US Draft Deal Includes Financial Incentives for Iran — Balance of Power 6/16/2026

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: This is Balance of Power, live from Washington, D.C. Here's what it says. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. That's what it says. It won't have one to buy, to develop. They will not have a nuclear weapon. And I would say that's about 99.9% of what I wanted, because we couldn't let that happen. You couldn't let that happen. And they won't have a nuclear weapon. Now, in addition to that, the strait is going to be open, toll-free. [00:00:38] Speaker 2: Tonight, details, details. President Trump touting his agreement with Iran on day two of the G7 summit. But questions remain over what's actually in the memorandum of understanding and what still needs to be negotiated. Also, let's make a deal. After months of back and forth over competing housing bills, Congressional leaders say they have an agreement on a bicameral package. We will speak with one of its sponsors, Senator Elizabeth Warren, coming up this hour. We'll cover it all in The View from the Hill. Senators Warren, as well as Ron Johnson, joined Balance of Power on the Iran agreement, the housing fight, Kevin Walsh's Fed, and a lot more. From Bloomberg's Washington, D.C. studios to our TV and radio audiences worldwide, welcome to Balance of Power. Alongside Kaley Lines, I'm Joe Matthew. [00:01:24] Speaker 3: And Joe, we begin with new developments tonight from the G7 summit in France, as the U.S. and Iran prepare to formally sign an interim peace deal this Friday. The rest of the world is pressing for details on what's actually in it. The framework agreement has yet to be published, but a near-final draft seen by Bloomberg News indicates Iran is set to receive some key financial incentives, including sanctions waivers, to begin selling oil immediately. For the very latest, let's go live now to Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall, who is covering the summit for us from Evian, France. Tyler. [00:01:57] Speaker 4: Hey, Kaylee. Well, new tonight, as you mentioned, Bloomberg News has obtained the latest draft agreement of this memorandum of understanding, which appears to show that Iran will get broad financial incentives, at least for now, as the U.S. does maintain that those incentives will only accrue if Iran maintains its end of the deal. But importantly, there's a few different threads that we've been following here, including that this does include that Iran would be able to tap a $300 billion development fund, which the MOU says will be financed through the U.S. as well as regional partners. As you mentioned, we have been waiting for any signal when it comes to whether or not Iran will be able to sell its crude to market. And this draft MOU goes on to say that the U.S. Treasury Department will in part, quote, issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products, and their derivatives, apparently immediately after this deal is signed. Again, though, it is our understanding that only sustained progress when it comes to maintaining to the deal will mean that those financial benefits will keep accruing, we should say that our own reporting does caution that both sides have indicated that they are still in these technical discussions, which means that ultimately the final draft language could change. But President Trump himself did indicate and confirm that we are expecting this signing ceremony to take place this Friday in Switzerland. Vice President J.D. Vance is expected to represent the U.S. side, Joe and Kayleigh were expecting Iran's parliament speaker to be there to sign on behalf of their country. [00:03:32] Speaker 2: It will be quite a moment, Tyler. You're, of course, surrounded by stakeholders. What kind of optimism or concerns are you hearing specifically from European leaders about the nuances to the extent that we understand of this deal and the reopening of the strait? [00:03:46] Speaker 4: Well, Joe, at this point, we know that the first phase of this agreement is going to be to get the strait of Hormuz reopened. Yes, we're going to see the 60-day extension of the ceasefire, but the strait needs to be reopened and the U.S. will be lifting its naval blockade. But there are both short and long-term concerns here when I'm talking to people on the ground here at the G7 summit. In the immediate term, we know that the U.S. is looking for allies to help ultimately deploy assets to reopen and secure that waterway. But I spoke earlier today with the spokesperson for France's foreign ministry that said that they need to get these concrete deals, details in the deal in front of them. They need to see that agreement ultimately signed in assurances that their own military assets wouldn't be put at risk, considering that we know that the strait is still mined. And then, of course, Joe and Kayleigh, there are concerns here that even as Iran says that in this first 60 days, there will not be tolls. There are serious concerns that Iran is looking to impose fees once those 60 days are over, but they are trying to reframe them as being tied for navigational or insurance services. [00:04:53] Speaker 2: Wow, fascinating. Tyler, thank you so much. Traveling with the president, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall in Evian, France. Joining us now on this and a lot more is Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, of course, sits as well on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator, welcome back to Bloomberg TV and radio. I'd like to start with Iran, if we can. Kayleigh and I have a lot of questions for you, as always. I'm just wondering if you have seen any details of this agreement beyond what we're already reporting in the media. And is there a likelihood that the president is correct, that he can, in fact, craft a better deal in the next 60 days than the JCPOA? [00:05:32] Speaker 5: You know, the president's made a lot of promises. How many times has he told us this war is over, and how many times have we come back again to see it all fall apart? No, we have not seen the details, and, of course, the devil is in the details. But here's the part we know for sure. We know that just before Donald Trump started bombing in Iran, that the Strait of Hormuz was open and nobody was collecting any fees or tolls to be able to travel it. We know that Iran's $300 billion that was located all around the world was locked up tight and Iran couldn't use it. And we know that there were heavy sanctions in place on the sale of Iranian oil. And we know that those things together were really putting a real vice on the country and that the economy was in real trouble and it was causing people to push back. Donald Trump then started bombing, claiming that his intention was to have regime change. Obviously, that hasn't happened. We don't know what's going to happen to the money put all around the world, but it sounds like Iran is going to come out of this with more money, with, they claim, an opportunity to get fees through the Strait of Hormuz, which Donald Trump somehow says is not the same as tolls. And so there we are. America has spent literally tens of billions of dollars halfway around the world. 14 American service members have died. Uncounted numbers of people in the Middle East have died. And Donald Trump still can't explain how one family in America is any better off. [00:07:11] Speaker 3: Well, Senator, President Trump did say today that while he hadn't previously thought about it, he would like to see a final deal go before Congress. Would you be prepared to cast a vote for a deal that does bring an end to this war in the Middle East that you clearly thought we never should have gotten enmeshed with in the first place? [00:07:29] Speaker 5: That we never should have gotten involved in, and that so far Republicans have voted consistently to let Donald Trump continue for as long as he wants. Like anything, it depends on what the details are here. Remember, Congress voted back in 2015 for a deal to keep Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon, and then Donald Trump, all on his own, came in and tore that apart. And there's one more piece. How is it that we are somehow better off after Donald Trump has spent billions of dollars, killed American service members, bombed a foreign country or multiple foreign countries? Where are we any better off? That's what Donald Trump cannot explain to the American people. But I'll tell you this, the folks I'm hearing from back home will tell you where we're worse off, where the price of gasoline is through the roof. I hear from the farmers who say they can't afford to buy the fertilizer they need. I hear from truckers who say they can't afford to get out on the roads that are having to pass those costs along to everything that gets shipped in America. I see it in the rising interest rates now. So I get how Donald Trump has made this country a lot worse off by bombing in Iran. But, boy, he can't point to where we're better off. [00:08:54] Speaker 2: Well, you know, you're hearing from Pete Hegseth as well, Senator, about money. And, of course, he's there to make the case and was today in Congress for a massive budget request for the Pentagon. Senator Cornyn says the secretary told him the Pentagon needs $350 billion immediately and then a $1.5 trillion budget for the Pentagon on an annual level. Is this money that the Pentagon needs now to replenish munitions? And will they get it? [00:09:25] Speaker 5: So exactly how does he describe need? The Pentagon has not passed an audit. Secretary Hegseth comes out here, throws around a couple of numbers, but will not even give us the receipts for how much the war in Iran has cost. The numbers that they've put forward, you can just look at public records and tell they're not right. So he wants to come in here. He doesn't want to give us an honest accounting. He doesn't want to show us how he plans to spend the money and what it's for. And he wants over a trillion and a half dollars and more? I don't think so. [00:10:03] Speaker 3: Senator, I'd like to ask you about another issue that is now live in your chamber ahead of Jay Clayton's nomination hearing tomorrow to be director of national intelligence. Are you willing, through unanimous consent, to expedite his confirmation process in the name of getting FISA Section 702 powers reauthorized? [00:10:23] Speaker 5: So, actually, I think there's some things you need to separate in that question. The question of going forward expeditiously on Jay Clayton is a question about making sure that Mr. Palti never sets foot inside the DNS building and never gets a look at all of our national security secrets. And I think that is a worthy goal. Now, understand this. I'm not voting for Jay Clayton. And the reason I'm not is I both worked with him on banking and saw his views about deregulation generally and the role of government. But I am particularly alarmed about what he has done in terms of election denialism and conspiracy theories. We don't need somebody like that who can look into every part of America's secrets, both domestic and internationally. I don't know what it is that now guides him. He is certainly not just the Wall Street person. He now seems to have a very different view when he's talking about national security. And remember, he's someone who has zero experience in intelligence and national security. And the statute itself requires that the person in that role have that experience. So, there's the question about expediting so that Palti stays out of the building. There's the separate question about confirming Jay Clayton. And then there's the third question about FISA. And that one is a separate one yet. As it stands right now, I do not support the bill. [00:12:00] Speaker 2: You mentioned Kevin Warsh at the beginning of our conversation. He's got his first Fed meeting as chair tomorrow, Senator. You, of course, put a lot of weight on financial disclosures in his confirmation hearing. As he prepares to meet the press, and it looks like he is widely expected to not cut rates, as the president has urged. Did you get the information that you need? Are you comfortable with Kevin Warsh as the chair of the Fed? [00:12:25] Speaker 5: No, I am not comfortable. And I'm not comfortable because we have never gotten enough disclosure to know for certain that there are not conflicts of interest. I am not comfortable with anyone who is not straight up and honest and transparent with the American people. [00:12:40] Speaker 2: Do you still think he's a sock puppet if he doesn't cut rates tomorrow? [00:12:45] Speaker 5: Well, we will see. Look, right now, Donald Trump has actually put Kevin Warsh in a pretty terrible box. And that is that Trump's policies on tariffs, on energy, on health care, and on wars around the world mean that prices are shooting through the roof for American families. And as you know, inflation is at its highest rate in about three and a half years. And we see that what's coming down the line looks like prices may be going up even faster. And that means that the place ordinarily the Fed would go with its tool is to raise interest rate. But that increases costs for American families. And American families don't need to pay more on their credit cards, on mortgages, and on car loans. They're already slammed against the wall trying to pay for groceries and for health care and for housing. So Donald Trump's policies outside the Fed monetary policy are really creating havoc in this economy. And what the Fed can do about it is pretty limited. [00:13:53] Speaker 3: Well, Senator, you raise housing. And I know you're about to go to the floor yourself to advance a housing bill that now apparently has bicameral buy-in. We have seen a lot of volleying back and forth between your chamber and the House of Representatives. What is it that unlocked this deal now? And when do you expect it to be on President Trump's desk for signature? [00:14:13] Speaker 5: Oh, so look, as you know, we are in a housing crisis all over this country. We need more housing. And this bill has about 45 provisions in it, each one of which moves us toward an increase in total housing supply. Plus, this is the first bill ever in American history to put some constraints on private equity and say that they can't come into your neighborhood, buy up every house on the block, and try to turn America into a nation of renters instead of owners. So it's a pretty historic bill. We've got great bipartisan buy-in, and we've got the House in the right place on it now, too. So I think we're going to get this done and get it over to the president's desk. [00:15:02] Speaker 2: I'd like to ask you about SpaceX before you leave us, Senator. You fought to delay the IPO, which was the biggest in the world, and the stock continues to rise since the debut. I wonder if, since it is obviously now part of the market, if you plan to follow up as ranking member, will there be an investigation into any of the exemptions that were made, specifically the seasoning exemption at the NASDAQ? What's next for you in this saga? [00:15:28] Speaker 5: So, look, let me just remind you what my concerns are. The first one was with the IPO. It is the job of the SEC to check the homework, to make sure that the financials make sense. And remember, the financial experts out there, a lot of them were calling the numbers that Elon Musk put forward nonsensical. Those were the words from the experts. The SEC clearly did not play its watchdog function that it is required to play. Then the index providers turned around, changed their rules. And remember, these index providers, there's usually a delay from an IPO so that any froth can die down. And before the index starts buying in, we know we're kind of at the right price on this stock. The index providers haven't done that. And that means for just ordinary 401K investors, people who just want a calm retirement and just a little piece of whatever is going on in the market, they're forced to take on AI even if they see the, to take on SpaceX, even if they see this as a giant bubble or a lot of froth or even fraud because of the way the index providers have done this. And then the third concern I have is that in the IPO, Elon Musk has pulled back on shareholder protections so that, in effect, he has locked himself in as king for life in SpaceX. And my concern on every one of these is partly about SpaceX, but it's partly about our markets generally. Our market is the envy of the world, and the reason for that is for years now, nearly a century, we've had a tough watchdog who makes sure that everybody's numbers add up. You can make your own decision about where you think this company is going, but that what they're telling you is pretty straight up. And if we start to lose that in a case like this and lose it for the future, then that chills investors all over the United States, puts them at risk, and makes people around the world say, you know, that may not be the safest market to go to. Maybe I ought to trade somewhere else where the watchdog is still awake. [00:17:47] Speaker 3: All right, Senator, we'll let you get to the floor for that housing vote. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, thank you so much for joining us. And we'll have more on SpaceX in just a moment, Joe, as we consider the fact that it is now the world's fifth largest stock, surpassing Amazon today. But on the housing bill that Senator Warren is about to go cast a procedural vote for, this took a lot of work. We were told months and months ago that this may be the last chance for real bipartisan dealing in this congressional session. And it does seem like they're actually going to be able to pull it off. The House and Senate, not just Republicans and Democrats, were able to reconcile. [00:18:24] Speaker 2: That was before the longest shutdown in American history, where we had lawmakers trying to turn our attention away from the bad stuff to say there is something that we actually do agree on, because, of course, Democrats and Republicans both have constituents who are experiencing this issue. And it's something that we'll be tracking. We'll let you know how that vote turns out as soon as we get it. [00:18:42] Speaker 3: Indeed, we will. But first, we also have to talk about Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik's strong words for Anthropik as they ordered export controls on its two most advanced models. We'll have that and more on SpaceX still ahead here on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. [00:19:08] Speaker 2: It's Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Alongside Kayleigh Lines, I'm Joe Matthew. Thanks for joining us. Tonight, an exclusive report on the administration's longstanding fight with Anthropik after Bloomberg obtained a letter from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik to Anthropik, warning of curbs to the company's mythos model, writing, quote, Until further notice, you must submit an application for an individually validated license prior to the export, re-export, or transfer in-country, including deemed export or deemed re-export of the mythos or fable models to any destination worldwide or to any foreign person wherever located or face criminal and civil penalties. Joining us now for more on this, Bloomberg's Maggie Eastland. Maggie, thanks for joining. Great reporting here. Is this the new way forward, the new way of doing things in the AI industry? [00:20:05] Speaker 6: Yeah, it's certainly a shift in the Trump administration's AI policy from just a few weeks ago, heavily marketing a voluntary regime to now compelling Anthropik to cut off access to all foreign nationals. That includes its own employees. So there's certainly a shift here, and you can see that the Trump administration is really taking AI risks quite seriously. And at least in Anthropik's case, they're no longer willing to just leave it up to a voluntary system. [00:20:39] Speaker 2: Interesting with that said, you do wonder, in fact, where mythos will be going in its relationship in Anthropik to a large degree with its relationship with the government and the Pentagon, which deemed it, of course, a supply chain risk. Maggie, will that be impacted by this decision or this move? [00:20:56] Speaker 6: These are slightly different situations. What I will say is that, obviously, Anthropik has not always had the best relationship with the Trump administration. So that could be a potential snag here as they try to resolve this issue. The key difference, though, is that with the Pentagon, the Anthropik wanted more safety guardrails, and the Pentagon wanted more ability to use it freely. But what's going on here is the U.S. is now actually imposing restrictions on Anthropik. So things have kind of inverted, but there might still be some bad blood there. [00:21:32] Speaker 2: Maggie, thank you. Bloomberg's Maggie Eastland with the breaking news. It's just the latest development in the AI race that has been dominating markets of late as SpaceX skyrockets to briefly to be the fifth largest stock in the world, overtaking Amazon on just its second full day of trading. Kayleigh's tracking that and a lot more in power moves. Kayleigh? [00:21:50] Speaker 3: Yeah, Joe, SpaceX aside, it actually wasn't that great of a day for technology stocks and chip stocks in particular as we continue to see this rotation within the equity market. The Nasdaq 100 down about 2%. Contrast that with a more than 300-point gain on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The thought being some of these more pro-cyclical areas of the market will benefit from the fact that rates and oil prices are moving lower. We were down three basis points on the 10-year today, just shy of $4.44. And WTI crude back at $76 a barrel with a nearly 6% drop. That brings both Brent and WTI now to the lowest levels we have seen going back to early March in the days after the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran. Clearly, there is a lot of optimism that there is going to be a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz due to this memorandum of understanding. Therefore, energy will be flowing freely once again. So oil prices firmly going lower. What is not going lower, obviously, is SpaceX. For three days in a row since the Friday IPO, we have seen this stock gaining substantially. Those three days of gains now approaching about 50%. SpaceX, after IPO-ing at $135, is now trading north of $200 a share. Multiply that by the number of shares outstanding, Joe, and you now have a market cap of about $2.65 trillion. What does that make SpaceX? The fifth largest stock in the world. It actually has surpassed Amazon, ultimately, in terms of market value. At one point in today's trade, it actually was even larger than Microsoft. It is just absolutely stratospheric numbers that we are dealing with here, Joe. Pardon the pun. Though, obviously, not everyone is thrilled with what they're seeing, as we just heard from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. [00:23:29] Speaker 2: Yeah, when you add the politics to this, it's a different story. But the markets are speaking, as always, Kayleigh. Thank you so much. Coming up, the president now openly venting his frustration with Benjamin Netanyahu, doing it on the world stage. He's at the G7 in France. We'll bring you comments from Israel's former ambassador, Michael Oren, who we spoke with a bit earlier on what to make of Trump's comments. Also, Congress's role from here, when Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin joins us ahead, only here on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio. This is Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio. Alongside Kayleigh Lyons, I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. We thank you for joining us. With the Trump administration now pushing ahead to Friday's signing with Iran, signing of a peace deal, President Trump had pointed words for one of his closest allies. At the G7 summit in France, the president saying there were, quote, be no Israel without him, while criticizing Israel's ongoing operations in Lebanon, which, of course, has been a major obstacle in negotiations with Iran, adding, quote, I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and with Hezbollah. They should have been able to do the job faster, unquote. A couple hours ago, we spoke with former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, about what Israel's view might be of this new deal. Listen. [00:24:56] Speaker 7: I think it's natural that the interest at some point would diverge. The United States is a very big country. It's situated far from the Middle East. It's not threatened immediately with rocket and missile fire or terrorism from Iran, not immediately. And Israel is a small country. We're in Iran's backyard, and we are threatened not just strategically. We're threatened existentially. If we don't defend the north, we've basically lost this country. So a very different set of interests at the end of the day. And, yes, those interests might diverge. But Israel will simply say, and I think with due respect to the president, that this agreement is between the United States and Iran, not with Israel. We were not consulted about the agreement. We're not signed to the agreement, and we're certainly not signed on this agreement. It does not obligate us in any way. We will continue to take whatever measures are necessary to defend our land and our people, whether it be in Lebanon or elsewhere, in addressing any continued threat from the Iranian nuclear and ballistic program. [00:25:52] Speaker 2: What's the feeling when you talk to people on the ground in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem today, Ambassador? Is it one of optimism or one of nervousness about what this deal might lead to? [00:26:05] Speaker 7: A very somber mood, indeed. There was a shimmering moment some months ago that we thought maybe we were looking at a completely different future for this country and for the entire region, a region that would be free of the Iranian threat in which Israel and Lebanon could make peace, Israel and Syria could make peace, Israel and Saudi Arabia, maybe even Israel and the post-Ayatollah Iran could make peace, and that there would be a restored American Pax Americana that would extend from the Mediterranean to the banks of the Ganges. That was our hope, and now that hope has very largely dissipated. Again, we do not know what's in this memorandum of understanding, but from what we can tell so far, there seems to be no relation to the ballistic missiles, to the support for terror, to Iran's commitment to destroy this country and kill the 10 million people in it. It's a genocidal policy, and so, yes, we have, together with the United States, greatly degraded Iran's military capabilities. We've degraded its proxies' abilities. We've pushed them back from our borders, but we may find ourselves in not too short, not too far into the future, facing very similar threats and maybe even more enhanced threats than we have confronted in the past. [00:27:22] Speaker 3: Part of our conversation with former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Orrin. And joining us now with his take, live from Capitol Hill, is Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Senate Finance Committees. Senator, welcome back to Bloomberg. As we just heard from the ambassador, obviously, we have not seen this memorandum of understanding in full. We don't know exactly what is in it. But if it details that there will be a loosening of the financial restraints that have been put into place on the Iranian regime, is it something you can support? [00:27:56] Speaker 8: Well, first of all, I think the former ambassador's assessment was pretty accurate. I guess where I differ a little bit is I haven't given up hope that at some point in time the Iranian people could rise up and overthrow the brutal dictatorship that is Iran. I'm sure that was the hope of the Trump administration and of Israel, that if we bomb them sufficiently, if we degrade their capabilities, both nuclear, missile, drone, their navy, that that would weaken the regime enough for the Iranian people to take back their country, that wasn't the case. And the fact of the matter is, no matter how many votes we had to try and limit the president's power here, the American people have a say in this. And I would say the American people, by and large, overwhelming a majority, did not want President Trump to introduce the type of ground troops to completely defeat the Revolutionary Guard and the brutal dictators of Iran. So here we are. Again, I don't know what's in the memorandum of understanding. We can always go back in the minute they make a move toward the nuclear sites. You know, we can bomb them again. We can try and work with them. Again, I am under no illusions that this is a regime that we can trust. I know Israel doesn't believe so. I'm quite sure that President Trump doesn't believe that he can really trust the Ayatollahs. We're going to have to continue to verify this. But, again, there was no desire to do what had to be done in terms of introducing ground troops if he wanted to eliminate the regime. The Iranian people were not able to do it because they're disarmed. It's a good lesson for Americans who want to, you know, disarm our country. Gun control. This is what happens with gun control. You've got brutal dictatorships and tyrants that run a country. [00:29:42] Speaker 2: Wow. Well, just with the idea of a 60-day timeline here, Senator, where are the pressure points? Is it simply resuming kinetic action? What happens if there is no deal on the nuclear program in 60 days? It's going to be a kick in the can, or does something else need to change in our approach? [00:29:58] Speaker 8: Yeah, you can always go back in there. Now, again, remember, we've significantly degraded their nuclear capability, their Navy, their missiles, their drones. Didn't eliminate them, didn't eliminate the Revolutionary Guard, the Basaj police force. We really needed the Iranian people to do that. They also didn't have the capability to do it. I mean, the Ayatollahs declared war on the West 47 years ago. They've been digging in. They've been preparing for this moment. They are fanatics. It's hard to get fanatics to just change overnight and go, okay, we've seen the errors of our way. So, again, this is the reality on the ground. President Trump, I think, recognized that reality and opened up the straits. You know, again, devastating to parts of our economy that this thing would continue. So he's recognizing reality. He's moving forward. But we can always go back in there if they raise their ugly head and start threatening the regions, threaten America again. [00:30:52] Speaker 3: Well, if we could consider for a moment, Senator, if you view this regime as being unchanged, as a regime that can't be trusted, is it a regime that can be trusted with unfrozen assets, with sanctions relief, even if it does mean they make some concessions regarding their nuclear program? [00:31:13] Speaker 8: Well, again, this is a different regime than we were dealing with a couple of months ago. No, I don't trust these people. Or is it just new figures at the top? But, again, if you're going to recognize reality and realize that they still had a stranglehold over the straits and you want to open the straits up, there's got to be some give and take. Now, what we're hearing from the administration, this is just their assets that will be unfrozen. Again, I don't like the final outcome here. I'm sure President Trump doesn't like the outcome. He would have liked unconditional surrender. It didn't happen. The Iranian people weren't able to rise up, and we would have had to introduce American ground troops, and there simply wasn't the support. I wouldn't have supported it. I don't want to see young Americans die trying to take out the ayatollahs. We can keep them in a box. We've got to continue to be wary of them. We have to keep monitoring them. They make a move toward those nuclear sites. We ought to bomb the crap out of them again. [00:32:07] Speaker 2: I want to ask you about the cost when it comes to the energy market, Senator. We saw quite a bit of relief in the oil markets today. We're looking at seven handles on WTI and on Brent. Gas still at least nationally above $4. I know you're kind of the $3.80 area on average in Wisconsin. The president continues to say that these prices will plummet once we have a deal. As the market begins to react, I wonder if you're concerned about what's going to happen in the next couple of weeks, assuming we do get a deal. Because you know how this goes, and you know the old line. You take the elevator up and you take the stairs down. Has the president created an unrealistic expectation for voters to see gas prices plummet? [00:32:49] Speaker 8: Well, again, his policy is drill, baby, drill. We're energy independent because of President Trump. The gas prices were obviously heading in the right direction until we had to take that action against Iran. Let's remind your viewers, in June of 2022, because of Democrats' policies, because of their war on fossil fuel, average gasoline price were $5 a gallon. And I know many people knew me. Well, no, back in fine, but an awful lot had to do about the fact that that was the Democrat policy, a war on fossil fuel. They didn't want to drill. They shut down the Keystone Pipeline. So they were hostile to the oil and gas business. President Trump is not hostile. He encouraged the development. As a result, long term, I think energy prices will certainly be a lot lower than they certainly would be under a Democrat administration. [00:33:42] Speaker 3: Senator, I'd like to ask you about FISA Section 702, which obviously is authority that lapsed last week. There is now an effort to expedite the confirmation process for Jay Clayton to be Director of National Intelligence in the hopes that that would unlock enough Democratic votes to bring that program's reauthorization up to the floor. I know you've had some hesitations around these spy powers in the past, but given what we saw, or rather did not see over the weekend with the thwarting, according to the FBI, of a drone and sniper attack that was planned against the UFC 250 event at the White House, does FISA need to be reauthorized as soon as possible? [00:34:20] Speaker 8: Well, again, I've always been supportive of reauthorization. Of course, we were lied to that it was never been abused. President Trump was probably the American most abused by, you know, the misuse of intelligence powers. He wants it reauthorized. I wish that people who want to reauthorize would pay a little bit more attention to those who want to protect civil liberties to a greater extent. But the bottom line, if you've got bad actors, no matter how many controls you put in place, they'll probably violate them. So, again, I think we will probably reauthorize this. I will be generally supportive, but I do wish the people that are just trying to ram this thing through without any kind of reforms worked in a little bit better faith with those people who want to protect civil liberties. [00:35:05] Speaker 2: Well, we'd like to stay in touch with you as this moves its way through the Senate here. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, we thank you for the insights, as always, on Bloomberg. Coming up, it's Tuesday. There must be an election somewhere. And, indeed, tonight the GOP's eyes are on Georgia as an important runoff election there could shed some light on the president's political potency within his own party. Here we go again. We'll discuss that race and a lot more with our political panel next on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio. [00:35:35] Speaker 3: This is Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio. I'm Kaylee Lyons alongside Joe Matthew. It's another Tuesday of primary elections in America. Here in Washington, D.C., voters are casting ballots in a closely-watched mayoral primary. And in Georgia, voters are back at the polls for primary runoffs that will shape key gubernatorial and Senate races in November. Both GOP runoffs are the latest test of President Trump's influence inside the party, with Trump-backed candidates facing Republican challengers in one of the country's most competitive battleground states. Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock sat down today with Bloomberg's David Gurra to discuss the runoffs, Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and Georgia's political identity. [00:36:24] Speaker 9: Well, it's a purple state. And, you know, let me also say, by the way, as I talk about gerrymandering, I have a piece of legislation, I'm a co-sponsor with Alex Padilla, where we would get rid of gerrymandering altogether. And, you know, I would support that. I think gerrymandering is politicians doing all the talking. When Election Day comes around, the people ought to be talking. It shouldn't be playing with crooked lines so that the politicians get to pick their voters. The voters ought to be picking their representatives. That's what's happening in Georgia today through this runoff election. And it's a purple state. So you've got to convince, you know, all kinds of people to vote for you. I did it five times in Georgia in less than three years. It's doable. Of course, I'm rooting for my brother, John Ossoff. And I think he will do well against whomever they put up. I think Keisha Lance Bottoms will do well in this election. [00:37:28] Speaker 10: You're an outside observer. You're a Democrat watching all of this unfold. But what do you make the level of influence that an endorsement from the president has today as we look ahead to 2028? [00:37:38] Speaker 9: The Republican Party is no longer a party. It's a cult. I mean, Democrats and Republicans used to fight over issues of principle and ideas. Anybody watching me, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, be honest. What is the plumb line in that party right now? What is the acid test of whether you are part of them or not, inside or outside? It is your relationship to one man, Donald Trump. And we have literally seen Republican politicians who are every bit as conservative as the president is or pretends to be. He used to be a Democrat. We've seen people who have been loyalists, but then they ended up on the wrong side of him. He goes after them. They voted for everything he wanted, except the Epstein files. And then he literally went after them. And we've seen the impact of that. That doesn't feel like a party. It feels like a cult. I actually wish we had a party, some honest brokers with which to have some adult conversations about the way forward in our country. [00:38:55] Speaker 2: The senator talked about a lot more with David Gura. And you can catch the rest of that interview on this weekend here on Bloomberg TV and radio every Saturday and Sunday morning, starting at 7 a.m. Eastern. We now assemble our political panel today to talk about this race and a lot more. Democratic strategist Adam Hodge is with us, managing director at Bully Pulpit International, a Bloomberg politics contributor, along with Lisa Camuso Miller, founder of the Friday, reporter, public affairs, and a senior advisor at Rock Solutions. Great to see you both. And welcome, Adam. I'll start with you. If you're John Ossoff, does it matter who wins tonight? You've got Mike Collins endorsed by Donald Trump. You've got Derek Dooley endorsed by Brian Kemp. Some in-family drama. But do Democrats care? [00:39:36] Speaker 11: I mean, I think Democrats feel confident that Ossoff is doing what he needs to do across the state of Georgia to win. And I think the key to their hope is that they actually get to 50 percent and avoid a runoff in the general altogether. But I think this is also a chance for them to try to mobilize the base. And I think there are there's been this split in Georgia among the Republican side, Kemp being the more professional sort of like people who think we can run. And we just have to look back at Herschel Walker's race a couple of years ago, right? Like Brian Kemp and his team thought and put a bet on other people. Trump picked Herschel Walker. And that obviously was a terrible disaster for President Trump of why we have two Democratic senators in Georgia. So I think Ossoff feels like this is a way to galvanize the base. And it's a real test of our ability to generate real enthusiasm for the party. [00:40:21] Speaker 3: Well, it raises the question once again, Lisa, even if we see the power of the Trump endorsement in the primary in Georgia's results today, the general election is often a different story. [00:40:33] Speaker 12: Well, it seems to me that Georgia is going to be a test case, a laboratory really, to demonstrate whether or not this Trump is durable, this Trump endorsement is durable, and whether or not it means that he and the candidates that he endorses can stay competitive in a competitive state. And that's, I think, what I'm watching tonight to see how this all comes together. As much as we've seen it in other states all across the country, Georgia is still very much one of our greatest battleground states and one that is definitely going to define what we might be able to see in terms of the tea leaves as it relates to the midterms. [00:41:07] Speaker 2: I think it's an interesting prospect to think of Georgia as a purple state the way the senator described it, even though most statewide office holders are Republicans. Is that a fair way to view this state as we enter this cycle? [00:41:21] Speaker 11: From a statewide place, but I think what has given Democrats some optimism, just look last year, two of the public utility commissioner races, statewide race, for the first time in, I think, more than a decade, a Democrat won statewide in Georgia at the sort of state level. That speaks to some grassroots enthusiasm, and that was shortly after President Trump took office. So I think Democrats have some confidence that we may be able to have more success statewide, and it certainly helps that John Ossoff seems to be running a pretty dang good race to get reelected in the Senate. [00:41:53] Speaker 3: Well, if he runs a good enough race in 2026, what does that mean for his fortunes potentially in 2028, Lisa? [00:42:00] Speaker 12: Well, you know, I think it's something to keep in mind. Who even knows what could happen between now and 2028, Kayleigh? I think that there's so much to say, and that's when a president will be at the top of the ticket, too. So it really all depends. This is an interesting season and an interesting time to be watching, especially now. But things could change so dramatically over the course of time, and that's certainly something to watch. The difference between what we're seeing tonight really is, in all of these races, is that this is fundamentally not about issues. It's really about the tactics, how it is that we Republicans are fighting over who can win today in Georgia, and Democrats are trying to figure out how to govern as it relates to the cities, for instance, Washington, D.C., and how they will endure in these big rural areas. So overall, it's not really the issues that we're debating as much as it's how we're going to govern. [00:42:50] Speaker 11: The only thing I'll say on the Ossoff, I've been talking to his team a little bit in the last couple of months, they feel like we are heads down in trying to win, get elected in the Senate. They're not even thinking about whether he could be a 2028 campaign. So it's just all of us that are talking about it. Yeah, but that's fun. It's fun, sure. [00:43:06] Speaker 2: I will give Kayleigh credit. I read that about five times before I got to work this morning. I want to ask you both about an important standoff that's taken place on Capitol Hill. We talked to Senator Warren about it. We brought it up with Ron Johnson, and that's the nomination of Jay Clayton to be the next DNI. You know a lot about this, having been a spokesperson for the National Security Council in the Biden administration. It is possible if the plan goes as constructed here and unanimous consent is invoked that he is actually confirmed as the head of ODNI before Bill Pulte ever gets his hands on the wheel, knowing that the 19th is the last day here for Tulsi Gabbard. Did the president just pull off the best political trick of the last couple of months by disgusting Democrats and even Republicans with the idea of Bill Pulte to the extent that Jay Clayton slides right into the job with no opposition? [00:43:57] Speaker 11: I think we need to take a little bit of a step back and think about, like, the president wants Bill Pulte, his henchmen, to do his bidding. He has put him in the interest to do that. He may not have a chance. But that speaks to the blowback and the weakness of the president that his standing has decreased to the point where he can't get the people he wants to serve in these critical roles. And so Jay Clayton, he's a he's a grown up. He's more serious than certainly Bill Pulte and certainly more than Tulsi Gabbard. But I think the thing we need to keep in mind, he wanted Bill Pulte to go in and do his bidding. And the blowback was so fierce. He's lost his grip on some of the senators and on the Republican side. He's weaker now than he ever has been. And I think that's why you're seeing this sort of try to put Humpy Dumpy together again and get Jay Clayton in when he really wanted Bill Pulte. [00:44:45] Speaker 3: Well, if the president doesn't get what he wants there, I wonder, Lisa, if you expect he'll get what he wants. If indeed we fully have a finalized deal with Iran at some point at the end of this 60-day window, as the president says he would like to send it to Congress and see them ratify it, essentially. Do you really think that any deal with Iran would fundamentally face opposition from the like, say, of Senator Lindsey Graham, who seemed to pre-blame it on Vice President J.D. Vance, saying that Vance, as the architect of it, is the one who needed to discuss it with senators? [00:45:17] Speaker 12: Well, I think the headline right now is about peace, but the real story is about trust. And so whether or not this is even an enduring deal that has been struck. And I think that that's probably what's going to happen. It's going to be a back and a forth on Capitol Hill as they gain trust. The administration gains trust with those who potentially would have a say-so. But also, too, there's so much to say about what's happening overseas, too. You have to believe that Iran also has a lot of distrust as it relates to whether or not this deal will hold. So this overall, the narrative that the administration is demonstrating, is that, to me, it seems as if maybe they are not leaning in. The president's not saying things like, this is the biggest win ever, which typically is the kind of narrative that he offers in these opportunities. So I think there's a lot to be said about whether or not this is enduring. And Capitol Hill will have a lot to say, I really do believe. [00:46:07] Speaker 2: Well, Ron Johnson did a pretty sober view as well. I mean, if 60 days is up, he says we have no nuke deal, we'll just have to hit them if they get close to that point again. Are we basically back to the future with Iran? [00:46:18] Speaker 11: Well, I mean, I think the real thing that we need to keep in mind, we don't even know what's in the deal. There's no text that is out. And so I think the president and the White House, if they want to gain any credibility, released a text. They said it's the best deal we've ever had. If it's so great, put it out there, let people kick the tires on it, see if it actually passes muster. We have not seen that from the administration so far. So the longer that they hold out, the more skepticism people will have that it's actually a good deal. And are there any other side agreements? Are there any other secret funds that are going to Iran? Are there sanctions that are going to be lifted? These are all key questions that people have to see, is this deal worth it? And the longer that they keep it hidden, the less trust you have with the Republicans in the Senate. [00:47:01] Speaker 3: Well, yeah, Lisa, in our final moment here, what does it say that we may not actually see what's in hand until the final formal signing ceremony in Switzerland on Friday is over? [00:47:13] Speaker 12: I think that it just means that this continues to create an opportunity for the administration to have to do more work to win back support from Congress. What Adam has said is not wrong. I mean, I think the president's confidence from the Congress is eroding to some degree because there are a lot of these kinds of moments that are happening where they're not given opportunity or visibility into what the agreements are as they're striking them. So there's going to be a lot more to come, and I think there's going to be a lot more questions to be asked. [00:47:44] Speaker 3: All right, Lisa Kamusa-Miller and Adam Hodge, thank you so much for joining us. And we'll be back for more tomorrow on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. [00:47:55] Speaker ?: Thank you.