This is Balance of Power live from
Washington DC.
From Bloomberg's Washington DC studios
to our TV and radio audiences worldwide.
Welcome to Balance of Power. I'm Joe
Matthew. Tonight, the president exerts
executive power in unprecedented ways.
>> I'm not a dictator. I'm a man with great
common sense and I'm a smart person and
when I see uh what's happening to our
cities and then you send in troops
instead of being praised they're saying
you're trying to take over the republic
from armed national guard troops now
walking the streets of DC with the
president threatening to send in troops
to other cities like Chicago and New
York to wind power company Orststead
reeling from a lastminute order blocking
a four billion dollar project on the
cusp of completion. The Trump White
House now planning to halt another
offshore wind farm to the federal stake
in Intel with the chipmaker now warning
the US government stake could in fact
hurt global business. And now the
president aiming his eyeire at South
Korea on Truth Social before expressing
optimism while sitting down with the
country's new president in the Oval
Office after the two nations struck a
trade deal cap tariffs on South Korea's
exports to the US at 15%. Plus, Elon
Musk's new lawsuits against Apple and
Open AI seeing billions in damages after
accusing both companies of hurting
artificial intelligence competition.
Also this evening, national Democrats
convening to take stock and find a path
forward in 2026 and beyond. We start
today though at the White House. Thanks
for joining us on Bloomberg TV and radio
as President Trump hosts his South
Korean counterpart, President EJ Meyong.
But just hours before the meeting,
President Trump stoked tension by
posting to social media. What is going
on in South Korea? Seems like a purge or
revolution. He wrote, "But we can't have
that and do business there." During the
meeting, the South Korean leader
launching a charm offensive despite
President Trump saying that he was
reluctant to renegotiate any trade deal.
>> We have uh some additional trade because
I hear they want to renegotiate the
deal. But that's okay. I don't mind
that. Uh that doesn't mean they're going
to get anything, but I don't mind.
>> Korea was able to uh attain economic
growth and development through our
ironclad alliance. And going forward, I
hope to develop our alliance into a
future oriented alliance that
encompasses areas not only limited to
security, but also the economy and
science and technology.
>> Joining us now with more Bloomberg's
Wendy Benjaminson with us live here in
our Washington bureau. Wendy, we brought
those remarks to our viewers and
listeners live from the Oval Office. It
was a little bit difficult to tell
exactly what President Trump was getting
at here on social media, referring to a
purge or a revolution. I guess he was
referring to what he referred to as
raids in churches that went into
military bases. This is a pretty
outrageous allegation. Was it settled
today? I don't know if it was settled,
but what we have determined that he was
talking about at least was part of the
investigation into Lee's predecessor who
you know was impeached and then there
was a martial over the martial law
thing. There was a big mess there a few
months ago in South Korea and part now
there is an investigation into
corruption by the former president and
his family and so the South Korean law
enforcement um did go into a unification
church which are if you remember from
the old days we used to call them the
mooneyies when they lived here and they
raided a unification church for evidence
of you know corruption uh involving the
ex-president's wife so that's what this
was about it was a few days ago I don't
know of any,
you know, insurgencies into US military
bases. We haven't heard anything about
that as Trump suggested had happened.
But this is part of the internal
politics that are going on in South
Korea.
>> And so, you know, I don't know if that
that's as much as I know.
>> Well, it recalls a moment of Donald
Trump playing videos for the president
of South Africa uh and what some thought
might have been an ambush today. But it
was a pretty positive meeting. They
seemed to get along. Translations worked
all right. There were questions about a
lot of things, but the president reached
for Kim Jong-un to talk about his great
relationship with the North Koreans.
Does that help us in?
>> No. No, it doesn't. It must have been
very uncomfortable for President Lee who
you sort of saw sitting there very stiff
with this smile sort of plastered on his
face waiting for the translations and
yes and and suggesting that there be a
trilateral meeting with Kim Jong-un and
which a reporter brought up but then
Trump sort of embraced it was like yeah
let's all get together let's all talk
and President Xi which would be
>> it would be extraordinary and highly
unlikely that it would happen and but of
course then Lee left empty-handed. He
tried to renegotiate the trade deal and
he ended up with no changes whatsoever.
And so the trip is over now and we'll
see what happens next.
>> What there is exactly to show for it, I
guess. Right.
>> Wendy, thank you as always for the
insights. Bloomberg's Wendy Benjaminson.
Joining us now for more on today's
bilateral meeting here on Balance of
Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio is Mary
Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson
Institute for International Economics,
an expert in US and China trade
relations. As you well know, if you're
familiar with this program, Mary, it's
great to have you back. Did today's
session with the South Korean president
bring us closer to or move us further
away from a deal with China?
>> Well, I mean, one of the issues for
South Korea and other Asian nations is
how much they're going to remain
integrated with China in terms of their
exports to the United States. So, there
are very important issues that need to
be discussed with the US. uh if the US
demands uh that so-called rules of
origin are changed, limiting the amount
of Chinese content in uh East Asian
exports to the US, that will really have
implications for their businesses. Uh
they may have to create supply chains
exclusively for the United States. So
there are serious issues. I'm afraid
today's discussion
uh really touched on things that um even
the president seemed to be admitting uh
were misunderstandings or
misinformation. So I don't think we
moved the ball ahead at all today.
>> Well, I want to ask you as well about
this investment in US ship building that
we heard about from uh President E last
week on Bloomberg. We talked about this
as a matter of fact with uh Gene Soka,
but I it's something that I asked
Christopher Smart about today. He's with
our broth and used to be an economic
adviser to President Obama uh about the
current trade deal here between the US
and South Korea and what it might mean
uh for investment in our ship building.
Listen to what he said.
>> Korea has committed to invest I think
it's $350 billion in the US including in
ship building. um in return for that
they were able to match auto tariffs
that the Japanese uh government was able
to secure at 15%. So on on on paper at
least it looks like a very good deal for
Korea in the context of what other
countries have been getting.
>> How does Beijing feel about Korea
investing in US ship building?
Well, you know, I think on the just on
the surface, there's nothing wrong with
South Korea investing in US ship
building. Uh South Korea has an
advantage in ship building. They would
be a welcomed investor in US to to
increase US ship building. I think the
Chinese understand that. What is looming
in the background though are you know
coming charges on chi on on uh Chinese
ships that dock in the United States um
particularly those that are owned by
Chinese companies. So China has to see
this as an offensive move even though on
its face the simple foreign investment
by South Korea and the United States is
not really a threat to them.
>> Interesting. Well, there's a lot more
that we can talk about here with regard
to China, including a potential meeting.
Mary, you heard me discussing this with
Wendy. And the president was asked today
about it. Uh, setting up a meeting, a
bilateral, trilateral, I guess, meeting,
US, South Korea, China. Then he even
suggested Kim Jong-un from North Korea.
Is this just happy talk in sort of an
off-hand remark in the Oval Office or
something that could actually happen?
Well, the you know, President Xiinping
is not going to engage in any meeting,
including bilaterally, with President
Trump, unless there's a deal that's
already just waiting to be inked. It is
completely unclear what we want from
North Korea uh in the Trump
administration. Um, and if the North
Koreans are anywhere close to being able
to deliver on security uh, guarantees or
changes, they're very much involved
deeply in the arms trade. Um, and
they're advancing in their technology.
It's very hard to see what they think
they could gain from some kind of
moratorum or whatever it is the
president believes that his special
relationship
um with Kim Jong-un could provide for
the United States. So right now I'd have
to say it sounds like happy talk. There
is not going to be any such meeting
unless there's a lot of uh diplomatic
groundwork that gets done and real
outcomes that the Chinese could sign on
to.
>> Yeah. Well, President Trump is still
threatening more tariffs on China. I
believe a 200% tariff was the threat
today, if no uh magnets, the latest
strategy, I guess, of of preempting
whatever the next conversation is going
to be with Beijing. But we're already
seeing China pull back, and I'm sure
that you've seen evidence of this as
well. I mentioned Gene Soka. He joined
us last week on Bloomberg, runs the port
of Los Angeles, and talked about the
shift in cargo ships that he's seeing
since President Trump's tariff policies
took effect. Listen to how he put it.
>> What we have seen is cargo emanating
from China really dropping. Back in
2018, it was 60% of our portfolio.
Today, it's 45% and continuing to
decline. An uptick from Vietnam,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, not so
much from India. And with the 50%
tariffs that were slapped on that
country, I don't see much change there
yet. But definitely a shift to Southeast
Asia.
Are those numbers a motivating factor
for President Xi Mary? How low can those
numbers get before China needs to worry?
>> Well, I love Gene. He's always so clear
on what's happening at the port of LA
and I think that's just reflective of
what we have seen and the shift away
from dependence on the American market
uh in China has been happening for a
very long time. China got the message to
diversify its trade, its import sources,
its export destinations quite a while
ago. Uh the US um hasn't been strategic
about doing that except in the case of
China where we raised tariffs early on
in the first Trump administration. Uh
these kinds of threats are nothing new
to President Xiinping. This is not going
to move him. Uh yes, it is causing pain
for uh particularly coastal provinces
that are heavily dependent on export
manufacturing, but this is not the
future of China as Xiinping sees it. The
Chinese have now uh you know had a shot
across the vow, a big one. We're going
to withhold magnets if you continue to
try to bully us. Uh and what they've
gotten in response is more bullying. So
they do have uh you know tools that c
they can use to hurt the United States
and they're trying to get the US to the
bargaining table just as much as the US
is trying to get China. So this is the
relationship that both sides need for
now. Uh but right today we're not seeing
any real change uh or breakthrough that
will give us a hint as to where this is
going to end up.
>> Yeah. So what happens first? the magnets
start showing up or we actually see a
200% tariff on China.
>> If we see a 200% tariff, we are
definitely not going to see any magnets
and we're going to see more things
disappear. There are many categories of
exports where China is the dominant
supplier. So they have they have more
bullets in a sense to fire behind this
one. I think that the negotiators, in
particular, Secretary Bessant and Trade
Representative Greer, are doing all they
can to make sure that they can get a
negotiated settlement uh to the dispute
that is to the liking of President Trump
and the Chinese side to the liking of
President uh Xiinping. So whether they
can make that progress uh in time to
meet President Trump's which seems to be
an increasingly short fuse um we really
don't know. That is a continuing source
of great uncertainty not only for the
port of LA but for all all businesses
but there's others out there. the 50% on
Brazil um you know the increasing uh
tensions that have been thrown at other
countries like India those still remain
out there even as some uncertainty has
uh dissipated now that we have deals
with many of the advanced economies of
the world such as Japan South Korea etc.
When the president holds a meeting like
he did today talking about new trade
administration, two trade deals with
South Korea, I think that makes
companies worry even more about where's
the best place to invest and source.
>> Well, it's always great to hear your
insights, Mary. She's senior fellow at
the Peterson Institute for International
Economics. Mary Lovely, we thank you.
This morning on Bloomberg Surveillance
here on Bloomberg TV and Radio, analysts
discuss how markets are watching tariffs
and inflation. Take a listen.
The rhetoric says that the 2% target's
going to stick around, but let's be
honest, they've missed it for 52 months.
They're likely to miss it for another
year given uh what Powell said yesterday
and the pressures coming from tariffs.
The inflation from tariffs has not yet
happened, but it's on the way. When I
look at the S&P 493, the market of
everything else, there's a lot of
businesses in tech hardware, consumer
retail that have really yet started to
see that pain. We're about to see more
tumult in the tariff space than we did
in the first half of the year.
>> For a closer look at how Wall Street is
watching this all unfold, we turn now to
power moves with Bloomberg's Roma
Bostic, who joins us live from world
headquarters in New York. Roma, I went
away for a week. We're still having the
same conversation when I come back.
>> Still having the same conversation, but
I will tell you this, Joe. The market's
attention has shifted just a bit. There
was a lot of talk on Friday about the
dovish comments from J. Pal, the
potential for rate cuts. But talking to
people here today, right now the big
focus is on Nvidia. And there's been a
big joke right now of what's more
important to this market. What JPAL does
next, what President Trump does next, or
what Jensen Wong does next. And I think
the answer you're going to find out is
on Wednesday when Nvidia, the world's
largest chipmaker and the most valuable
company, publicly traded company out
there, does report earnings. We should
point out this stock alone makes up 10%
of the NASDAQ 100, 8% of the S&P 500.
So, as it goes, so too does the broader
market. But there is a tariff tie-in or
at least a trade policy tie-in to all
this. Joe, this is a company that prior
to just a couple of years ago made the
majority of its revenue from overseas,
non US companies, but that revenue shift
has shifted more to US-based companies.
Some of that is just primarily because
of the AI trade and an AI trade that has
been US focused. But there's a big
concern right now that this company is
not able to sell into foreign markets,
particularly China, at the same rate
that it would have, primarily because of
some of the policies coming out of the
White House. And when we get those
earnings report, Joe, after the bell on
Wednesday, the big question is going to
be how much revenue it made, how much
earnings that it made, but more
importantly, what Jensen Wong has to say
about the company's ability to re-enter
and expand into the Chinese market.
And with 8% of the S&P 500, it seems
like everybody's going to feel it for
better or worse. Roma, thank you as
always. Bloomberg's Roma Bostic in New
York. We'll have a lot to talk about on
Wednesday. Coming up, how the markets
are responding to President Trump's
economic agenda beyond what we just
heard. We'll dive into it with Nancy
Tangler of Laugher Tangler Investments
up ahead. But first, the president has
amplified his criticism of blue cities
like Chicago, renewing threats to send
in the National Guard beyond DC and LA.
We'll discuss that with Democratic
Congresswoman Robin Kelly of Illinois.
That's next on Balance of Power on
Bloomberg TV and Radio.
[Music]
Chicago, Illinois is a disaster. I have
property there. It's a disaster. What's
going on in Chicago? and you get
Pritska, he's violating our rights. I
made the statement that next should be
Chicago because as you all know, Chicago
is a killing field right now and they
don't acknowledge it.
It's balance of power on Bloomberg TV
and radio. I'm Joe Matthew in
Washington. Thank you for joining us.
President Trump from this morning in the
Oval Office there reiterating his
criticism of Chicago and floating the
idea that it may well be the next city
where he plans to deploy National Guard
troops. Joining us now on Balance of
Power with her reaction to all of this,
President Trump's latest comments.
Democratic Congresswoman Robin Kelly of
Illinois, whose district includes part
of the south side of Chicago.
Congresswoman, it's great to have you
back on Bloomberg TV and radio. You
heard the president. Today is not the
first time, and the Washington Post
reported over the weekend that in fact
Chicago would be next with National
Guard troops deployed on the streets of
your city.
The White House even kicked out a fact
sheet today refuting the narrative of
lower crime rates in your city, talking
more about anecdotal evidence, the way
people feel. Give us your take on what's
happening on the street there. Does
Chicago need the National Guard to keep
streets safe?
>> Chicago does not need the National
Guard. uh Chicago could use uh gun
violence intervention funding that he's
seemed fit to claw back from agencies
that were promised funding and he he was
so worried about crime he wouldn't have
shut down the office of gun violence
prevention on day one or two of his
presidency. Uh the stats are the stats.
Crime has gone down. No one has said
there's no more crime, but uh Chicago
was working on it and they've been
working on it and we're seeing the, you
know, the proof of them working on it.
Crime has gone down. It's not
eliminated, but it's gone down.
>> That's certainly the case according to
Chicago's own crime tracker. I'm looking
at it right now. It's got crime down in
all categories from this time last year.
Do you believe though that's a total
representation of what's happening in
Chicago?
>> I do. I mean, I don't think the mayor or
anybody else, the police superintendent
is trying to say, you know, there's not
more work to do. There is more work to
do. Any crime is too much crime. But,
you know, he's pointing to all
Democratic cities, and I would say all
Democratic cities that have black mayors
on top of it is just part of his uh, you
know, scheme of fear, uh, racism, and
division.
Well, you know what a lot of Republicans
are saying right now, and I've been
hearing this since before Chicago uh was
part of the conversation, is that this
is a win politically for Republicans,
that the whole point of this is for
Donald Trump to get Democrats like you
to push back on this idea, to reinforce
the idea that Democrats are soft on
crime, Congresswoman, how would you
react to that?
>> Well, we're not soft on crime. We just
have other ways to deal with it. Again,
crime is going down.
>> Do you think that's what's actually
happening, though? Is is this an effort
to try to make you look soft on crime?
>> Oh, I'm Oh, I'm sure they're going to
try everything they can do because they
know they're on their way to losing in
November 2026 and he doesn't want to
give up his kingdom. So, that's what
this is all about. And we just have to
keep speaking the truth and also do
everything we can do uh to um you know
decrease crime in all of our cities. But
there there's a lot of proof that red
states have crime too. A lot of crime.
He was actually asked today if he would
send National Guard troops into cities
in red states, suggesting he said that
there aren't many of them, but but that
he would. In fact, you started talking
about the funding that you need though
to pursue uh crime programs in Chicago.
What are the proven methods that you're
referring to?
>> Well, there you can look at um you know,
people talk about CRED. I can name a lot
of organizations people you know have
not heard of Good Kids Mad City, Polish
Pebbles. There's a lot of different
ready there's a lot of different
programs uh that work to uh kids off the
block to keep kids off the street to
give kids hope to give kids positive
things to do proven methods of gun
violence prevention. It doesn't stop
everything, you know, doesn't stop every
murder, every, you know, homicide or,
you know, programs to stop suicide, but
um there's definitely improvements, and
those are improvements all around the
United States, not just in Chicago.
>> Where are the guns coming from,
Congresswoman? Illinois, of course, has
very strict gun laws, so they're coming
from out of state. Can they be stopped
at the border? How do you address that?
Well, when we passed the bipartisan
safer communities act, my part of it was
the trafficking and store purchasing
because every time I went to DC, people
would say that Chicago has the toughest
gun laws, but if no one else around us
has tough gun laws, that makes it very
hard. And if you take the resources away
from alcohol, tobacco, and firearm who
um you know go to the gun stores whose
job it is uh to track guns, it's
difficult to do that. I believe since
I've been in Congress the last 12 years,
Indiana has made it even easier uh to
buy a gun as other places have around
the United States. So, yeah, our guns
come from Indiana. Uh I would venture to
say they're coming from, you know, some
of the southern states and I know in New
York they talk about, you know, their
guns coming um up from the southern
states also. But we're kind of like a
oasis at least. you know, New York has
New Jersey and Connecticut, but but
we're an oasis in many, many ways.
>> I want to ask you, we only have a minute
left, Congresswoman, about no cash bail
because the president signed an EO today
ending that practice aimed to at least.
Your state of Illinois was the first in
the nation to pass a cashless bail law.
What does Donald Trump not understand?
>> He doesn't understand that this gives
judges the discretion uh more discretion
to make that decision. you know, they
can say no if they think it's someone
that will, you know, go out and be
violent. They're they're not they're too
risky. But if, you know, they have
nothing in their past or the judge feels
that, you know, they'll be safe and it's
okay to, you know, let them out, they
have that discretion. So, but Donald
Trump doesn't care. Again, this is part
of his, you know, fear. this is part of
his distraction uh from other things
going on in the world, you know, or
other things going on in the United
States like he said he would lower
prices. That hasn't happened. So, these
are all distractions.
>> Well, let's keep talking about this if
the garden in fact does show up in
Chicago. Congresswoman Robin Kelly of
Illinois, we thank you as always. Coming
up, Democrats from around the country
gathering in Minneapolis for the DNC's
summer meeting. We'll bring you those
details coming up on Balance of Power on
Bloomberg TV and radio.
I just made $10 billion or 11 billion
for the United States of America. And
yeah, there will be other cases if I
have that opportunity again, I would do
that. And then, you know, you do have
stupid people say, "Oh, that's a shame."
It's not a shame. It's called business.
>> It's balance of power on Bloomberg TV
and radio. I'm Joe Matthew. having heard
from President Trump there earlier today
touting the government's 10% stake in
Intel saying he would quote want to see
many more cases like it unquote though
that runs counter to the view of some in
his own party. Kevin Olirri supporter of
course of Shark Tank fame chairman of
Olyri Ventures saying today quote I
abhore this idea we let dead old
companies die in our version of capital
markets Intel should have been sold for
car parts three years ago. Intel is just
one of several companies upon which the
president has had a direct impact. Among
them Tesla, Nvidia, and now as well
Denmark's Orst, which today fell to a
record low after the Trump
administration blocked construction of
an almost finished offshore wind farm
that it's building in Rhode Island.
Joining us now in our Washington bureau
with more on all of this is Bloomberg's
enduring and there are questions about
whether this is in fact capitalist,
never mind conservative.
>> Well, it's certainly a more
interventionist administration, Joe. No
doubt about it. We've had a string of
examples. Now remember, of course, Nebon
seals take over US Steel with the golden
share there. You have the deal with the
chip companies to take some of their
revenue from some of their chip sales
into China. And then of course, examples
like Intel that you're mentioning as
well. H critics would say this poses
sovereign risk. It poses a potential
loss of taxpayer money. And of course,
you know, ideologically, the government
should not be intervening in these free
markets. Now the White House is adamant
that um a they're talking about areas of
national security for example or b in
the case of Intel they remind uh you
know voters that Intel was already
receiving US government support anyway
from the chips act they're merely
putting some conditions around that
which is getting a a piece for the
company in return. So very split views
on this but no doubt about it it is an
interventionist approach and it is
catching investors offg guard.
>> President today on Truth Social writes I
paid zero for Intel. It is worth
approximately 11 billion dollars. All
goes to the USA. Why are stupid people
unhappy with that? Is it true we paid
zero for intel? Wasn't this chips act
money that was being invested?
>> Yeah. So they actually are they will
obviously be getting real money and
that's I think the point that the
president is making is this will come
out of the chips act. They've just put
these conditions around it. But there's
no doubt there's taxpayer money on the
table here. Whether it goes in the form
of grants or an equity stake. The
question is will the government get that
return on investment? Will they get
their money back or will they lose it?
And of course, as the industry industry
experts would say, there's a lot of
scrutiny on Intel and its performance
and whether or not it can turn around as
well. So, it's the Intel story, I think,
is has a bit to go yet.
>> Fascinating. Enda, thank you.
Bloomberg's Enda Curran with us live in
Washington. Here's President Trump
Friday from the Oval Office on the
impact his tariff policy is having on
the stock market.
>> The stock market's up almost a thousand
points. uh and it's basically on the
news that uh the release that just came
out from government that uh the tariffs
that everybody was talking about that
the whole world respects us for because
of what we did. It's had a huge impact
and the stock market is way up.
Wearing the cap was right about
everything. Joining us now on Balance of
Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio, more
insights into the market's reaction to
President Trump's policies, whether they
include taking a stake in Intel or
adding new tariffs to the picture. Nancy
Tangler, CEO, CIO of Laugher Tangler
Investments. It's great to have you back
here, Nancy. Broadly speaking, it is
hard to argue with what the president is
saying here. The S&P 500 is hanging just
below an all-time high. We're just above
6,400 right now. This doesn't look like
a market that's too worried about the
risks of tariffs taking effect, does it?
>> No. No. Actually, I'm I'm still laughing
about you're the president was right
about everything comment. Um the the
market is is pretty sanguin. Uh that so
far during earning season, we did not
see uh any in you know any major impact
from tariffs. Margins uh remained near
historic highs. um companies were
beating not just eight, you know, 83% on
the top line, 80% I'm sorry, 83% on the
bottom line, 80% on the top line, which
is the real noteworthy number. I don't
remember ever seeing uh that many
companies beat on on that. All of that
said, we don't have we have not yet seen
the full effects of tariffs. Um, but I
am one of those who who are somewhat
sanguin because I think uh the the
corporate tax incentives in the uh we
call it the Obuba bill at Laugher
Tangler. Um it are pretty pretty robust
and will will bring about $150 billion
in cash to corporate balance sheets. And
so I think that that is a good enough
offset for me to remain bullish. But I'm
not bullish because uh tariffs haven't
haven't caused a problem. I'm bullish
because we really are in the fourth
industrial revolution and the technology
the capex spend is going to continue for
some time and that will drive the
economy as well as earnings growth.
>> Well boy that's going to be in very
clear focus on Wednesday when Nvidia
reports. But it's the chipmaker Intel
that we were just talking about here
Nancy. That stock was actually lower
today. And I know the stake was in the
news last week, but having a a barrage
of commentary from administration
officials doing Sunday morning
television, the president back out there
today doesn't seem to be drawing uh a
massive amount of of retailer or or
institutional investment into intel.
Will that change?
>> Oh, I don't think so, Joe. I think this
is one of the worst ideas I've heard in
my 40 years of being in this business. I
mean, first of all, the government is
going to dilute existing shareholders.
They have warrants. If they exercise
those warrants, that will dilute
existing shareholders further. They're
not necessarily bringing customers, or
at least they are saying that they're
not. And what we do know is that Intel
is so far behind, it's likely they will
never catch up. You know, the the pitch
that Bhutan made to the president was
we're the last or one of the only
homegrown uh chip manufacturers, but the
plant in Arizona and just in general uh
is is now delayed until 2031. So, this
all sounds great and the president can
say that he made $10 billion for the
American people, but I remember Chrysler
and the first bailout was Jimmy Carter
in 1979 and then, you know, Liakoka kind
of turned things around, but not really.
And then the second bailout was in 2009.
And I don't see a lot of Chrysler. Yes,
that's right. On on the on the road. So
this doesn't work. The government is not
good at this. They should focus on
government governing and national
defense and leave businessto business
people. And I get it. The president's a
business person, but that's not his role
currently. And and this company should I
agree with Kevin Oly maybe for the first
time in my career.
>> Wow. Take it out behind the barn and
shoot it. I think is what he said.
Nancy, and it sounds like we're going to
lose a lot of money if if you don't
think Intel is ever going to catch up.
That's a pretty remarkable statement. I
want to ask you about the Federal
Reserve while you're with us because we
had a BAFO rally on Friday and there
were a lot of questions about whether it
was in fact justified following the
comments from Jay Powell at Jackson
Hole. Bloomberg Economics weighed in on
this, disagreeing with the market's
reaction, suggesting that there were
hawkish undertones not reflected in the
reaction on Wall Street. and I spoke on
the early edition of Balance of Power
today with Christopher Smart. He's with
our growth group, former economic
adviser in the Obama administration.
Here's what he had to say about the
reaction to Powell at Jackson Hole.
Let's listen.
Markets of course always tend to
overreact to Jackson Hole because it
follows I think what I've called in the
past the Jackson Hole News Hole. There's
been very little guidance from the Fed
leading up to those meetings. And so the
chairman's speech becomes all that much
more important and that much more
carefully dissected particularly in this
moment with not just very important
economic crosscurrens but obviously the
pressure from the White House on JPL
himself on some of his Fed colleagues.
Um there's just a lot of noise in the
background.
>> Nancy is the market going to find itself
over its skis in September
>> potentially. Joe, I think you saw a
little bit of a pullback today as I
think investors digested what he did
really say and what he didn't really
say. Um, but I've been very critical of
this Fed chairman because he has pivoted
at um, well, he's been behind at every
turning point and he's made a lot of
statements and then pivoted in the
opposite direction at the next meeting.
So, I'm always surprised that the market
puts this much credence into this
particular Fed. Uh I I long and
fervently hope for the days of Alan
Greenspan where we heard nar a word from
the Fed chairman uh and that that left
investors actually have to think and
dissect the data.
>> So there's too much Fed speak is what it
comes down to. Nancy,
>> there is and I think unfortunately this
this Fed chairman has been wrong an
awful lot. So, um, let's keep our
fingers crossed that we get some sort
of, um, movement away from data
dependence because we know the numbers
have been fraught and that we get, um, a
new Fed chairman that's going to focus
on, um, maybe narrowing the the the
mission creep that we've seen from the
Fed.
>> Well, I can only assume that some of the
pressure uh, from President Trump will
get people uh, adjusting expectations as
we make our way toward that September
meeting. Is that the only cut we're
going to get then for the rest of the
year?
>> It may be, Joe. I mean, I I think the
Fed was, you know, was remiss in cutting
uh 50 basis points last fall and then
market backed that up with 100% basis
point move up in the yield of the 10
years. So, I think we, you know, if we
get a cut here, here's what I'll say
about it. In the 1990s, we had 3%
inflation and a 5% Fed funds rate. Uh
the the tenure was between seven and 8%
and we had robust stock returns. So, if
productivity drives this economy and um
the the markets, we will be okay with
just a 25 basis point cut.
>> All right, Nancy, it's great to see you.
Nancy Tangler, CEO, CIO, Laughler,
Tangler Investments. Great to have you
back on Bloomberg. Coming up, Democrats
gathering in Minneapolis for the big
summer meeting of the DNC. We'll discuss
what is on their agenda. Plus, President
Trump is reiterating his criticism of
the city of Chicago. We'll talk about
the implications of him possibly sending
troops to Chicago when we assemble our
political panel next on Balance of Power
on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
This is Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV
and Radio. I'm Joe Matthew. Here are
some of the stories we're watching in
today's power brief. Salvadoran
immigrant Kilmar Orbrego Garcia has been
taken into custody again after he was
arrested this morning in Baltimore by US
ICE agents. Happened during a mandatory
check-in appointment. It happened less
than 72 hours after the judge overseeing
his criminal case in Tennessee released
Abrego Garcia so he could return to
Maryland to await trial. The Trump
administration has threatened to deport
Abrego Garcia to Uganda, a country where
he has no ties unless he pleads guilty
to human smuggling charges. Abrego
Garcia, a Maryland resident who is
married to a US citizen, has filed a
challenge to the new arrest. And a
Maryland judge has already temporarily
blocked his deportation to Uganda. Elon
Musk is accusing Apple and Open AI of
unfairly favoring the AI app across
iPhones while harming competition and
depriving consumers of choice. Musk
filed the federal lawsuit today in Fort
Worth, Texas on behalf of his company's
X and XAI. Last year, Apple announced it
would partner with OpenAI to integrate
Chat GPT into its products. The Musk
lawsuit claims the exclusive
arrangement, as it calls it, allows the
companies to maintain their monopolies
and prevent innovators from competing.
Apple and Open AI did not immediately
respond to request for comment. And
starting today, Democrats from across
the country gathering in Minneapolis for
the DNC's summer meeting, the first
under new chair Ken Martin.
We cannot be the only party that plays
by the rules anymore. We've got to stand
up and fight. We're not going to have a
hand tied behind our back anymore. Let's
grow a damn spot and get in this fight.
Democrats.
>> In addition to developing strategy to
turn around widespread party pessimism
and plot efforts to retake the House
next fall, they will also be
unofficially looking toward 2028 and the
election calendar. Politico now
reporting representatives from New
Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and
Iowa are all making their case to lead
the party's primary contests. Iowa and
New Hampshire, of course, had opened the
competitions for decades. But in 2022,
then President Joe Biden changed the
calendar, moving South Carolina to first
place, bumping up Michigan and
eliminating Iowa after it faced major
issues with the 2020 caucuses. Joining
us now with their reaction to this story
and a lot more this evening's political
panel, Bloomberg politics contributor
and Republican strategist Rick Davis,
partner at Stone Court Capital,
alongside Democratic strategist Megan
Hayes, former special assistant to
President Biden. It's great to have you
both with us. I've got to start on this
primary schedule just because you're
here, Rick Davis. New Hampshire closely
associated with Rick Davis and uh John
McCain, of course. Will it be back on
front up up front for both parties this
>> Yeah, I got to believe that uh the
Democratic Party would not make the
mistake of bypassing New Hampshire uh
and going straight to South Carolina.
Frankly, we were all there in Iowa. The
debacle in 16 and uh honestly, I' I'd
try to even resurrect that if I were the
Democrats just to prove they can put on
a caucus. Uh but the end of the day is
>> uh these caucuses, these primaries ought
to mirror one another. The Republicans
and the Democrats should be in the
states at the same time talking to the
same voters to give them a comparison,
right? The last thing you ever want to
do is seed turf to your opponent without
you being there to make the counter
argument. I think Joe Biden learned that
this year with the right-in campaign
strangely was underway in New Hampshire.
The argument of course from a lot of
progressives, Megan, is that Iowa and
New Hampshire don't look like the rest
of the country that they don't represent
the electorate. Is that fair?
>> Yeah, absolutely. And we learned that in
2020. I learned that firsthand being on
Joe Biden's campaign. I think we got
fourth or fifth depending on how the
results were. Then we went to New
Hampshire and got fourth or I can't
remember how it all played out, but then
we went to, you know, we ended up
winning and he ended up winning and
being president of the United States.
So, you know, when you let other people
vote, it's amazing what happens. I think
the caucuses draw such a little um
representation of even that state. So
few people turn out to caucus. It's it's
kind of unbelievable. And then they
really decide the narrative and the
momentum moving forward. And I just I
think that the the thought process here
is that more people in more states that
really matter and that look like the
United States should be the ones making
these decisions.
>> Well, sounds like we might all be
meeting for the first in the nation
primary in Manchester. Uh once again
here we were talking about gosh it was a
year ago last week we were in Chicago
for the DNC for the convention that
nominated Kla Harris and earlier this
hour we spoke with Democratic
Her district includes part of the city
part of the south side of Chicago about
President Trump's latest criticism of
the city. I specifically asked her about
the president's threat to send in the
National Guard. Here's what her reaction
included.
Crime has gone down.
>> Rick, you've made the point that that is
the exact response that Donald Trump is
trying to evoke and that is a political
win for Republicans.
>> Yeah, he could have written her talking
points today. Look, Democrats have to
get used to something that's very
fundamental. They are the party of urban
America, multicultural,
uh, higher income, higher education
cities, and they have to prove that they
can manage cities. Nobody in the world
thinks cities in America are safer than
they used to be. And so get right on
this issue. Don't let Donald Trump get
to the right of you on, you know, crime
uh in in cities. Uh, take it on. It
should be the number one issue,
especially now that immigration has
fallen down to, you know, later.
>> The big story in Washington today is the
fact that some National Guard troops are
carrying uh weapons. They are now armed
as they stand in front of Union Station
and other locations throughout the city,
some of which we're showing here on
Bloomberg TV. Does Rick have a point?
Should Democrats embrace some of this
idea?
>> Well, I don't think Democrats should
take the bait. So, I do agree that
Democrats taking the bait and they are
following the don't believe your lying
eyes theory and that does not work for
Democrats. We have seen that play out
time and time again. Democrats should be
focusing this conversation right back to
the economy and lowering costs. That is
what people actually care about. There
are so few people who live in DC or live
in these major cities. They don't
understand the dynamics. They don't
understand the specifics. But Donald
Trump is getting out there saying this
is what I'm doing. And it's just like
with immigration and Democrats are
letting him win on the issue. Instead,
they need to own back the messaging,
turn it back to the economy, and push
Donald Trump on why he is not lowering
costs. If troops start rolling into
Chicago, then what should be JB
Pritzkar's uh approach? Welcome.
>> Uh look, I my own view is I think JB
Pritsker ought to have he ought to bring
in the National Guard himself and say
these are my guys. They're my state. I'm
going to put him in Chicago and I'm not
going to listen to what's going on in
Washington DC cuz that's noise in the
system. I agree that we need to do more
on crime and I'm going to do it myself.
>> That'd be a pretty interesting move to
try to call the president on his bluff
there.
>> I mean, I don't know what the legalities
are here of that. I
>> Well, he's the governor. He can do what
he wants.
>> I I just think that we just cannot fall
into the trap. We need to continue to
push on the economy, continue to have
solutions for lowering costs and let the
American people see what Democrats
really stand for. But trying to be the
party that does not want to fight crime
or fight immigration is not a winning
strategy for the midterms nor for the 28
election.
>> This this loomed large in the
conversations the president had today in
the Oval Office. I don't know what, by
the way, four or five hours combined. He
was wound up today. Talked a lot about
crime. He also talked about geopolitics.
He had the president of South Korea with
him uh while speaking alongside the
president of South Korea. The president
touted his relationship with of all
people Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Take
a listen.
>> Kim Jong-un and I had a very good
relationship as you remember and still
do. And uh when I came in, I didn't know
him. We had two summits, but uh we
became
very friendly respect. It was great
respect. We think we can do something in
that regard with respect to North and
South and I think you are much more
prone to doing that than other leaders
that I've been working with.
>> I look forward to meeting with Kim
Jong-un in the appropriate future.
>> Um these were unsolicited remarks, Rick,
and it's basically the way he opened the
meeting with the president of South
Korea. He later referred to the the the
incredible experience he had visiting
the DMV and suggested he might do it
again. Is this a strategy of some sort?
Well, it's a good strategy to make your
guest very uncomfortable. I mean, he
does know that nuclear weapons are
pointed at South Korea from North Korea.
They want to annihilate that entire
community. I mean, I I just thought the
president uh Lee did a great job of
being stoic, not showing emotion, not
arguing with the president. We've seen
how that goes. Uh and and yet at the
same time, I mean, it's this sort of
card that Donald Trump loves to play.
I'm gonna get that Nobel Prize no matter
what and I'm gonna do it with North
Korea and South Korea today.
>> So, is Donald Trump the one to bring
peace to the Korean peninsula?
>> No. This is just despicable. He's just
throwing democracy in the face of all of
our allies. He did the same thing to
Zalinsky in the Oval Office. He's doing
the same thing to South Korea. You we
the United States should not be on the
side of dictators. This is reprehensible
that this is now our foreign policy.
Let's let's meet with dictators over the
people who have democracies and that we
are allies with.
>> Yeah. You wonder what people think in
the region as he entertained the idea of
a a four-way meeting between Presidents
Xi, Lee, Kim Jong-un, and Trump. I'm
guessing that's not going to happen,
Rick.
>> Yeah, that's going to be a complicated
one to put together. And I don't really
quite understand it because the last
time Donald Trump met with the uh great
leader of North Korea, uh it turned out
to be a real bummer. He walked away from
meetings with nothing. And so, why trust
a guy who's left you wanting?
He talked about renaming the Department
of Defense, the Department of War, along
with many other topics in the Oval
Office. He had Pete Hegth next to him as
a result. I know a lot of this stuff is
just spitballing, but at what point do
you take that type of rhetoric
seriously?
>> I think these are just more things that
he wants to throw out there and get
everyone all worked up about, get more
Democrats to comment on how outrageous
it is. It is outrageous, but again,
Democrats need to focus on what is
important, and that is the economy. Do
not get wrapped up around this. They
can't change the name without Congress.
Do not get yourselves worked up and
start going out there fighting this.
It's just one more thing he wants to to
messy the noise with and continue to
just drive a wedge between everyone.
>> There's boy, that brings back some
memories. 2019 on Bloomberg TV of
President Trump and Kim Jong-un. Will
the nature of their relationship play
into whatever happens with China? Or is
this just the president having fun on
the oval on a Monday in August? Uh I
think there's a little bit of sort of
the president having fun in the Ovalon
in an August day, but uh at the end of
the day uh he's not without his
resources to create change, right? We've
already seen it. Uh anybody who doubts
his ability to change the world order as
it exists today uh hasn't been paying
attention to the last year. And so uh I
don't think you want to assume anything.
I mean, the fact is we went into today
not thinking that the president was
going to attend the Apac conference and
potentially have a meeting with, you
know, President Xi of China. And now it
looks like that may be a summit in the
waiting. Uh, and and then what else is
going to happen? Normally, the North
Korean premier is not invited to the
Apac summit. So, somebody's got to say
yes to that.
>> My guess is nobody's going to get
consensus on that one.
>> I I take your word on that. in just our
remaining moment here. Megan, a Trump
she summit will be more productive than
the last.
>> Uh I don't know. I if he continues to
act like he is currently, I don't think
we're going to have a lot of productive
foreign policy in the
>> China would also have to follow through
what it agrees on.
>> Well, correct. But I just I don't think
that Trump is is anywhere being serious
about having these these meetings that
actually are going to have any
diplomatic rewards for the United
States.
>> So, it's a get together of feel me out
like we saw with Vladimir Putin or it
doesn't happen at all.
>> I don't think it probably happens at
all. And if it does, it probably is
going to be like the Vladimir Putin
meeting where we just have a lot of
hoopla around it. nothing happens and we
just the United States again looks like
fools on the world stage.
>> As always, we're going to find out
together with the help of Rick Davis and
Megan Hayes. Great conversation. Thank
you both for the great panel. And
tonight, just 90 minutes, you're going
to want to stay right here on Bloomberg.
SpaceX is set to launch Starship Flight
10 from Southern Texas after plans were
scrapped yesterday to quote troubleshoot
an issue with ground systems unquote. If
it launches, you'll hear it and see it
here on Bloomberg. In the meantime,
check out the Washington edition
newsletter. Find it on the terminal and
online. And we'll meet you back here
tomorrow. Thanks for joining us on
Balance of Power. I'm Joe Matthew. This
is Bloomberg.