Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Harvard University Professor of Economics and White House Council of Economic Advisers Former Chair Greg Mankiw; Interview with Yale Budget Lab Economic Director and White House Council of Economic Advisers Former Chief Economist Ernie Tedeschi; Interview with Johns Hopkins University Professor of International Affairs Vali Nasr; Interview with Bard Center for the Study of Hate Director Kenneth Stern. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 14, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: You happen to show a certain flexibility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Confusion, reigns over Trump's tariffs. Where will this trade war end? Two former top economic advisers to Democrat and Republican
presidents give me their take.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Our intention is to reach a fair and honorable agreement from a position of equality.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- is a new Iran deal on the cards. I asked former State Department adviser Vali Nasr, about high-level talks in Oman.
Plus, El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, visits the White House. We get the latest on that alliance.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNETH STERN, DIRECTOR, BARD CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HATE: It's giving an easy solution to a complicated problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Human rights advocate Kenneth Stern tells Michel Martin why he's concerned that his own definition of anti-Semitism is being used to
stop speech.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, if you thought the weekend might study President Trump's tariff rollercoaster, think again. In the hours between Friday and Sunday, the
White House announced exemptions on some Chinese tech products only for Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to say the exemptions are just temporary
and that imported electronics will soon face other levies. Well, now, the president says the announcement Friday does not amount to a tariff
exemption, and administration officials insist that everything is going according to plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD LUTNICK, U.S. COMMERCE SECRETARY: Our medicines and our semiconductors need to be built in America. Donald Trump is on it. He's
calling that out. So, you should understand these are included in the semiconductor tariffs that are coming and the pharmaceuticals are coming.
Those two areas are coming in the next month or two. So, this is not like a permanent sort of exemption. He's just clarifying that these are not
available to be negotiated away by countries.
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: It's kind of almost a two-world system. There's a process about China and that's
very, very nascent if at all. And then, the process for everybody else. So, the process for everybody else is orderly. It's clear people are coming to
town with great, great offers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, can those deals be reached, including with Beijing, and at what risk to the economy. Here to discuss is Greg Mankiw, a former economic
adviser to President George W. Bush and Ernie Tedeschi, who was chief economist under President Biden. Welcome both of you.
So, Greg, let me start with you. Help us explain, if you can, what you make of the back and forth, the bit of reprieve that we heard from the White
House on Friday as it relates to reciprocal tariffs, on tech components, only to have that walked back by some of the president's top officials? And
he seemingly confirmed that today in the Oval Office, just a few minutes ago, describing himself as a flexible person.
GREG MANKIW, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND FORMER CHAIR, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Well, I think the only thing we
can be certain about right now is that it's very uncertain and uncertainty is not good for the economy, because if you're a CEO thinking about
building a factory somewhere, either here or abroad, and you don't know what the future regime is going to be, you're just going to wait. And
waiting means investment's going to fall and demand's going to fall and unemployment's going to rise.
So, the uncertainty that he's engendered is certainly bad for the economy. Where the tariff policy will be in the end is anybody's guess. My own
personal take on that is that what he originally proposed was economic malpractice on a grand scale, and the stock market quickly told him that
and he quickly retreated. So, where he is going to end up, it's hard to say at this point.
GOLODRYGA: Ernie -- that does little, again, Greg too, as you point out, address, all of the uncertainty and questions that are asked by CEOs, by
consumers, business owners, large and small. And, Ernie, it also begs the question of the rationale for the tariffs, because more economists say that
if you actually want to reduce the trade deficit, this isn't the best approach. So, what do you make of these policies to begin with?
ERNIE TEDESCHI, ECONOMIC DIRECTOR, YALE BUDGET LAB AND FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Look, you know, there
can be a case made for very narrow tariffs when you have very specific goals, things -- especially national security goals or things like critical
minerals, but not the sort of broad tariffs that the president has announced.
[13:05:00]
And to Greg's point, certainly not the chaotic rollout that we've seen, because the chaotic rollout punctuates the economic damage that you get. I
mean, the direct effect of the tariffs is already, you know, counting at roughly $4,700 for the average American family per year. And then, on top
of that is the chilling effect on investment and consumption that comes from the uncertainty. Businesses can't plan, which is just going to
exacerbate that economic effect. So, it's not a recipe for an increase in manufacturing or any other industry in America.
GOLODRYGA: And, Greg, normally during this type of economic turmoil, instability, financial market sell-off in past crises, it was investors
flocking to the U.S. as a safe haven. And we've sort of seen the reverse here. We've seen treasury bonds in the yields have actually gone up as
opposed to going down, we've seen the U.S. dollar go down as well. From what you're hearing, from what you're seeing, how concerned are you that
foreign investors are losing faith and trust in the U.S. financial system?
MANKIW: Oh, I'm very concerned. I mean, if you look back at the history of trade policy, in some ways it's been a bipartisan affair. If you think --
go back to NAFTA, it was negotiated by George H. W. Bush and then passed under Bill Clinton. So, the movement toward free trade, towards lower trade
barriers has really been a bipartisan effort throughout central -- throughout past administrations.
We're now in a very different situation where the foreigners are looking at the U.S. and saying, we don't know what to make of them. We don't know what
they're trying to achieve. We don't know how reliable they are. And this sort of feeds into the general sort of uncertainty about the U.S. role in
the world affairs, whether it's things like NATO or things like the WTO, the World Health Organization, we just don't look like the reliable anchor
in the world anymore. And that would be very bad if people lose faith in the U.S. as the center of the world system.
GOLODRYGA: And, Ernie, what I've heard from a number of experts is the worst possible outcome here is that the U.S. dollar could lose its reserve
currency status. How likely is that to happen in your view? And can you explain why that would be so cataclysmic?
TEDESCHI: Sure. So, I don't want to say that that's likely at this point. Look, there are always predictions in lots of contexts that the United
States dollar is going to lose its reserve status and they're always proven wrong. So, I don't want to jump the gun and say that that's going to happen
in this case. But I agree with Greg, the gyrations in the bond market that we've seen recently are the most concerning market reactions so far, even
more concerning than the stock market reactions.
And that's because the United States safe harbor status is central to the world financial system. It benefits us in a lot of -- our interest rates
low. It allows us to run among, other things, high deficits. I mean, probably we -- you know, our deficits are too high as a result of that. But
look, it lets us -- it let -- it gives us that ability to do that.
And moreover, you know, American assets like treasuries are the cornerstone of safe assets for firms and investment funds around the world. So, if the
United States were suddenly to lose that safe harbor status, if the dollar were to lose that -- you know, that reserve status among them it would be
catastrophic for the world financial system.
And what we've seen in the last couple of days with American yields going up and the American dollar losing value, which is the opposite of what you
expect to see in a safe haven country like the United States, is incredibly concerning.
GOLODRYGA: This focus on bringing back manufacturing jobs has raised the debate as to whether this should be even something that the administration,
that the president should be wanting at this point. And, Greg, you note this as well, that over the decades we've seen a decline in manufacturing
jobs in the country, while the economy has continued to grow and far exceeded most other countries around the world. What do you make of the
president repeatedly saying that his desire is to bring those jobs back to the United States and how realistic do you think that actually is?
MANKIW: I don't think that's realistic at all. If you look at manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment, it's been
declining for many, many decades. Part of it is international trade, but a larger part of it is actually automation and the fact that we're moving
towards a service-based economy.
[13:10:00]
You know, it's similar to what happened a couple centuries ago where most people were farmers and we slowly moved away from agriculture, as we saw
advances in agricultural productivity and people moved into other sectors of the economy. Now, people are moving out of the manufacturing sector into
the service sector of the economy. And for some reason, some people think that's a problem.
Services sector jobs are -- can be great jobs. I mean, I teach at Harvard. Harvard is a service sector employer. You teach at CNN it -- CNN's a
service sector employer. There are good jobs at these firms all the way from the president of these organizations down to the janitors of these
organizations. So, there's no reason Americans need to be in manufacturing for us to be prosperous.
GOLODRYGA: And also, that begs the question, what happens if some of our allies or adversaries decide to retaliate by also tariffing these service
sector industries as well. That's -- right now, they're focused on goods, but, you know, they have said nothing's off the table at this point.
Ernie, I want to bring up something that you have researched. It was cited when I interviewed Janet Yellen last week, the former treasury secretary
and Fed chair, when she said that these policies, if enacted, would cost the average household about $4,000 a year. We just heard from Greg talk
about farming. I mean, there's an industry that is still quite abundant here in the United States. I'd like to play sound from one soybean farmer,
very concerned about the impact this could have on their livelihood.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CALEB RAGLAND, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION: As a soybean farmer, we are dependent on trade. Right at 50 percent of the soybeans
produced in the United States are exported. China takes more of our soybeans than all other foreign customers combined. So, they're a major
part of our market. And this trade war is very concerning to us right now. We just want to make sure that there's a clear understanding that our
livelihoods are at stake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, jobs at stake. These tariffs will cost thousands of dollars for the average U.S. household. Do you have a sense of how much pain this
administration is willing to absorb, to enact what they say will ultimately be a booming economy once again?
TEDESCHI: I mean, look we'll have to see. I think the pandemic is instructive here that even if the rest of the economy is doing well, say
the labor market is doing well, we know from the pandemic experience that if prices are high and cost of living is high, that consumers will be
concerned and that there might be political consequences to that. We saw that with President Biden and Vice President Harris in the last election.
So, you know, we -- in that sense, we might see the same sort of thread work its way through the tariff conversation and like -- look, like all
economic policies, tariffs have trade-offs. We -- you know, what we have been arguing in our modeling is not that there are no winners whatsoever,
that there is no factory anywhere in America that doesn't hire a worker or no work doesn't see a raise because of tariffs, what we are saying is that
when you weigh the positives and the negatives for every factory that hires up, there are more factories that lay off workers, right, because a cost
increase for their inputs, because they are retaliated against by other countries or because -- you know, because of the value of the dollar goes
up because of the tariffs, making our exports less competitive overseas.
And you have to keep in mind that if the average -- you know, if the average across all households is a cost of $4,700 per family per year as a
result of these tariffs, is it really worth the sort of smattering or limited amount of benefits you get in remote areas? You know, I don't -- I
think that some of the goals here that the administration is raising are worthwhile goals to think about, especially focusing on areas in the
heartland that have been left behind. But this is way too blunt an instrument to address those problems.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and even Goldman Sachs is citing academic studies. It looks in the pros and cons to the labor market here from these tariffs, and
they say that their conclusion is they have a net negative effect for a hundred thousand manufacturing jobs that could be brought in, half a
million jobs could be lost bigger picture.
I do want to ask, you know, it's interesting because normally during economic conversations, especially when we have people who have served in a
Democrat -- under a Democratic president, a Republican president we would have a lot more disagreement here. And you both are just nodding your heads
when you're listening to each other.
I asked Janet Yellen, now that she's back at teaching as a professor, what grade that she could give this administration's economic policies, and she
said it could not be a passing grade, that she's never seen more of a self- inflicted wound by an administration. I just want to ask you quickly, both, A, did you ever think you would agree about economic policy and over a 12-
minute interview?
[13:15:00]
And also, given your time and experience working in administrations on economic policy, have you ever seen anything handled in such a dizzying,
sort of sloppy at times and incoherent manner? Let me start with you, Greg.
MANKIW: No, I really haven't. There's a few things that unite economists and the belief that an open international trading system is good for both
sides of the transaction is one of them. And so, I think you've seen a unification of economists lining up opposed to what President Trump is
trying to do.
GOLODRYGA: Ernie, again, he was nodding. You should know, Greg, as you were speaking once again.
TEDESCHI: Yes. You know, I completely agree. And I'll just draw on actual experience here. So, we discussed changes to President Trump's first term
tariffs when I served in the Biden administration. And ultimately, the policy came out -- that came out of that not all -- disagreed with. But
I'll tell you internally, number one, there was a very robust debate internally and the administration heard from lots of different viewpoints,
lots of different economists, lots of different non-economist on this. And also, it was just incredibly well considered and planned out what we were
going to do.
So, agree with whatever the final policy was from the Biden administration or not, we made sure that our policy was set and planned before we
announced it. This is completely the opposite, right? It's like they're making it up as they go along and then pretending like that was the plan
all along.
GOLODRYGA: Listen, speaking as someone who is married to an economist, I'm sure he's having FOMO right now for missing out in this conversation. Greg
Mankiw and Ernie Tedeschi, thank you so much for joining the program. Appreciate it.
MANKIW: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back to the program. American and Iranian officials are set to meet again this weekend after a first round of talks in Oman. They
are the highest-level meetings since President Trump pulled out of a nuclear agreement known as the JCPOA in 2018, meant to curb Iran's nuclear
ambition. President Trump saying today that Iran needs to speed up the pace of the talks or face a harsh response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The only thing is one thing, simple, it's really simple, they can't have a nuclear weapon. And they got to go, fast
because they're fairly close to having one and they're not going to have one. And if we have to do something very harsh, we'll do it. And I'm not
doing it for us, I'm doing it for the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, what could a new deal look like and what are the likely sticking points? Vali Nasr is a longtime scholar on Iran and former State
Department adviser. He joins me now from Washington, D.C. Vali, welcome to the program. You call the results from these talks over the weekend as good
as it could possibly get. Can you explain why?
VALI NASR, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Well, because both sides went to these talks in order to ascertain that
there's actually a pathway to negotiations. And I think they came back believing that there is pathway to negotiations. That's why there's a
second round scheduled for the coming weekend.
[13:20:00]
And even the president's remarks that you just broadcast, yes, it does put pressure on Iran, but it also shows that he's not committed to this
process. He believes it's going well. He just wants it to go faster. And he's, again, reiterating that he wants these talks to succeed because the
alternative is not something that he doesn't want to contemplate and Iran should not want either.
GOLODRYGA: And despite hearing harsh condemnation about the JCPOA deal that was struck in 2015 and Trump campaigning over the years since that any
deal would require Iran completely doing away with its nuclear programs as well as its missile programs and funding of its proxies. It appears now at
least from early reporting that both sides -- or the U.S. side seem -- may seem content with just doing away with building a bomb, the capabilities of
building a nuclear bomb.
How does that differ, ultimately, from the original deal then that President Trump called the worst deal in the world?
NASR: Well, I think what you mentioned as a sort of a maximal set of asks of Iran is really not realistic because you're basically asking a country
to give up absolutely everything it has and then, you know, what is, what is it going to get in return to justify that? It's -- it basically is a
non-starter. It is really a recipe for going to war right away.
So, if you're going to have a credible diplomatic engagement, you have to basically agree to compromise in the middle. So, Iran will be far away from
a bomb, which is what the president is saying, and he wants -- and Iran, in exchange, will get sanctions relief to justify that. That does look like
the 2015 new international deal, but perhaps the terms might be different. President Trump could claim victory if he says, well, certain aspects of
the deal, certain terms are fundamentally different or are more stringent than they were in 2015. But in the end, any diplomatic deal is going to
look like a version of the 2015 deal.
GOLODRYGA: So, in that sense, it may look very similar, but we know a lot has changed in the interim. Iran has become much closer to developing a
nuclear weapon. It's enriched enough uranium, close to weapons grade quality to make at least six bombs. It has been reported. So, even if there
is a deal, how much oversight can there be at this point to make sure that Iran doesn't cross that threshold since they've come so much closer?
NASR: Well, Iran definitely has gained know-how and knowledge and you cannot undo that, but the terms that we're talking about for a deal is
exactly goes to these points. Would Iran agree to enrich below, let's say, 5 percent or even lower that was in the original deal, would Iran give up
all the enriched uranium that it has amassed over the past four or five years? Will it disassemble all this cascades of centrifuges that it has,
and will it agree to intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency that would provide guarantees that it's actually not
experimenting and enriching?
So, once Iran agrees in principle to terms that the United States wants that would ensure that Iran is not close to nuclear weapons or the
sufficient fuel for nuclear weapons, then the question would become how does the United States guarantee that? And that's where the devil is in the
detail of the negotiations.
GOLODRYGA: You said something over the weekend though that caught my attention, and that may be that Trump, and as we know from previous deals,
it's all about the headline and maybe not so much about the details. And he campaigned on -- he began this administration by saying he was going to end
the war in Ukraine quickly, he said that he was going to end the war in Gaza quickly, and that hasn't worked out. And now, he seems focused on, oh,
I can get myself a deal here.
At what point does it come across that perhaps the United States may be too eager to rush to a deal that may not actually result the way the president
would like it to?
NASR: Well, we won't know until the talks go on for a bit. But I think where this is different is Iran is more eager to have a deal than, say,
Israel or Hamas are, or Ukraine and Russia are. I mean in that -- in those cases, the ones that actually have to make a deal were not really ready for
a deal. And that's why those ceasefires have fallen apart.
I think Iran has been weakened recently. Iran doesn't want war and Iran does need economic relief. If Iran believes that Trump is willing to cut a
deal and President Trump is willing to lift sanctions, I think there is sufficient incentive on part of Tehran to arrive at a deal.
Now, that's doesn't mean that they can actually agree on the terms. Things can fall apart on the details. But I think at this moment, both sides sized
one another up in Oman, came away believing that both sides are interested in the process, are interested in getting to a deal. And that makes this, I
think, more promising than the other two ceasefire agreements that you mentioned.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: What does Iran have now? What are they capable of today? Well, Iran is weakened in the region, but Iran has significant amount of missile
capabilities still. And Iran has a very advanced nuclear program that, yes, it can be bombed, but it cannot be destroyed from the air and it can be
rebuilt. And so, just bombing Iran's nuclear facilities does not do away with its nuclear program. And that's exactly is where Iran's leverage is.
The United States can start a war with Iran, but it will not get to finish it, it will not have the say as to how Iran would react or whether Iran
would go nuclear or not. And therefore, I think the Iranians understand that war is not in their advantage, but is also not in America's advantage
either. And they have enough nuclear capability right now to hold America and Israel's attention. And that's what is bringing the United States to
the diplomatic table.
GOLODRYGA: And we know the Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he wants Iran to no longer be able to enrich uranium at all, essentially doing away
with its nuclear program, not just a civilian program as Iranian -- Iran now claims that it has in is focused on.
What role does Israel play here? And I know that Ron Dermer met with Steve Witkoff shortly -- or spoke with Steve Witkoff shortly after these meetings
in, in Oman. What added pressure is Israel putting on the United States here to do more than just sort of the headlines that are coming out of
these talks?
NASR: I think Israel's preference was actually that President Trump would not negotiate at all and would actually proceed to bombing Iran's nuclear
sites. Israel's argument was that Israel had taken out Iran's missile defenses, that its various nuclear sites were vulnerable, and the United
States should just finish them off and not talk about them.
And then, plan B was to ask the administration to demand that Iran dismantle his nuclear program in its entirety. It was very obvious from the
meeting President Trump had with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Washington, that President Trump did not want to bomb Iran's nuclear program right now
nor did he want to ask something at the table, which would be a non- starter, namely, you have to give up everything right now.
And I think Iranians got assurances from Steve Witkoff in Oman that the United States is not interested in right now in dismantlement of the
entirety of Iran's program, but to negotiate Iran away from being on the threshold of having nuclear weapons. And that's the space in which Iranians
believe they can negotiate. So, I think Israel, for now, is not is not getting its way with the Trump administration.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Trump may be using Israel and, you know, there's some speculation that if this deal doesn't grow according to plan, that Israel
may still want to go after their facilities and program on their own, that Trump could view that as leverage for Iran actually signing a deal now as
well. Vali Nasr, thank you so much for the time. Appreciate you breaking this down for us.
NASR: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, President Trump has welcomed El Salvador's leader, Nayib Bukele, to the White House, cementing an alliance which has been at the
center of his immigration policy. Just this weekend, 10 more alleged gang members were deported to the country. But speaking today, President Bukele
says that he does not have the power to return a man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador's high security mega prison CECOT last month.
Now, this comes after the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate his return. Correspondent David Culver has seen inside that
notorious prison himself, and he joins me now from West Palm Beach in Florida.
David, I could go on. I just spoke with you not so long ago about what we saw transpire in the Oval Office. Clearly, these are two men that are very
fond of each other. President Bukele very talented in speaking Trump's language and knowing how to appeal to him. And they have a fondness that
also extends to their view on immigration and on detention of deportees here. Walk us through what happened in the Oval Office and what President
Bukele said when he was asked by Kaitlan Collins whether Abrego Garcia, this one man that is detained in El Salvador right now, that has led to a
myriad of court challenges of going up to the Supreme Court, what he said when Kaitlan asked whether he would repatriate him back to the U.S.?
DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think what surprised me, Bianna, is President Bukele and President Trump both alluded
to something we never really would expect to hear from them, and that is that they're powerless. Certainly, in this situation, that's how they've
portrayed it.
[13:30:00]
Now, President Bukele went on to say that he can't simply smuggle somebody back into the U.S. who's not a U.S. citizen, but rather a Salvadoran. And
of course, President Trump has said that he defers to President Bukele of El Salvador to determine what happens with Abrego Garcia.
I mean, this was a lot of back and forth, and you kind of stand there thinking, well, they're both basically saying that they don't have the
power to do that without the other, but they're in the same room and they're working together. And yet, it seems, ultimately, there's two things
at play. One is the U.S. simply does not want him to return for any sort of precedence that might create, or two, and perhaps there is something to
this, though the legal team of Abrego Garcia push back firmly, but El Salvador has more evidence on him.
Now, the reason I say that is because two government officials just last week, when I was down in San Salvador, told me that they have incriminating
evidence that furthers the case against Abrego Garcia. When I asked to see that, they said no, they couldn't provide it. And they went on to say, one
of those officials, that he will never return to the U.S. He's not going anywhere, was that person's exact quote.
Now, the legal team for Abrego Garcia, as I've mentioned, they're not buying any of that. They say it is total fabrication. They say it's lies
coming from El Salvador and corroborated by the United States. But, Bianna, it does give you a sense of El Salvador sticking very firmly to this
stance, for now at least, and that they do not want to give him up.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we heard from Pam Bondi, who was in that Oval Office meeting as well, state that, yes, this may have been a procedural error on
the part of the administration, but nonetheless, they say that Abrego Garcia was in our country, in the United States illegally, and that he was
indeed a member of MS13, that a notorious violent gang, even though they offered, again, no evidence to support that.
President Trump even went a bit further when asked whether or not he would deport naturalized U.S. citizens. We know 10 more had been sent, not
naturalized citizens, but 10 more migrants that had been in U.S. prison had been sent to El Salvador over the weekend. And he said that he would like
to see, if it's legal, they keep saying that, listen, we'll do what the courts tell us to, that hasn't exactly been what we've seen transpire at
this point, but that he would be open to sending naturalized citizens to El Salvador. What is the reaction to that?
CULVER: Or just U.S. citizens in general. But yes, you're right. This is something that it has been really pushed forward in the past month or so.
He first mentioned this, and again, as you point out, Bianna, he referred to, well, if it's legal and the courts allow it, then they would put, as he
has said, really bad guys in CECOT or a CECOT-like prison.
Well, it's interesting, of course, they're trying to navigate the legality of that. I think he deferred to Pam Bondi to try to figure out how exactly
they can make that happen from a legal standpoint. But what we do know is that they are in El Salvador trying to plan for added capacity. And when I
first visited late last year at CECOT, I was told by the prison director there's anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 inmates. He wouldn't give me an
exact number because he said for security reasons, he couldn't relay that.
But when I visited just last week, six days ago, he said they are nearing their 40,000-person capacity, which suggests that they have seen a huge
influx. He said, sure, that may be a combination of the deportees, of which there are a couple of hundred or so, but also, increased arrest within El
Salvador of folks who they deemed to be gang members. And so, they're bringing them into CECOT.
Now, what does that mean for the capacity for more deportees and potentially, as you said, U.S. citizens, if that is something that the
Trump administration moves forward with? Well, I was told last week that they're considering a second CECOT, and that they're looking even within
CECOT's property to see if they can expand and add more people there.
I mean, it's interesting. You look inside one of these jumbo cells, Bianna, and when I was there in late last year, there were about 80 people or so in
each cell. I mean, it's crowded in that space. Then when I went six days ago, there were about a hundred or so people. So, they certainly have seen
an increase and they told me they were essentially trying to reshuffle some of these sectors. They have eight of them, airport, hangar-like buildings,
so as to accommodate more people coming in.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And your reporting from CECOT there has been so important and eye-opening for our viewers to get a sense of what this prison actually
looks like. But we should also note that President Bukele is extremely popular in El Salvador. And as we heard him say in that Oval Office
meeting, he said, well, it was once the murder capital of the world is now the safest city in the Western Hemisphere. So, he is getting a lot of
credit at home for some of his policies. Of course, the legality of these policies, both there and now, even here in the United States, are what's
being scrutinized. David Culver, thank you so much.
CULVER: Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. Well, we turn next to Pennsylvania where a man is facing arson, attempted murder and terrorism charges for breaking into
Governor Josh Shapiro's residence in the middle of the night and starting a fire. Forcing him, his family and guests to flee just hours after they had
celebrated the Jewish holiday of Passover.
No one was injured, but as you can see, the fire caused significant damage to part of the building. Take a listen to what Governor Shapiro said
outside of his home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO (D-PA): If he was trying to terrorize our family, our friends, the Jewish community who joined us for a Passover Seder in that
room last night, hear me on this, we celebrated our faith last night proudly, and in a few hours, we will celebrate our second Seder of Passover
again proudly. No one will deter me or my family, or any Pennsylvanian from celebrating their faith openly and proudly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Strong words there from the governor. Well, now we turn to U.S. college campuses where student activists are facing increased scrutiny as
part of a crackdown the Trump administration says is aimed at eliminating anti-Semitism. And one of the most high-profile cases in an immigration
judge has now ruled that Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil can be deported from the U.S. after the White House alleged his beliefs compromise foreign
policy interests.
Our next guest helped draft the working definition of anti-Semitism used by multiple governments and universities worldwide. Director of the Bard
Center for the Study of Hate, Kenneth Stern, is now worried that the definition he helped create is being weaponized. He joins Michel Martin to
explain why it's causing harm to everyone, including Jewish students.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Kenneth Stern, thank you so much for speaking with us once again.
KENNETH STERN, DIRECTOR, BARD CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HATE: Thank you so much for having me again.
MARTIN: So, just to remind people, you were the lead drafter of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance or IHRA. It's the working
definition of anti-Semitism. So, just to remind people, what was the idea behind drafting this document and what does this working definition say?
STERN: It was actually drafted in 2004, IHRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, adopted the text in 2016, but it was drafted at a
time where there was a -- the second intifada and an uptick in attacks on Jews in Europe and there was a group that was tasked with putting out
reports about anti-Semitism, but they said, look, we have a problem. We have all these different data points across Europe, and there's no common
sort of score sheet of what people should be looking at. We need a common definition.
And then they said that anti-Semitism, in their view, is a series of stereotypes about Jews. But then there was a problem too. They basically
said, look, we have -- you know, what do we do if a Jew is attacked as a stand-in for an Israeli? And they said, well, you know, we have a -- if the
person is being attacked because the person has these stereotypes about Jews, applies them to Israelis and reapplies them to the person walking on
the streets of London or France, that's anti-Semitism. But not if they're upset at Israeli policy. And I thought that was, you know, sort of nuts.
[13:40:00]
And the work -- we worked with the director of EUMC, I was the lead drafter, but it was never designed to say that you say something that
violates the definition, we're going to classify you as an anti-Semite, and that's the problem of how it's being used as a way to stop speech as
opposed to just take the temperature or give clarity on what's a hate crime and what isn't.
MARTIN: So, in fact, we spoke a, a, a about a year ago, your concern then was that mainstream Jewish groups were putting more and more pressure on
lawmakers to adopt the IHRA definition as well, and that you were worried that it would be weaponized for the purpose of suppressing free speech. So,
what do you think now?
STERN: Sure. And you know, it predates the current moment. I mean, I started writing about this in 2010 and 2011, and I wrote a book about this
in 2020. So, it, it's not new. But what I see is the -- you know, using it as a way to suggest what funding goes to programs, what speakers should
come to campus.
What worries me more about somebody who's spent decades dealing with hate and anti-Semitism is that it's giving an easy solution to a complicated
problem, saying, take this definition, use it, put something on one side of a ledger or another, and that's how we should think about anti-Semitism,
when we're at a moment where I'm really worried about the levels of anti- Semitism when we're targeting people that are seen as not part of our social contract, whether it's immigrant or Muslims or transgender folks,
because if you look at how anti-Semitism works, that is the environment in which it grows, when people fear somebody else among us and leaders can
make that a problem.
The other thing that troubles me too, and this is new since the, you know, change in administrations and I see the wholesale attack on higher
education and on legal profession, if you have the wrong side and all this. I look back at Jewish history, and it's the times where democracy was under
threat. The times of the Palmer raids, the time of the McCarthy era, where Jewish security was the most at risk, and I'm worried that we're entering
another one of those periods now.
MARTIN: You know, we can debate about the degree to which some of these demonstrations that took place mainly last spring, you know, how
appropriate they were. But some people would just say, look, some of these demonstrations really were anti-Semitic, things were said that created an
environment of fear among Jewish students, in particular Jewish people who happen to be in that environment.
And so, some people might look at that and say, well, why wouldn't you employ a definition as a kind of a yardstick for behavior that is to be
tolerated in behavior that is not.
STERN: You know, one of the things is that the fundamental distinction is being lost here, which is that no student should be harassed or intimidated
or bullied or threatened, let alone assaulted, but students on a campus, for a campus to work well, students have to expect that they're going to
hear things, that are going to disturb them to their core, and universities have a responsibility of how do we teach out of this moment? How do we
support students and so forth? Not to say there are things that are not going to be heard.
I think part of the problem on the campus at the moment also comes from the left with ideas about, oh, you have to be safe intellectually. There are
things like, you know, microaggressions. Nobody should go and harm somebody, you know, intentionally and so forth, and be aware of what
they're saying. But the idea that somehow, we're going to monitor speech means that, you know, there are certain ideas that are OK and certain ideas
that are not OK. It's going to prioritize group think, and that undercuts, you know, a campus education.
One of the other challenges here too is that there's -- you know, we're forgetting that there are Jewish students on both sides of this. If you
look, Jewish Voice for Peace was the group that went to the, you know, Trump Tower. So, there's, you know, a debate inside the Jewish community
too, about what it means to be Jewish and whether you have a particular attitude on Israel.
I'm a Zionist. Israel is important to me, but for a lot of Jewish students, young Jewish students, the idea is that their Judaism leads them to an
anti-Zionist position. And a case that's really instructive is what happened in Germany when the IHRA definition was used to basically classify
Jews who were opposing the war on Gaza, calling them anti-Semitic. And one of the things that a person commenting on it said, isn't it ironic that
Germany has again decided what it means to be Jewish, what it means to have, you know, a Jewish position?
And I don't want Congress deciding that here either. And I don't want administrations deciding that. I want them to be able to get students to be
engaged about differences about this issue. It's a great topic to talk about how do we deal with differences. If we look at the history of the
universities, when we try to say certain speech, it makes people uncomfortable, and that we're going to outlaw that speech, it's going to
backfire and it harms the people that it's trying to protect.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: As we are speaking now, the administration has investigated dozens of universities, including Columbia, Penn, and Brown, for the use of DEI
initiatives and also for what they claim is their failure to protect Jewish students, faculty and staff from anti-Semitism on campus. So, their failure
to allegedly confront anti-Semitism on campus. And they are -- the terms put forth have been very clear, either comply with very specific
directions, in some case putting departments, hold departments under receivership or lose huge amounts of funding.
I mean, the administration froze over a billion dollars in federal funding to Cornell, nearly $800 million to Northwestern. They threatened Columbia
with a loss of $400 million in funding. The irony being that there are a lot of Jewish students and faculty and researchers on many of these
campuses.
And so, when you look at that, like what do you -- what -- do you think it's really about anti-Semitism or what do you think it's about?
STERN: Well, I think it's actually has a much larger agenda that we've seen actually even before October 7th. There's a view of attacking liberal
education and seeing it as the enemy. And I think J. D. Vance had talked about things like that, about -- I think it was after October 7th, but
basically saying, we should, you know, follow the model of Orban and Hungary, is closed down universities. So, I see it as a broader attack.
You know, and one of the things when I testified in front of the Senate one committee a couple of weeks ago, another one back in September. And back in
September, I think most of us, even the Republican witnesses, if my recollection is correct, all agreed that one of the challenges at the
moment is that the Office of Civil Rights is underfunded, it's backlogged, there are cases about anti-Semitism, and we all thought that that more
funding needed to go to that, to resolve those cases. Because when they're not resolved, it tells people, people don't care.
And there are some cases that are -- you know, are credible and should go through the system. You know, now they're going claw backs, without the
process, without due process. And what I really worry about the larger moment is that we're an existential crisis for universities. And I get it
that universities have tough decisions to make. They have a lot of pressure and political pressure and financial pressure. This may not be the only
thing that's coming down that's going to threaten them, but, you know, I think about Benjamin Franklin, if we don't, you know, hang together, we're
going to hang separately.
Columbia has a $14 to $15 billion endowment. Harvard has a big endowment. I don't always agree with Larry Summers, but he's right when he is saying,
you know, what the heck is your endowment for? You know, to fight things like this.
So, I think there needs to be an organized pushback and to focus on the real threat against higher education, which is going to affect Jewish
students too, as you say, and not just say, oh, we're really happy that we're deporting somebody, or threatening funding for somebody that says
something we don't like.
MARTIN: There have been two very high-profile cases, graduate students in both cases, who were arrested summarily, they're surprised. One was -- this
was Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia student. He is a -- holds a green card. He's a legal permanent resident. He's married to an American citizen
who is pregnant. And then, in the other case is this Tufts graduate student from Turkey who was on her way to a Ramadan breakfast dinner with friends
to -- and was sort of detained on the street. Some people thought it was kidnapping. They didn't know what was going on.
And in Khalil's case, he was a very -- he was high-profile and says that people remember those demonstrations at Columbia last spring, some of which
became quite raucous. And he was a person who was sort of a spokesperson trying to articulate what the students' concerns were.
In the case of this young woman, Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts graduate student, it seems to be that she had co-signed an op-ed criticizing
Israel's war in Gaza. And so, it seems that, because there hasn't been any other evidence presented, that the reason she was picked up was that this
op-ed. And you know, the argument the administration has made is that, you know, we don't invite you here to tear up our campuses, we invite you here
to study. And if you're going to be causing ruckus, then, you know, you need to go. So, say more about why you think that's concerning.
STERN: Sure. Well, you know, Khalil's case, I mean, you know, he was one of the people that didn't wear a mask, he was obviously very public. They
didn't charge him with crime or anything. And one of the concerns me even more is -- as you talk about the Tuft student who signed op-ed. I just saw
a thing from the Student Journalism Association that basically is warning people who are writing in student newspapers to go back and scrub out
identities of people that you wrote about.
[13:50:00]
You know, to talk about using anonymous sources. And they're worried about, you know, journalism is supposed to be also produced an archive for people
to go back to, but they see that as a danger now. At Columbia, they were -- at the journalism school, a professor said, and I think perfectly
reasonably, and a horribly -- you know, a horrible thing to say, don't write about Gaza, don't write about Ukraine. We can't protect you.
And what worries me about all this too is one of the things I've done in teaching is that I've mentored students and had programs with students and
taught students who are foreign students who come here, and one of the reasons that they come here to study is our tradition for free speech. More
than one have told me that, gee, I really want to learn about your free speech tradition so I can go back to my country where we don't have that
protection and try to get people to think about the value of an open marketing place of ideas, to debate about ideas and not to have the state
suppress it.
But we're acting much more like those countries, like Russia and Iran at the moment, than we're acting like the United States of America that I
think, you know, we all know and love and hope we can get back to.
MARTIN: Is a concern here that this really has become about speech and not conduct?
STERN: Yes, yes. I mean, there's no -- listen. If somebody said, I assaulted somebody, you know, that's a different thing. If somebody says,
you know, you fundraise for Hezbollah or Hamas even held a bake sale, that would be something else, that would be material support for terrorism. The
administration's been very clear that this is about speech.
And again, to, you know, your point, of what I testified about, I'm just -- you know, the -- I'm sort of blown away by the idea that somebody saying
something that I find totally disagreeable is somehow a threat to our national security and foreign policy. Are we that weak as a country that we
can't tolerate kids on campus saying something? I mean, again, it's different than harassing, intimidating, bullying, threatening all those
things, but to say something, which is the premise of -- apparently of a lot of the actions of the administration and the legislation that's, you
know, being promoted, that to me is very scary.
MARTIN: So, before we let you go, how are you doing? I mean, as a person who's been expressing concerns like this for some time now. How are you?
STERN: I'm deeply concerned about what this means for the university with this full-scale assault on higher education, with the claw backs of money,
the threats, the bullying, the -- as you talked about, the receivership. There was just an article about maybe having a consent decree with Columbia
to enforce -- you know, with a judge enforcing whatever resolution, you know, that becomes your handing over the university to politicians. And
that deeply worries me because, you know, the higher educational system is one of the things that's best about America.
We produce students that can think, that have spaces where they could be wrong and learn how to be critical thinkers. And what we're doing is
exactly what, you know, we've seen on some of the other side on -- from the progressive side from time to time is saying, no, there's only one right
way of looking at this. But when you have the state doing it and threatening significant financial penalties, that should scare us all.
MARTIN: Professor Kenneth Stern, thank you so much for speaking with us.
STERN: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, remembering a titan of Latin American literature. Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa has died at age 89. Best known for
novels including conversation in the Cathedral and the time of the hero. His depictions of tyranny and the struggle for liberty earned him the Nobel
Prize in literature in 2010.
Vargas Llosa was the last of Latin America's literary boom generation and helped shine a global spotlight on the continent alongside writers like
Gabrielle Garcia Marquez. Vargas Llosa spoke to Christiane back in 2022 about where his passion for writing began.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: You were kind of a modern-day Cyrano de Bergerac, writing love letters for your student
colleagues. How did that come about?
MARIO VARGAS LLOSA: Well, it was a way of using literature to seduce people, you know. I had this this impression that my letters were able to
convince people to -- became friends of mine. It was a way to get acquainted with the words, with the language with the Spanish.
[13:55:00]
Probably, it was just a radical exercise, you know, be in touch with people through the threat, through language.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Powerful words from a legendary writer. Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly
after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
