Moderate Republicans Defy Speaker Johnson on Health Care | Balance of Power: 12/17/2025

This is balance of power live from Washington D. C. from Bloomberg's Washington D. C. Studios to our T. V. And radio audiences worldwide. Welcome to balance of power. I'm Joe Matthew. We come to you with breaking news this evening. The House of Representatives only minutes away from voting on a Republican backed health care proposal. It's days before millions of Americans go over the Obamacare cliff with premium set to increase at the end of the month. But today's vote here is not the big headline tonight. It's the fraction within the House Republican Conference after four members joined Democrats in forcing a vote on a bill that would extend Obamacare subsidies for three years. The revolt coming hours before the president addresses the nation in prime time tonight, we'll hear from one of those four Republicans who crossed the aisle. Congressman Mike Lawler of New York in just a moment. First, we go to Bloomberg's Eric Wasson live on Capitol Hill for more. Eric, it's great to have you with us. The bill, we should be clear that's going to hit the floor of the House. The Republican bill does not address Obamacare subsidies, nor does it include the health savings accounts that had been put forth in the Senate. That's right. It's mostly a package of pretty light proposals that have cleared the House, mostly on Republican votes in the past. Cost savings, reduction plans, association health plans. These air tried and true Republican attempts to modify the health care system that have no Democratic buy in and really no future in the Senate. It's more of a messaging vote. But as you said, the key thing was this party crossing on this discharge petition, which will trigger a vote in January. The speaker doesn't have to bring up the vote before the House leaves on Friday, but we'll have to bring it up early in January on a Democratic three year clean extension of the Obamacare subsidies. That also has really no realistic path to pass the Senate. The Senate rejected a very same proposal earlier this month, but it could allow for a vehicle that Senate moderates could, you know, amend with the compromise proposal and send it back. Well, so we're going over the cliff. Either way, it sounds like, Eric, even in a best case scenario, if this discharge petition passes convincingly, will John Thune, the Republican leader in the Senate, be compelled to bring it up in the senators that open up a new round of You know, we asked John Thune in the hallways and he basically said, you know, a very partisan bill, you know, would not really have a future, but it does provide the chance potentially for a deal. He's been talking about, you know, these bipartisan talks led by Susan Collins and Jean Shaheen is potentially yielding something. You know, this would probably have income limits, anti fraud controls, but it remains to be seen if they can overcome a key hurdle, which is this Hyde Amendment issue. This is the the demand by some Republicans that there be further restrictions on Obamacare is coverage of abortion services, and that's really an affirmative Democrats. If they can get past that in January, we might see something past the Senate and then it has to come back to the House may require another discharge petition. You know, this is all after most people have already faced the beginning of the year with the higher prices, but you know, they could come in and extend the open enrollment period and allow them to sign up for cheaper plans later next year with another House vote at hand. Bloomberg's Eric Wasson with us live from Capitol Hill. Eric, thank you. Just before we came to air this evening, I spoke with one of the Republican lawmakers who signed the Democrats discharge petition. Congressman Mike Lawler of New York started by asking him about his decision to side with his Democratic colleagues amid this ongoing health care battle. We have two, uh, issues to deal with. One is the immediate expiration of these enhanced premium tax credits that were put in place by Democrats during COVID as a temporary measure to address health care affordability during a pandemic. Secondarily, is the fact that under Obamacare, health care premiums have risen by 96% while insurance company profits have grown by over 2000% during the last 15 years. And so we need to tackle both of these issues concurrently. It's why I've been working in a bipartisan way since the shutdown ended to address the expiration of these subsidies and working with our leadership on putting forth a plan to address the larger issue of health care affordability in America. Obviously, I would like to see an ACA extension vote, and we work tirelessly to try and negotiate a agreement with leadership to get a bill on the floor. Unfortunately, we couldn't find agreement, and so I had no alternative but to sign the discharge. I've signed three separate discharges, two bipartisan bills and one. The clean three year extension offered by Leader Jeffries has already failed in the Senate, but the objective is to force a vote on the House floor, pass something and let the Senate come back to us with a bipartisan agreement. It's important to note, then, that you did sign off on three different versions. Did you sign this one, then, Congressman, holding your nose? I'm guessing you didn't want a three year extension to begin with. Well, look, I don't have a problem with a three year extension out of hand. The issue is you need reform. You need reforms, and that's why we worked in a bipartisan way to come up with those compromises, including income limits. Somebody making $600,000 a year should not be subsidized by taxpayers for health insurance. We came up with insurance reforms to actually start holding the insurance companies accountable. We eliminate zero premium plans because everybody should have a little bit of skin in the game. So we've come up with a nominal $5 fee to really help root out fraud, which, if you look at the CAO report, there is fraud in this system, and that's what we're trying to address, coupled with PBM reform and HSA expansion so that HSAs can be used to pay premiums and roll over from year to year so people aren't stuck in this use it or lose it game that often happens when you have an HSA. Are these credit extensions the difference between another government shutdown or another CR come the end of January? Well, ultimately, that's up to Democrats. Democrats said this was an existential crisis in the last shutdown. I had offered Leader Jeffries to sign onto a one year clean CR extension. He opposed that. You know, we worked in a bipartisan way to come up with an agreement here from my vantage point. Shutting down the government is terrible policy. It hurts the American people, and no matter what policy disputes there are, you don't use government shutdown as a vehicle to extract. I distinctly remember you visiting Leader Jeffries office to make that point. So here we are. There have been 13 discharge petitions filed in 2025 to our count, which is pretty remarkable. You've already referred to three of them, others quite notable, including, of course, the Epstein files discharge petition. And I'll never forget our conversation about that congressman. That, of course, landed in a near unanimous vote. Does this new use of an old tool mean that leadership is no longer required? What does it say about the speaker? No, I don't think it says that. At the end of the day, we have a very tight majority. This is the smallest majority in the history of Congress. And so discharges are, you know, frankly, more likely because it only takes a handful of Republicans to sign on if every single Democrat joins. So, you know, this is why you're seeing it a little bit more. But the speaker is doing a very good job in a very difficult situation. He's got to manage 219 personalities, including mine, in the majority. It's not an easy task. And the fact is, he's done it very effectively. This was a situation where we couldn't reach an agreement, and there were a number of reasons why. But ultimately, I felt I had to represent my district on do what I thought was right, regardless of party on advance the discharge to force a vote on the House floor. Well, it's interesting because you had some pretty colorful language coming out of the meeting the other day with the speaker, in which it was clear that it would require a discharge petition that he wasn't gonna bring an extension to the floor. So whether it's it's your personality is you've just referred congressman or and Elise Stefanik, your colleague from New York, Marjorie Taylor Green. Any number of members seem to be upset with the speaker right now. It sounds like you're still in his corner. Does he need to worry about a motion to vacate? Oh, listen, him and I have a very good relationship, and we've spoken repeatedly over the last 24 hours. Uh, you know, I am more focused on finding a solution to the issues before us. I don't think he has anything to worry about with a motion to vacate and nor and nor should. So you don't think the speakership is at risk. I hear you there. What was his tone and tenor and talking with you over the past 24 hours? Because you know how the media is playing. This is Mike Lawler broke from the speaker. Well, listen, I obviously broke from leadership and did what I thought was right. A discharge petition is a tool of every member, not just the minority. And this is something that I felt very strongly about. But again, he and I have had very direct conversations. I have no animosity about it. It is just the reality of the situation, and it required action on my part if I wanted to advance this bill. And that was the position I took, and I own I own it. I mentioned the Epstein discharge petition. Congressman, should the American people prepare for a big document drop on Friday? Or will the Department of Justice find a reason to not release them? Look, the law was very clear. They should abide by it, and they should release all the documents. So you expect that to actually happen? I do. You know, there was some concern about the Department of Justice, for instance, saying that there was an ongoing investigation into any number of Democrats that the president had flagged, including Bill Clinton. But of course, Susie Wiles suggested something different in her interview with Vanity Fair, which brings me lastly to the question that you may or may not want to answer. Kevin McCarthy was at the White House today. He was with President Trump on Marine One as the president departed for the dignified transfer today at Dover, which was a very solemn affair, but it raised a lot of eyebrows to see the former speaker at the White House. I asked Patrick McHenry about that today. Was he interviewing to be the next chief of staff? Do you think he'd be good in that job? Oh, look, I have the utmost respect and affection for Kevin McCarthy. Uh, you think he'd be terrific in any number of roles in the administration, but I have great confidence in Susie Wiles. I know the president does. I think she's done a tremendous job as chief of staff, and I think she will continue in that capacity. Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York speaking with us a short time ago here on Bloomberg. A tech route on Wall Street drove the day amid growing skepticism around the A. I. Spend familiar matter, but much better feelings after the bell. Look at this micron technology, crushing analyst estimates with a beat and raise quarter, sending the stock sharply higher and extended trading. And for more, we turned to power moves with Bloomberg's Romain Bostic with us live from New York. Just takes one dose of good news, I guess. Yeah, beaten, raised quarter might be an understatement, Joe. Some of the guidance that they gave for the current quarter in terms of what they'll make in terms of profits, revenue and margins coming in and almost twice what a Wall Street analyst has expected. So a bit of a surprise here and you see the pop in this year's up about 6% here in the after hours trade. Now that doesn't mean some of the lingering issues that has led to what is now basically been a seven week sell off in tech stocks. Those issues are still there. You saw that a little bit earlier in the day with some concerns about Oracle and a big build out of a data center in southeastern Michigan, whether it would actually have the financing to be able to do that deal. But when you hear what micron says on the call, we should point out they don't make sort of the fancier chips in the video makes they make basically memory chip. So all that data has to be stored somewhere. And these high bandwidth memory chips it is makes are in high demand. And the CEO talked about this basically saying, look, we cannot meet that demand right now. It's an embarrassment of riches that could be moderated just a bit here as we get into next year as we have to sort of assess not just what micron makes, but obviously what the sort of feed through is from the big companies like the Microsoft's, the oracles, etcetera. If you will, Joe, interesting. We've been watching this, uh, this attempt. They were hostile takeover by Paramount over Warner Brothers Discovery. This took on a new wrinkle here, obviously, with now Paramount affirming its commitment even after the W. B. D. Board said it would prefer Netflix investors looking at this. Yeah, well, I think investors are confused and we should also point out another wrinkle has been thrown into this, Joe, with Comcast. Uh, Chris Palmieri, our reporter out in Los Angeles, broke this story a little bit earlier. It was listed in the documents as company a, but he was able to do some back of a napkin math, realized that it was Comcast and realized evaluation. So they're in the mix, too, with roughly about $81 billion valuation right around what Netflix has been offering for the company. Obviously, Paramount much higher than that at around 100 billion. But we've talked about this before, Joe. A lot of this is really going to come down to what the folks in Washington want and, more importantly, what President Trump wants. He was speaking earlier today talking about broadcast licenses. I have no idea whether he'll bring this up tonight in his big speech to the nation. But again, you know, is this really gonna be driven by what Wall Street wants or real? Quite frankly, what the president wants, Joe? Interesting to note that David Ellison is in town. He was spotted out to dinner with Ted Cruz last night. Oh, intrigue. I like that. Yeah, Bloomberg's Romaine Bostic. Always great to see you, sir. Thank you. Coming up, President Trump's blockade order escalating tensions with Venezuela. We'll discuss up ahead, but first we'll turn attention back to Capitol Hill when Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada joins us to discuss the current state of the healthcare battle. Will the Senate be next? That's next on balance of power on Bloomberg TV and radio. It's balance of power on Bloomberg TV and radio. I'm Joe Matthew. Thanks for joining us as we keep an eye on the House of Representatives floor with lawmakers set to vote on the Republican backed health care proposal. Just moments from now, that vote coming as a Republican revolt comes into full view after four Republicans, one of whom we just spoke with, joined Democrats enforcing to the floor a standalone bill that would extend Obamacare subsidies for three years. A clean extension. That vote is set to occur next month as it triggers a seven day waiting period. If that gets passed, it does still face a big hurdle to the Senate by where, by the way, a bill just like that had just recently failed. Joining us now live from Capitol Hill on a busy evening is Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, a member of both the Senate Finance and Banking Committee. Senator, it's great to see you. Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and radio. I realize what happened in the House with that discharge petition involves a unique tool in the House. Will John Thune be compelled to bring a similar extension back to the floor after what we just saw today? Well, I hope so, because what what you're talking about has happened in the House is based on the need in the American public. I think both Democrats and Republicans realize the American public is demanding that they still have affordable health care in this country that includes those subsidies for enhanced premium tax credits. That's why you're having that vote there. And as you recall, when we had the vote in the Senate, we had we had four Republicans that joined us on that three-year extension. So it really is the American public speaking up, saying we want this, and it's a bipartisan solution to addressing some of the high health care costs that we have in this country right now. Well, it must be a frustrating moment for you after going through the longest government shutdown in American history over this very matter, knowing that we are going to go over the Obamacare cliff no matter what happens in either chamber here. You'll be back in January, and I wonder, Senator, what happens then? If this is convincing to moderate Republicans, does that spawn a gang of eight or some sort of compromise committee, if you will, that will bring about a new piece of legislation in your chamber? Well, let me just say this. There's talks happening right now on the Senate side, and they need to continue. But we have to address what's going to happen next year. That means a clean extension of some sort has to take place even as we talk reforms. I think there's bipartisan talk to figure out how we reform some of this and still make health care affordable for so many that have the Affordable Care Act. But we need the extension first. Otherwise, what's going to happen is what you just said. Millions of Americans are going to fall over that health care cliff, either not be able to afford health care or paying higher premiums that are just outrageous in this moment when they're already seeing high costs from grocery costs, housing costs, health care costs. They're already being strapped with the high costs of this economy. So we need to do something. And those talks are happening right now. But I am hopeful, and I'm going to count on my Republican colleagues in the Senate to come to the table and do the right thing here for the American public. Well, I actually am one who believes that no one really wants a government shutdown. But sometimes you can sleepwalk or slouch into one senator. And with the discord that we're seeing in both chambers in the incredibly tight margins, if this doesn't get done in time for the funding deadline at the end of January, if there's no deal on health care, we shutting down again? Well, I can tell you part of the extension we gave to end of January so we can get the bills done. The appropriations bills. We've already passed three or four of them tonight. And you and I were talking about this. We might have similar votes on another four provisions of the budget that we need in a bipartisan way in the Senate to move the appropriations bills. I think we need to do that. We need to do our jobs working a bipartisan way. Appropriate the dollars that are necessary to keep the federal government open. We're working on that. And if we continue down this path, we don't have to worry about the end of January in that deadline because we'll have already appropriated the bills. You know, there's been a lot of questioning of motives on both sides of the aisle, and that's where we are with not a heck of a lot of trust right now. After the last year that we've had on Capitol Hill, Congressman French Hill, Republican in the House chairs. The Financial Services Committee was talking about a little bit earlier today what Republicans are trying to accomplish. Senator, love for you to listen to what he said. What Republicans are trying to do our side with American families across the board and lower premiums across the board, and we consistently brought bills to the House floor to do that. And we've had Democrats reject them. Last week, the Senate could not find a consensus on this, and that's the definitive place. That was the commitment made during the spending votes. Do you believe that Republicans are actively working to lower health care premiums? Well, I could tell you this. The simple thing to do right now, if they really want to address this issue is just to a clean extension. They want to talk reforms. We're willing to talk reforms capping the income at the high level. We're talking about what we can do to address the waste, fraud and abuse they have concerns with. We have concerns with it. There are reforms that we can discuss and actually move forward on. But we have to do an extension because what we're gonna see right now in the American public come January or actually the end of this this month, too many people not gonna be able to afford their health care. And and let me just talk about this. These are individuals. These are families that require that health care because their child has a rare disease. This child may not get access to health care. These air individuals or small businesses that rely on the Affordable Care Act and the subsidies for health care. Now they're gonna have to decide. Do they even keep their business open? Can they afford health care? I mean, this isn't a decision that American public and small businesses you have to make. We should make it easier for them to afford health care in this country to access it when they need it. And it should be quality health care. And that should be bipartisan work. Nobody playing politics with it. So count me in the camp of let's do it a clean extension. You want to talk reforms, then we get in a room and do it. But let's just make sure we're taking care of those people the next two years. So nobody's falling off that health care cliff. And finally, let me just say Republicans are in control. They very easily could have done this. The House could have done this. You know, they let me just say Speaker Johnson shut down the House for over a month over a month, and they weren't even here. Had they been here, they could have been working with the Democrats to figure out a path to address this very issue. So we're not running up against this deadline right now. Well, Senator, the Republican led Senate did get something done today in passing the annual defense authorization and D. A. A. The must pass bill as we like to refer pretty convincingly as well. Who says he can't get anything done? 77 to 20. Do you expect the president to sign this into law this week? I do. Listen, this is a great example of where, when we work together in a bipartisan way, we can get something done, pass it out of the Senate, pass it out of the House. It's a benefit to this country and have the president sign it. And so we just did that today. You just talked a little about it, and most people don't know what N. D. A. A. Is. It's a defense authorization act. This is how we fund our military. This is how we support and protect our national security. There's so much involved in the N. D. A. A. And it's crucial that we pass it and we work in a bipartisan way to get it done. You know, it's something that includes prohibiting U. S. Investment in certain technologies in China. Is that going to collide with the administration's plans in a remaining moment, Senator, when it comes to high tech A. I. Chips being sold to Beijing? No, not at all. So you're talking about an amendment that John Corn and I had put into the N. D. A. A. To prevent American investors from investing in technologies in countries like China or adversaries like Iran and Russia. We want to keep those dollars here. We want to invest in A. I. Here and making sure that quantum computing and quantum mechanics that investment is here, right? Hypersonics were investing on all on all of this new technology in the United States. It passed in the N. D. A. A. It gives Treasury the opportunity to create that framework, that outbound prohibition framework as well as the notification framework so we can ensure that we're protecting that investment and our national security here. We'd like to keep that conversation going, Senator. Come back and see us again soon. Catherine Cortez Masto, the senator from Nevada. We thank you for the time on balance of power. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. Stay with us on Bloomberg TV and radio. Well, I think the message this evening is we inherited a mess and we've done a great job and we continue to and our country is going to be stronger than ever before. Very soon balance of power on Bloomberg TV and radio. Thanks for joining us. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, where we heard from President Trump teeing up his address to the nation, which is now just a couple hours away. The president set to speak at nine p.m. Eastern time from the White House. You will hear it and see it live here on Bloomberg TV and radio. And as the president prepares to speak to the country, the unemployment rate has hit a high not seen since the pandemic inflation ticking up slightly. And of course, the fight over health care subsidies raging on Capitol Hill. And that plays in to the whole story about affordability. For more, we're joined by Bloomberg's Washington Deputy Bureau Chief Laura Davison. The work cut out for the president this evening. Kind of hard to quantify it, Laura. This is something we only learned about yesterday. Is this going to be a preview of the state of the union or do you have something specific to announce? Or do we not know what the administration has so far signaled is that this is going to be an economic focused speech. And in a sense, it's a sort of reset for their messaging on the economy economy. The president has really struggled there. Even at this rally last week, he called it a Democratic hoax, said that his advisers wanted him to come out and talk about affordability, but he didn't really see that as a top issue. Well, of course, we're seeing a bunch of warning signs in the economic data, in the jobs data, in consumer sentiment and in some recent polls that came out just today, showing some of the lowest ever approval ratings for the president this term, both from Ipsos and Gallup and Gallup in the 37 to 39% range. Well, none of this involves a place called Venezuela, where he announced a blockade on social media last evening or any number of hot spots around the world, including Syria, where days ago the president promised some retribution following the killing of two American troops. And he was at Dover today for their dignified transfer. Could we hear an announcement about anything involving this? It's certainly possible that any of the foreign conflicts that we're seeing, whether Syria or Venezuela or Ukraine, Russia, could be part of this message. You know, this is a different format than Trump usually speaks in with more freewheeling off the cuff. This is a presidential primetime address. It'll be him in a room with a handful of staffers staring straight into a camera. So traditionally, this is a more formal, a more scripted event, though, with Trump. Anything can happen. Well, we're going to get into that very thing a little bit more with our panel, because this is kind of an age old tried and true tested venue, right? Reaching Americans in their living rooms in prime time. And all the three letter networks are apparently carrying this tonight, even though they did oppose this idea from some former presidents, including Joe Biden. This is, of course, the president who speaks every day already, sometimes multiple times a day. Does he need this venue? This is a different way to reach people who maybe aren't, you know, tuning into the, you know, the Oval Office event that's happening every day at four o'clock. Instead, this is missing out. And so this is, you know, and because it has this, this elevated feeling to it, because it is a primetime address, you know, we're talking about it right now, which we wouldn't talk about the fact that there's just an event happening. So this is a sort of they're, they're throwing out all the different tools in the tools box. We just saw them bring back rallies. They hadn't done rallies, you know, at all really for some months and last week. And then again, this week, they're doing one in North Carolina at 9 p.m. Notably the same day that we're expecting some of these Epstein files from the department of justice to come out. So they're, they're really looking at how to code or how to counter program. Some of the bad news and headwinds are facing. I'm guessing that doesn't come up. Bloomberg's Washington, deputy bureau chief, Laura Davis and Laura. Thank you so much. With more on Venezuela overnight, president Trump announcing, as I just referred that he was ordering a blockade. That's the language he used of sanctioned oil tankers going into and leaving Venezuela. He went on designating the regime of Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro as a foreign terrorist organization, accusing the Venezuelan regime of using oil for what he called those stolen oil fields to finance themselves, drug terrorism, human trafficking, murder, and kidnapping president saying Venezuela is completely surrounded now by the largest armada ever assembled in the history of South America. The president's move threatening to choke off the economic lifeblood of Venezuela, which is already under severe financial pressure, but we'll have a less profound impact on global markets. Joining us now with their thoughts, Roxanna vigil international affairs fellow in national security at the council on foreign relations alongside Becca Wasser defense lead here at Bloomberg economics. One of our geo economics team leaders. It's great to have both of you with us here, Becca, I'm going to start with you and the best way we can frame the U S intentions and the rhetoric involved here. A blockade is seen as an act of war. You were making the point that this is something short of that. Yeah, a blockade is an act of war. So I think what we're really seeing is what's doctrinally known as a quarantine. Okay. Really what that is is action taken against a very particular set of vessels. In this case, these sanctioned oil tankers and a quarantine means you are still enforcing this. You're still using military power, but it isn't stopping all ships, which could include ships that are bringing things like aid and food stuff to Venezuela from actually being able to transit. So I think we're seeing something that's a bit of a level down from a blockade, but it's worth saying that at the same time, we almost have a de facto quarantine already in place because vessels have been scared to transit near Venezuela. We've had scared, um, aircraft, not necessarily transiting airspace as well. So in some ways this is an enforcement and a codification of what's already been in existence. The joke that the fishermen aren't going out off Venezuela anymore. But just to be clear, because these tankers are sanctioned gives the U S the legal standing to pursue this quarantine. Yes, it absolutely does. In some ways, think of this like a police car just stumbling upon a stolen vehicle. They know that they can go and interrogate further and find a way to bring the perpetrator to justice. It's the same thing here where they've already been sanctioned. And so it's just enforcing what's already been put down. Roxanna, let's bring you in here. What does this action mean for Venezuela's economy? Obviously there wasn't a heck of a lot of trade coming in and out of the country already, but this, as we mentioned, chokes off an important lifeblood and feedstock for the Venezuelan economy. And that's oil. That's right. Venezuela's economy is almost completely dependent on its oil exports. They export, uh, right now they're just below our 900,000 barrels. That's an average for the last few months. And the revenue that the Maduro regime generates from those oil sales is then used to, on one hand, of course, uphold a very corrupt regime, but on the other hand, also to provide goods for the Venezuelan people in a socialist country in which the people are very dependent on the government. So depending on the scope of the blockade, the enforcement mechanism, whether it's a law enforcement, uh, enforcement or whether it's a military enforcement and the timeframe, it can have really a big impact on Maduro's ability to generate revenue. We're looking at video of U.S. special forces seizing the first of what could be many oil tankers. Roxanna, this is obviously, if we're talking about it, well-known in Venezuela, where are these tankers? What will they do to keep themselves from being seized? Right. Right now, there are about 30 or so U.S. sanctioned tankers that are in Venezuelan waters out of about 80 vessels that are there. Um, one of these tankers tries to leave Venezuelan waters and enters international waters. How will the Trump administration respond? Will they do something similar to what you're showing right now? A law enforcement action, uh, through a warrant or will they use the armada that the U.S. military has assembled to take action? I want you to hear the voices, Roxanna and Becca of lawmakers. These and ours following their briefing this week, there was a classified briefing for all members of Congress separately. The video of the second strike in the double tap attack, as we now call it on that boat on September 2nd, uh, being shown to some members. Let's listen. The American people absolutely need to see this video. I think they would be shocked, sickened, even ashamed. Admiral Bradley's done a great job. I'm totally confident in the legal basis for what he's done. Secretary Hegseth is showing his deep disdain for members of Congress, his disrespect for members of the military, and the rule of law and the rules of war and engagement. Seeing people get killed on video is not fun. And they don't like the messy reality that we kill bad guys. And that's our job. I'm deeply worried that there may be a loss or destruction of evidence here. Becca, why not make this video public? What are we missing here? Could there be some redacted or edited version that might satisfy Democrats? There probably could be some version that would satisfy Democrats and would be suitable for broader release to the public. At the same time, there is the need to protect operational security. But what's likely the case here is this isn't something that the administration wants to show the public in part, because there is this contested conversation about the legality of these strikes and the broader question about this campaign overall. So at the end of the day, it might not serve their interests to provide this video to the broader public, which might be why we could potentially see some slow rolling in the future. Roxanna, where's your head on this? I'm assuming that this video will never be made public, even though the president of the United States said that he actually was open to that. He walked that comment back and left it up to his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, who said it will never happen. What are we missing on this tape? So I think in general, the lack of hard facts of who exactly is in the boat, what terrorist, foreign terrorist organizations are they a part of and their specific facts about linking them to drug trafficking, all those details, I think are extremely important to understand exactly what the campaign has been about. And of course, there is a sense that the counter narcotics justification for the, this entire campaign has been a pretext for what very much looks like a regime change policy regime change, but then why becomes the question as well. And I want both of you to listen to what president Trump said today on the tarmac on his way back from Dover. This is really important because we were told this was about drugs, right? Stopping the drug trade, blowing up drug boats, making fentanyl, a weapon of mass destruction as he called it today. It never came up. The president said clearly that it was about oil. Listen, getting land, oil rights, whatever we had, they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching, but they're not going to do that. We want it back. They, they took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. As you know, they threw our companies out and we want it back. They took our oil and we're going to take it back. What's he talking about? It's talking about the fact that us companies were a big part of the Venezuelan oil boom when there was still us presence and a business presence in the country. And so I think what we've seen since then is Chevron is really the only company that has remained. And I think there is sort of this idea that we've seen from president Trump. We also saw Stephen Miller tweeting about it earlier today that the US has a right to some of those oil assets and is trying to use this as an opportunity to actually get to those. Um, it does, as you say, it is a big change from, at first we were told that this was about protecting American citizens from potential drug trade, from potential drug trafficking. And since then the rationale seems to have shifted over time, which leaves us to question what is this truly about? And to Roxanna's smart point before it ultimately does look to be about regime change, about finding different ways to pressure Nicholas Maduro and to force him from power. All right, Roxanna, what do you think about this? Is this whole operation about oil? So based on the announcement that the president made last night and, and the very clear line that the president has set related to his allegations of stolen land, oil, and other assets, it does point to some sort of end goal that includes Venezuela making some deal potentially with the Trump administration to return what president Trump alleges has been stolen from the United States. In some ways this justification makes more sense than the counter narcotics justification, which just was very unaligned and mismatched with the military deployment, all the rhetoric against Maduro. Uh, if, if this is the end goal, to me, this points to some achievable negotiable approach. Uh, and no, it's very notable that president Trump did not say in his announcement and has not said since last night that part of that end goal includes Maduro exiting, even if that might be part of the intended outcome, because that is going to be very challenging and a sticking point in any future negotiations. Roxanna Vigil from the council on foreign relations, Becca Wasser defense lead at Bloomberg economics. Thank you so much both for your insights, smart conversation. Keep this in mind when the president speaks later coming up, we're following developments on Capitol Hill as an open revolt of moderate Republicans pushes the potential of extending Obamacare subsidies. Even if we are going over the cliff first and we're just hours away from the president's address to the nation tonight, we'll talk it out with 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. Thanks for joining us. We'll continue to keep our eyes on the healthcare vote in the house. When our political panel joins us in just a moment for some of the stories we're following in today's power brief president Trump standing alongside the first lady, Pentagon chief and the army chief of staff for the dignified transfer procession today honoring two members of the Iowa national guard who were killed in Syria over the weekend, the falling guardsmen as well as a us civilian acting as an interpreter or ambushed by an ISIS gunman while on a mission on Saturday, according to the Pentagon, the soldiers will eventually return home to Iowa. Former special counsel, Jack Smith was on Capitol Hill today defending his investigations into president Trump Smith testifying behind closed doors to the house judiciary committee where the Republican led panel is investigating Smith's probes into Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling as well of classified documents. Following his first term Smith dropped the cases of course, against the president after the 2024 election. But during his deposition, he maintained that his actions were not politically motivated. Joining us now this evening's political panel with boy, we've got a lot to talk about. Megan Hayes is here. Democratic strategist, former special assistant to president Biden alongside Republican strategist, Sarah Chamberlain, the president and CEO of the Republican main street partnership. Ladies welcome. It's great to have you both on what we could look back on as a pretty important day. Sarah, how are you thinking about these moderate Republicans who crossed the aisle to sign onto this discharge petition? We spoke with one of them earlier this hour, Congressman Mike Lawler, what's motivating them tonight? Survive on their districts. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. They have told the speaker and the leadership that they needed an ACA fix. They wanted a one year. They didn't really want to sign onto this, but I would tell you they have been really forthcoming with leadership. So this was not a shock to the leadership that they did this. Um, so, but all four of them live in, in really blue districts and they had to do this. And you know, the saying goes, we live in interesting times. We really do. Well, you never happened before. We do. Sarah, how many other front liners or just how many other members of the Republican conference to these four lawmakers speak for? I know of at least five more that also live in tough districts. they were not willing to sign onto the petition. However, you know, that that's signing onto that petition is tough. Um, but once that's signed onto, I think you'll be, you'll see a group of them vote for it on the floor in January. Again, this is not a criticism of the speaker. The speaker is not in trouble, but the speaker has the hardest job in Washington by far. I mean, the margins are so close that he's got a lot of personalities to balance and it's just tough times. I really wish him well, cause God bless him. It's, it's really, I don't know how he does it to be honest. That might be called job security. The fact that nobody else wants that job. So we're not going to talk a motion to vacate, at least not now. Mike Lawler said he's safe. Sarah Chamberlain says he's safe. But what did Democrats do at this moment? Hakeem Jeffries was shopping this discharge petition. I don't know if you saw this coming, but a three year extension. Do you think John Thune picks that up next door? No, I think that this is a negotiating tactic or it should be used as a negotiating tactic. I think that it makes the most sense to have a year or two and then to sit down and really negotiate and have a bipartisan solution here. No one thinks that Obamacare is perfect. No one thinks it is the most affordable plan for the American people, but it is what we have right now. And the Republicans don't have a solution. So this discharge petition, I think is a great starting point for a negotiation. The problem is, is we're running out of time. And Mike Johnson said that he's sending his, his caucus home tomorrow or sending the house home tomorrow. So there isn't going to be a vote. So the American people are going to feel the steps. They're going to feel their healthcare prices rise at the beginning of the year. And that's really going to be unfortunate because that is going to impact what the outcomes of the election come November. So you fast forward to January, we've gone over the cliff. Everybody comes back after new year's with a hangover. We're going to figure out a funding solution. Before the end of the month. I don't think that they, I don't think they figure it out. I think that we could very well go back down into a shutdown again. You're kidding me. All right, Sarah, I'm afraid to ask you because your crystal ball is extremely accurate. What are you seeing at the end of January? Does it depend on a healthcare deal being struck? I think a healthcare deal will be struck. I think he's going to have to bring the vote to the floor the first week in January when they get back. I do not see government shutdown at this point. Neither side won. The last government shutdown and it caused a lot of unrest within the Republican party to have them be out for eight weeks was a long time. So nobody wants us again. It hurt the economy. Obviously we're in election year pocketbook wallet issues matter. So I don't see a government shutdown coming. So we're going to hear from the president a couple of hours from now. We're told that affordability will be a theme, although we don't know exactly what the president is going to be talking about. Uh, Megan, will he seize on this affordability issue in a way that he has not so far? He's been calling it a Democrat hoax. No, I don't think so. I think that he is definitely going to try to change the narrative and that's what he's using this presidential address for, which is really unusual to use a prime time address when it's something that's not like you captured Osama bin Laden or you're going to war. And so if he can stick to talking points, he has a better chance, but he doesn't, he does not have the ability to do that. So it's interesting to me that the networks are even taking this live without even having some form of breaking news that's of national importance. This is just going to be more of Trump's campaign speech and more blaming Joe Biden and more just nonsense coming out of him. I don't know what your expectations are from the speech this evening, uh, Sarah, but something interesting happened today at the white house. And the president was on his way out of the oval on his way to Dover. You see who was with him? Kevin McCarthy, the former speaker of the house. And so, you know, we're troublemakers sometimes. And I just, I had to ask Mike Lawler his idea. Look, you read the Susie Wiles interview in vanity fair. I'm going to just say and assume that both of you did was Kevin McCarthy interviewing to be the next chief of staff. Here's what Mike Lawler said. I have the utmost respect and affection for Kevin McCarthy. Uh, you know, I wouldn't be in Congress without him. I think he'd be terrific in any number of roles in the administration, but I have great confidence in Susie Wiles. I know the president does. Uh, I think she's done a tremendous job as chief of staff and I think she will continue, uh, in that capacity. Would he be good for the job, Sarah, or you're going to pull me in off. I think he'd be great for the job. He knows, especially in the house, he knows all the Republican members. As Mike said, he got a lot of them elected, but I do think Susie's there until Susie doesn't want to be there. I've read the article. I mean, I think some of that was a little bit of a loose writing maybe, but she's solid. She's fantastic. I don't really see a problem there, but if she did leave, I think, I think Kevin McCarthy would be a great choice to replace her. A lot of people called that vanity fair piece and exit interview was Kevin McCarthy to join the administration. I mean, it would be smart. He'd be a smart person. I think that it would help Elise Stefanik out a lot because they are in a him and Elise are close. I just, it's interesting. I think that Susie probably takes an exit next year. It makes sense. These jobs are extremely challenging. They're extremely exhausting. So it would make sense if she was leaving at the end of the year. Someone who works in the white house with the previous president, what did you make of the way she framed the inner workings of this administration? I mean, I thought the interview was really disconcerting. I'm not sure why you would do that particular person and have those particular photographs taken. And it's not out of context. It's all on tape. So it's, I'm not exactly sure what her strategy is. It doesn't look like they had a strategy going into this or they bought into something that they were sold a bill of goods on what the story was going to be. But any quick Google search of Chris football would tell you that that story is not going to be positive for you. Wow. How about that? Is there a lesson here, Sarah, when they go to put you on sports illustrated or when vanity fair calls, don't pick up the phone. Yes, that is the lesson or move on. Or maybe not. I mean, maybe not that particular reporter because he does tend to do pieces similar to what he did with Susie. Um, but yeah, yeah. Hit it into a voicemail probably in the future. That was quite the deep dive. Sarah, you better get back to Washington. We got a lot going on. Sarah Chamberlain and Megan Hayes. Thank you for a great panel and for your insights. I'll meet you back here a little later. Bloomberg TV will be carrying president Trump's address tonight, 9 PM Eastern, right here on Bloomberg TV.