Well, but he still says he wants China to pick
up the phone and call He'd like to make a deal.
As the contention of him and others in the White
House Genie and Tyler was just outlining some of the
things China, according to our reporting, wants to see first
guarantees that they'll be respected, there will be one point person,
that there will be consistency in US policy. Do you
see those things as likely to be delivered by the
Trump administration.
Speaker 7 (10:46):
We haven't seen a sign of it yet. You know,
Donald Trump has famously described himself as a great deal maker,
and yet on the very issues he needs to make deals,
so far in the last eighty days he has fallen short. Now, granted,
we have to give him some time. But you know,
as I'm listening to Rick, I'm thinking that may have
all been true for Donald Trump one point oh, But
(11:07):
in Donald Trump two point oh, if we are trying
to decouple from China, if we are trying to isolate China,
we are doing a heck of a job doing that.
Why the tariffs on every country in the world. Why
start with Canada and Mexico. Why drive so many of
our allies to seek relationships with China? Why is Jijinping
(11:31):
traveling around the world right now shoring up those relationships.
So if that was the intent, and I actually agree
with the intent, then it is a heck of a
way to roll out that policy. And I think that's
the problem here. There was a smart way to do
targeted tariffs on China to get where we need to go,
and we do need to get there, but this is
(11:52):
not the way. And so now Donald Trump is caught
up in trying to negotiate with every country around the
world as opposed to focusing, like a laser beam, where
we should be focused, which is on China.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Well, he obviously was not shy about talking about China
on the campaign trail, which is how we got to
Trump two point zero. Rick is in part because he
campaigned on this, but he also campaigned on just the
idea that he thinks tariffs are the way to revive
the American manufacturing economy and make the US greater than
it was before. Can we quantify the actual domestic support
for any of these policies, whether it comes to China
(12:29):
or the wider tariff regime that is in place.
Speaker 6 (12:33):
Yeah, I mean, obviously, you're right. It's not just a
weapon or a tool of diplomacy and foreign relations. It's
a way, in Donald Trump's mind that you take off
pressures from taxation on the American public and allow the
world to fund our country in our government. And so
he hasn't really invested too heavily in selling that. Obviously
(12:55):
it was a big part of his campaign, but you'll
notice that most of the tariff discussion has not been
as a way of avoiding taxing our citizens in his
rhetoric up until this point in time. And I would
say without that, the American public is basically seeing, and
we're seeing it in the consumer surveys and the polling
(13:17):
that they don't like it very much. It's destabilizing the economy.
They are very pessimistic about the future. They think it'll
help increase inflation. I mean, basically, all the detractors who
have been anti tariffs have been seemingly getting through to
these consumers and voters much more clearly than Donald Trump has.
Speaker 8 (13:39):
Well.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
And you're starting to see that showing up in town halls,
or arguably we've already been seeing it. But take the
example of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Genie, who just
got an earful Although he already was kind of skeptical
of tariffs, he was one of the co sponsors of
that bipartisan legislation that would reassert Congress's authority over the
matter that got a veto threat from the right House already.
(14:00):
But for the others in Congress who are at home
in their districts right now for the Eastern recess, do
you expect they could return to Washington, d C. On
the other side of it with a different attitude when
it comes to.
Speaker 7 (14:10):
Tariff's Absolutely, because they will be talking to constituents who
are hurt by this tariff taxation plan that the President
has put into place. You know, the President is sitting
in the Oval Office saying, well, you know, I like
Tim Cook. I just talked to Tim Cook. I made
an exception for Tim Cook. But these representatives and senators
(14:31):
will be talking to their constituents, big and small business owners,
people who have jobs that rely on trade and free
trade around the world. And the way the President has
gone about this is reckless and we're seeing it, as
Rick said in the Consumer Confidence, we're seeing it in
the polls. And the President has yet to explain what
(14:51):
the goal is. If the goal is to reshore and
build manufacturing, exemptions work in the opposite direction, why the
exemptions right? If the goal is to raise revenue, why
the exemptions right? So he not only has done this
in a reckless way, he has been unable to articulate
(15:12):
the goal, and he has been able to articulate how
long this pain will be felt by the American public.
Congressmen and women will hear all of that overbreak, and
they may return saying we need to claim back some
of our power. Although it's Congress, Kayley, so I wouldn't
hold my bet they'll do anything right away.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Fair enough, Jeanie Shanzeno and Rick Davis, our political panel.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power Podcast. Catch
us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple,
Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You
can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship
New York station, Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
I'm Kaylee Lines in Washington, where there is a jack.
Theanese delegation also today specifically here to meet with members
of the administration, and according to President Trump, the President himself,
all of this of course about trade. President Trump posting
on True Social earlier today, Japan is coming in today
to negotiate tariffs, the cost of military support, and this
(16:19):
is in capitals and quotes trade fairness. He says, I
will attend the meeting along with the Treasury and Commerce secretaries.
Hopefully something can be worked out, which is good, great
for Japan and the USA. So we want to get
more on this now with Nancy Cook Bloomberg, Senior National
political correspondent. Nancy, we've known that the US was really
prioritizing Japan and this series of trade negotiations with many
(16:42):
different countries that have yet to unfold. I believe it
was the first country we actually heard Secretary Bessent say
they're opening formal conversations with what exactly will the objective
be when it comes to Japan specifically.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Well, I think that a big thing that the administration
is trying to do is, you know, come up with
trade deals with each individual country, and part of those
trade deals involve sort of lessening the trade imbalance that
the US has with any other country. But a big
part of the negotiations, I'm told by White House officials,
is also sort of making sure that the other countries
(17:15):
have some criteria to also impose potentially secondary tariffs on China.
So as part of those negotiations, it's not just that
they want sort of a better deal with Japan, let's say,
in the US, they also want Japan to take some
sort of measures towards China, and they're going to be
asking that. The administration is going to be asking that
of a lot of the countries that they negotiate with,
(17:37):
and so it'll be really interesting to see how that
goes because this is sort of going to be one
of the first negotiations that we really see out in
the open.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Well, So is that just all in an attempt to
gain more leverage for when negotiations with China eventually opened,
because Bloomberg's reporting is indicating today there's a number of
steps China would like to see this administration take before
they're willing to begin those talks.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Of course, I mean, I think China does not want
to be embarrassed by the situation, and they want a
bunch of steps. They want initial contact contact, They want
to feel like there's going to be a measure of
respect when President g and President Trump like finally do
speak sort of leader to leader, and that is sort
of their way of doing things. But meanwhile, what the
US government is trying to do is really sort of
(18:20):
create new alliances and make sure that our trading partners
are key. Trading partners like Japan are also sort of
trying to decouple from China a little bit as well.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
So how does that impact the timeline? Because China also Hijinping,
has been fanning out across parts of Asia to ink
trade deals with countries like Vietnam, for example, to counter
US tariffs. Does that kind of escalate the speed with
which the administration wants to make sure to move to
get some of these deals actually inked.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Well.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
I think the administration is trying to move quickly to
cut these deals on a number of fronts because they
just put things on a ninety day pause and so
they have sort of their own self imposed deadline. We
have seen President Trump, I've covered him for many years.
We have seen him change those deadlines and move things forward.
But I think it's going to be like a race
between China and the US about sort of who can
(19:08):
cut deals with different countries and what that level of
diplomacy looks like.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
And no deal is going to be cut without President
Trump's direct sign off. Right, He's in these talks in
addition to Lutnik investment. This is not letting kind of
members of the cabinet do things. He is intimately involved
in this process.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Yes, absolutely, I mean he is the one really calling
the shots on the tariffs. I think that there is
you know, there has been some disagreement among the top
economic advisers about what the tariff should look like, how
sort of extreme they should be, how nuanced they should be,
But he is always in the driver's seat on making
those decisions.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I'd like to ask you about something else pertaining to
the administration that has been capturing a lot of news coverage, certainly,
and that is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. After
we earlier this week saw the president of El Salvador
visiting the White House. This is of course a man
who was wrongly deported to El Salvador is currently imprisoned there.
The administration says it's up to Bukla if he wants
to return him, but Ukle says no, even though the
(20:04):
Supreme Court said this must be facilitated. But there is
no sign that the administration is shifting its even tone
on this of anything. Nancy, They're quadrupling down, it seems.
Speaker 7 (20:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
What I have been so struck by just throughout Trump's
second term so far, and you know, we're not even
at the one hundred day mark, is that they are
not super concerned about following the norms or necessarily the
checks and balances that the court system imposes. And I
think this is just another instance of them thinking, well,
you know, world defy the Supreme Court if we want, like,
what is in it for us? What is going to
(20:37):
be the consequence. Republicans on Capitol Hill, you know, have
really made very little public noise about what Trump has done.
And I think it's another example of the administration sort
of testing the boundaries of law and what is going
to be legally permissible.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
All right, Bloomberg's Nancy Cook, senior national political reporter for
US here in Washington, Thank you so much, And we
want to dig further into the Abrego Garcia case and
issues of immigration with this administration. Further now with an
immigration attorney, David Leopold is joining me. He's a group
leader in immigration at UBI Greensfelder and also former president
of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who's going to be
(21:14):
joining me in a minute, as we consider Abrego Garcia's case,
which of course has captured enough attention that a Senator
from Maryland, the Democrat Chris van Holland, has actually made
tracks to Venezuela or El Salvador rather himself today to
try to see him in prison as he continues to
plead his case. We heard from the Senator as he
was ready to board the plane at Dulles earlier.
Speaker 8 (21:35):
My overall purpose here is to send the signal that
we are not going to stop fighting for his return
until he is actually released. I may be the first
senator or first member of Congress to go down to
El Salvador, but people are going to keep on coming
until he comes home. This is about the rule of law,
(21:56):
This is about due process. This is about not letting
people be whisked off the street, which the Trump administration
admits was done in error. And I just want people
to think about what that means.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
So let's get David Leopold's take on the rule of
law here he is joining me. Now, David really appreciate
the time. Obviously, the Supreme Court had ruled that the
administration needed to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia. But
did they leave just too much room for interpretation? Is
there a great area here that you see the administration
taking advantage of or they're just literally flatting the courts.
Speaker 9 (22:33):
They're clearly flatting the court. Look if it'd gone the
other way, right, if you had a Supreme Court telling
the Trump administration to facilitate the deportation of somebody, do
you think there'd be any misunderstanding to that usage of
the term. They're clearly an open defiance of not only
the district court, but at the Supreme Court of the
United States. And as Senator Van Halen just said, this
(22:55):
is about the rule of law, and the rule of
law affects us all. Whereas you know we can this
is a focus obviously on an immigration issue and a
removal and improper and legal removal to a hellhole prison
in Al Salvador. This effects all of us, is this
effects everyone. The through line is to US citizens and Americans.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
But specifically Abrego Garcia is not a US citizen, which
the administration has been very quick to point out whenever
this is raised, that he actually came illegally from Al Salvador,
and it is to El Salvador where he was returned,
even though a court had ruled he should not be
deported to El Salvador specifically because of threats he faced there.
Does that indicate, though, David, that even if he were
(23:41):
to be brought back to the US from the prison
where he currently is, that he could very easily just
deported and sent literally anywhere else beyond El Salvador.
Speaker 9 (23:51):
Well, let's remember why he was in the United States.
That's because the Trump administration in twenty nineteen found that
he was facing a threat to his life or his
liberty if he was sent to El Salvador. This was
in twenty nineteen, and this was an immigration court. What
is an immigration court. It's an agency of the Department
(24:13):
of Justice. It's not an Article three court. It's an
agency of the Department of Justice. So the Trump administration itself,
after extensive vetting of criminal background, after extensive vetting of
public safety risks, etc. Found that mister Abrego Garcia would
be would suffer a loss to his liberty or his
(24:33):
life if he was sent back to El Salvador. So
for them to now come out and use this increasingly
hostile and hateful rhetoric going from we made a mistake
to now he's a terrorist is absolutely absurd, absolutely absurd.
So if he's brought back to the United States, he
would be restored to the status that he was in
(24:54):
and that says a lawfully present non citizen in the
United States under we call withholding of removal because because
he faces a loss of liberty or life in El Salvador.
That's why this part of it, you know, the whole
thing is horrible, but that makes it particularly horrible.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Well, and that is just the case of this one
man who was on planes that were full of hundreds
of people who were deported and sent to this prison.
And of course, the very nature of whether or not
those planes ultimately should have landed in Al Salvador was
a question in the case being overseen by Judge Boseburg,
who today said he sees reason to hold administration officials
in content for violating his verbal order to turn the
(25:36):
planes around. I feel free to weigh in on whether
that contempt kind of proceeding will change anything here. But
what about due process for those individuals who are on
board those aircraft?
Speaker 9 (25:49):
What about due process? I mean they the fairness of this,
there is no fairness. To process really means fairness. It
means an opportunity to present yourself to a court. It
means an opportunity to tell the government, no, you know what,
I'm not I'm not supposed to be part of this.
And here's why. And nobody who was sent to people
that were sent to L. Salvador to the Seacat prison,
(26:10):
a notoriously brutal prison run by the two bit dictator
O'Kelly from L. Salvador. Those folks, you know, they didn't
get any chance to defend themselves. Whether we see that
mistakes were made, whether it was the barber or whether
it was the women who were sent down there, we
see that mistakes were made, and we see that mistakes
(26:31):
can be corrected. What's going on here is that the government,
the Trump administration, is doubling down and you know, does
not want to follow the courts, an open defiance of
the United States Supreme Court, playing with words like effectuate
facil We all know what that means, it means get
him home for God's sake. That's what the district court said,
(26:52):
and that's what the Supreme Court affirmed. You know, and
you think of this horrible rhetoric that's coming out of
the Oval Office about him being a terrorist, and remind
people that, you know, you can lie in the Oval Office,
but you can't lie in the court room. And so
you don't hear that same rhetoric from the DOJ. The
(27:12):
Department of Justice attorneys who are arguing these cases. They're
hemming in halling, for sure, but you know, they all
have ethical duties to present good faith arguments to the court,
and you're not hearing that hateful regularly, those name calling
and that sort of thing from the attorneys.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
David, we just have thirty seconds left. But if any
of those attorneys or others were to be held in
contempt of court, is there anything President Trump can do
to interfere.
Speaker 9 (27:39):
In that, Well, you know, there's certainly, you know, I
would hope not I would hope that the president would
respect the rule of law. I mean, clearly we've seen
indications that that is not to be affected. With the
partner the January sixth insurrection.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Good point David Leopold, immigration attorney here on Balance of Power.
Thank you for joining Bloomberg.
Speaker 8 (28:09):
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern 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!