Vice President Pence, thank you so much
for being here.
Thank you both for having me on.
I I want to start with one of these top
stories that we're following today,
which has to do with the pressure
campaign uh from the White House when it
comes to the Federal Reserve. And now
you told Bloomberg television last month
that the president ought not to be able
to express himself when it comes to the
Fed. But I want to get your thoughts on
these latest allegations against Fed
Governor Lisa Cook. What's your level of
concern now, if at all, when it comes to
central bank independence as we see the
scrutiny widen?
Well, well, certainly I think it's it'd
be appropriate for Lisa Cook to respond
uh to the allegations that have been
made. I know the president's called on
her to resign, but um she has a right to
defend herself. If I do I did read today
that some uh that uh federal home loan
has found more than 22,000 Americans
that have filed mortgages claims and two
residences at the same time. Uh and so I
think she should answer for that, have a
chance to answer for it. But what what I
hope is that uh the effort to push out
another member of the Federal Reserve
isn't just simply part and parcel uh of
an effort to get Jerome Pal, who our
administration appointed uh as a Federal
Reserve chair to to lower interest rates
or otherwise take action that uh that
would not otherwise be justified. I I
understand the president's frustration
uh with Chairman Pal uh and he's
entitled to speak out about that, but my
my hope is that uh these latest
allegations are not simply part of that
overall pressure campaign and uh can be
can be given the and afforded the due
process that they deserve.
Mr. Vice President, we'd like to turn to
another topic we've been covering very
closely this week. Of course, that is
the question of the president's effort
to end the war in Ukraine through a
settlement between Vimir Zalinski, the
president of Ukraine, and his Russian
counterpart. You have met Vladimir Putin
before. Do you believe that President
Trump is perhaps putting too much trust
in the Russian leader and his
willingness to end the war?
Well, well, first I have met Vladimir
Putin
and it's clear to me that Putin doesn't
want peace. Putin wants Ukraine.
And uh I commend President Trump for
continuing to pursue peace uh in Ukraine
today. It's he's he is quite frankly
surrounded u by a lot of isolationist
voices in and outside the administration
that frankly would have uh would have
cut Ukraine off a long time ago. And so
I'm grateful the president has stayed
after it. I'm grateful that he renewed
military uh support and I commend him
for meeting with President Putin and
meeting with President Zilinski and our
European allies. But Michael, I think
one thing is missing uh and that is I I
believe the time has come for the United
States Senate to enact those strong
secondary sanctions against Russia and
send them to the president's desk. I
believe that would strengthen uh the
president's hand. Uh with a waiver
authority that are that are that are
built into those sanctions, the
president could implement them or not
implement as he saw fit. U but my deep
conviction uh having studied Vladimir
Putin and having spoken to him and told
him things he didn't want to hear. Um
Putin's not going to stop until he
stopped. So while while the president
continues on one hand on a vigorous
track of diplomacy,
I I think the time has come for the US
Senate to put on the president's desk
those strong secondary sanctions that'll
make it clear to Vladimir Putin uh and
to the Russians uh that unless they
choose the pathway of peace through
diplomacy uh we will continue to provide
military support and we will pass the
kind of secondary sanctions that will
literally break their economy. What
about so-called secondary tariffs
against China? Would you be in favor of
the administration moving towards that
against Beijing like we've seen them
take against India even if some of the
argument has been that they haven't done
that yet because they don't want to risk
the trade talks that are happening right
now with China? Well, I I have to tell
you that the secondary sanctions uh
against China and other countries that
are essentially fueling the Russian war
machine,
sanctions at 500% would have a
devastating effect on the Russian
economy. Now, I I have plenty of reasons
to support uh strong tariffs against
China. During our administration, we we
changed the national consensus on China.
We imposed $250 billion in tariffs and
we brought China to the negotiating
table for that phase one trade deal in
2020. But so I think I think we we have
to be really strong on China after years
of trade abuses. But otherwise I I
believe we ought to be pursuing free
trade with free nations. We ought not to
be we ought not to be cheering on $150
billion dollar in tariff revenue that's
ultimately paid by American consumers
and American businesses, but rather we
ought to be looking to lower tariffs
with free nations around the world even
while we stand firm with places like uh
China. We do want to get to trade, but I
have one other for you when it comes to
Russia because a large part of the
discussion this week has been around
security guarantees, but we've had
reporting here at Bloomberg News that
there are doubts growing about what
those guarantees can look like because
Russia wants to have a say in what those
guarantees are going to be. What is
feasible in your view? What can the US
push for here when it comes to
guaranteeing Ukraine's future,
particularly when we know that this will
likely be led first by Europe, but then
with the United States backing?
Well, the president has taken NATO
membership off the table,
uh, which he he's entitled to do, but I
I I don't know why the United States has
given um the Russians veto authority
over who joins NATO. That's that's our
security alliance. But be that as it
may, I think the security um uh
commitments that we should make should
reflect NATO. They should be in a sense
uh uh like article 5 where the United
States provides whatever is appropriate,
not boots on the ground uh but uh the
kind of strategic support uh that's
necessary to ensure that once Vladimir
Putin is stopped that he doesn't go
forward at all. If if I can come back,
the reason I'm so confident and so
adamant about the Senate needing to move
these secondary sanctions is because it
was back in in 20 uh uh 19 that uh that
President Erdogan sent the tanks across
the border into Syria. Uh they were they
were raging down on top of our Kurdish
allies. Uh, and President Trump put me
on a plane on Air Force 2 and sent me to
Turkey to negotiate a ceasefire. And
what I would tell you and your viewers
is in that negotiation with President
Erdogan, what was persuasive to him was
the fact that President Trump had given
me a series of sanctions that would be
imposed on members of Erdogan's
government unless he agreed to a
ceasefire to allow us to evacuate our
allies from the border region. As you
remember, we we secured that ceasefire.
Uh our our Kurdish allies were able to
evacuate uh safely. And that's why I
really do believe that it would
strengthen President Trump's hand if
when the Senate comes back uh one of
their first acts would be to send those
those secondary sanctions, that tough
bill to the president's desk, let him
sign it, uh implement it at his choosing
with the waiver authority. But I really
do believe at the end of the day, we've
got to we've got to have that that hand
reached out in diplomacy uh and
negotiations, but the other hand
reminding reminding Vladimir Putin and
the Russians that there will be severe
consequences as the president said there
would be um if the path of diplomacy
fails.
Mr. Vice President, we wanted to move on
to uh domestic politics and those
questions and that includes
redistricting. It's been a big topic
this week, of course, with what's
happening in Texas and California. As a
former Indiana governor, would you
support that happening in the Hooser
State? And what will be the long-term
implications of this wave to redraw
congressional maps?
Well, Michael, as a former Indiana
governor, I'll support what the current
Indiana governor decides is appropriate
with our general assembly. you know, the
Constitution um gives the states the
authority to set the time, place, and
manner of elections, and I respect that.
I I also understand the the frustration
that um uh that the president and many
Republicans have felt. I mean, there
were states the president and I the two
times we ran together won 35 40% of the
vote and yet the congressional
delegation from that state is more like
20% or less. some states where we
enjoyed 35% support, there are no
Republicans in Congress. You know,
there's an old saying that that what you
sow, you reap. Um, and the
heavy-handedness of many Democrat
legislators and governors over the years
has set into motion this pathway. So,
I'm I'm I'm going to let the people in
Indiana and other legislators uh make
those decisions, but at the end of the
day, it'll be the American people that
decide. Well, no matter what happens
when it comes to 2026
2028, we know the economy is going to
remain a top issue for American voters.
And this week, US soybean farmers said
that they were near a quote trade and
financial precipice and cannot survive a
prolonged trade war, particularly when
it comes to China. I've learned that
Indiana is a top five soybean producing
state. Are you concerned about farmers
and do you think that this
administration is planning enough ahead
to protect US farmers?
I'm I'm I I believe I always believe
that trade means jobs and in our
administration whether it was in
negotiations with Canada and Mexico or
in that the strong stand we took with
China imposing tariffs. It was always
about about lowering trade barriers and
ending subsidies and uh ending trade
abuses.
Well, my concern about, and I think it's
a concern of many farmers in Indiana and
all across the heartland, is that what's
emerging from this administration
are broad-based unilateral tariffs that
are being imposed on friend and foe
alike. And that's that's uh that's not
leverage. That's industrial policy. Uh
and and I believe, you know, that
history shows and and even somebody that
knows a little bit about economics knows
that American companies and American
consumers pay American tariffs. I mean,
some of some of countries around the
world that export to us will will take a
small reduction uh of their price, but
in the main Americans pay that cost. And
uh it's particularly meaningful for
farmers who understand that uh when
there's tariffs that are imposed on on
imported agricultural goods here, they
also always result in retaliation uh by
those markets around the world. So
again, my my belief has always been that
uh that free trade with free nations,
let's stand strong on trade abusers like
China around the world, but but let's
look to lower uh tariffs, lower
non-tariff barriers, and that way we'll
win in the city and on the farm.
Mr. Vice President, you brought up
industrial policy, and we wanted to ask
you about uh some headlines that we have
seen and broken here at Bloomberg News
about some industrial policy moves. This
includes the possibility that the US
government may take a stake of up to 10%
in Intel Corp. the iconic American
chipmaker, as well as take a 15% cut of
sales of Nvidia AI chips to China. Were
those kinds of ideas on the table during
your time in the first administration?
And do you think these things are a good
idea or a good strategy?
Uh th this was not uh a strategy that we
employed during the Trump Pence years.
And I I have great concerns about having
u the US government uh take a position
in uh with a golden shares in nippon
steel or uh or just just the the latest
discussions about taking a percent of
intel. Now the Nvidia agreement is even
more problematic. I mean we have export
controls in place to protect our
national security. the limitations on
the ability of Nvidia to sell uh mic you
know to chips to China uh was on the
basis of our national security simply
taking 15% of those sales doesn't serve
our national interests or our national
security I would argue and so I I I
think we need to take a step back uh on
all of this I' encourage the
administration
uh and uh if if I was speaking to the
president I'd encourage him to It's time
for us to think twice. Stateowned
enterprise is not the American way. Free
enterprise is the American way. And and
a refereeed private sector with less
taxes and less regulation has created
the most prosperous economy in the
history of the world. And if we stay on
that path, that'll always be true.
Mr. Vice President, the last minute that
we have with you, we do want to ask you
about news of day. I would love your
thoughts about President Trump's
decision to call in the National Guard
to to Washington DC. Do you think that
this was the right move?
I strongly support uh the president's
decision um to use his authority under
the Constitution and even consistent
with the Home Rule Act uh to really
bring safety back to the streets of
Washington DC. I know there's a lot of
debate about statistics um but uh you
know honestly if Washington DC was a
state it have the highest homicide rate
in the country. I mean 1 1600
violent crimes this year alone in a city
this size is just astounding. And I I
think I think the residents of this city
uh and people around the country
appreciate the president taking the
steps that he's taken to to create
safety on the streets of our nation's
capital. And I'm I fully support efforts
by the president to provide resources
uh for states uh and local communities
to make every city and every town in
America safe.
former Vice President Mike Pence.