Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview with Ehud Olmert; A Whirlwind Week for Trump's Tariffs; Is Trump Turning Against Putin? Interview With American Enterprise Institute's Director of Foreign And Defense Policy Studies Kori Schake; Interview With Financial Times' U.S. National Editor And Columnist Edward Luce; Interview With INARA Founder And President Arwa Damon. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired June 01, 2025 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:43]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you from New York.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Today on the program, we will look at two nations whose tactics in the midst of war are coming under more and more scrutiny and more and more condemnation.

First up, Russia, which has amped up its war against Ukraine in recent weeks, launching massive nightly air attacks which invariably kill many civilians.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not happy with what Putin is doing. He's killing a lot of people.

ZAKARIA: What more can the world do to oppose Moscow?

I'll ask a great panel. The "FT's" Ed Luce and Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute.

Then Israel has intensified its assault on Gaza and is allowing in only a fraction of the aid needed for the starving population there.

I'll talk to a former prime minister of that country, Ehud Olmert, who says his nation is now committing war crimes, and to former CNN correspondent Arwa Damon, who says if the western press were allowed in, the war would be over tomorrow.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: But first, here's "My Take."

When historians write about the challenges to America's global hegemony, they will point to the rise of China, the first full-fledged peer competitor to the United States in decades. They'll also note the return of Russia and its efforts to disrupt the American-led security order in Europe.

These are familiar patterns in the rise and fall of world powers. What's new and surprising is that these challenges, far from uniting America, have turned it on itself with its government tearing down many of the crucial elements of America's extraordinary success.

Consider the Nature Index, perhaps the most comprehensive guide to high quality research in the sciences. It tracks contributions to the world's leading academic journals. Its newest rankings show what scientists already know -- China is leaping ahead. Of the top 10 academic institutions in the Nature Index, nine are now Chinese.

But still sitting in the topmost position on that list is an American institution -- Harvard. And it is this university that Donald Trump is trying to destroy. The Trump administration's war on Harvard is bizarre in many ways. Claiming to be about fighting antisemitism, it has demanded that the university cede control over large parts of its academic affairs and hand over private information about its international students.

It's never explained why it has singled out Harvard for this retribution, and the problems that it claims to be concerned about are not particularly egregious at Harvard. Its main weapon, the withdrawal of federal research funds to Harvard, is directed at the parts of the university that have virtually nothing to do with the woke ideology to which Trump objects. More than 90 percent of the research funds the government has threatened to deny Harvard are for research in the life sciences, studying diseases, medicines and other such topics.

Denying funding for cancer research will not affect people protesting for Palestine. It will almost certainly knock Harvard off that Nature Index list.

America's universities have problems, and I've spoken about them, urging them to abandon fashionable political causes, end the obsession with diversity and marginalization, and return to a focus on excellence. But it's worth noting that these are still by far the world's leaders in higher education when you consider teaching and research and the academic environment more broadly.

This can be seen simply by the tsunami of applications that America's top universities get from the brightest students around the world. It would be hard to find many industries where America is more dominant.

[10:05:03]

China's President Xi Jinping and his erstwhile rival for that role, Bo Xilai, disagreed about many things, but both believed that the best place in the world that their daughter and son could go for higher education was Harvard University.

It's not an accident that so many of America's technology companies are located in Northern California and Boston. These clusters formed around great universities like Harvard, MIT, and Stanford. But the Trump administration seems determined to destroy this unique advantage. It has proposed cutting government funding for science by more than $25 billion next fiscal year, and has declared war on the country's leading universities.

The budget bill recently passed in the House of Representatives punishes the very best universities by taxing their endowments, singling them out from all non-profits. But it raises the tax rate massively on the most successful research institutions.

In business, you water your roses and you prune your weeds. This seems like the opposite strategy.

America continues to lead the world in its ability to attract the world's brightest students. China draws mainly on the talents of the best of its billion plus population. But America has had its pick of the best of the world's eight billion people.

The results speak for themselves. Of America's top 10 companies five are run by immigrants. Bringing in international students also benefits the economy as a whole, generating more than $40 billion and supporting nearly 380,000 jobs just last year. But the latest Trump assault has been on these very students, putting their visa processes on hold, threatening to scrutinize their social media posts, and sending a signal generally that they're not welcomed, will be watched and can be summarily thrown out on a whim.

We are already seeing the results. Searches on the internet for American PhDs are down between 25 percent and 40 percent, while those for Australian and Swiss universities are up by even more than that.

Around four decades ago, when I thought about applying to American universities from India, I was impressed by their reputation in research and teaching. But I was also attracted by the idea of America, a truly free and open society, one that welcomed people from around the world and where, in President Reagan's words, our origins matter less than our destinations.

In a competitive world where other countries have caught up in so many ways, this is still America's unique advantage. If we can cherish it rather than destroying it.

Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link to my "Washington Post" column this week. And let's get started.

Israel finds itself under increasing international scrutiny after it launched a major new offensive in Gaza. Britain, France and Canada have issued a statement calling Israel's acts egregious. Germany, one of Israel's staunchest supporters, also issued an uncharacteristically harsh rebuke of Israel's actions in Gaza. But perhaps the most strident critique is coming from within the country itself.

"Enough is enough. Israel is committing war crimes." That was the headline of former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's op-ed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz this week. He joins me now.

Prime Minister Olmert, this is an extraordinary piece. You know it's long, it's detailed, and it feels very much from the heart. And you say that you have defended Israel against the criticism of war crimes and genocide, but that you can no longer. What changed? What has happened that has made you change your mind?

EHUD OLMERT FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Well, Fareed, as you know, when the war started after the 7th of October events, it was the most inevitable reaction and unavoidable reaction by a country which was attacked in such a vicious and brutal manner, where thousands of innocent Israeli civilians were killed in their homes, in their bedrooms, in their living rooms, in their safe rooms, butchered, beheaded, raped in the most terrible manner.

And then the international community at large, President Biden, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak from Great Britain, President Macron, Chancellor Scholz, all the others all joined in the same statement.

[10:10:07]

Israel has a right to react and reach out for the murderers and kill as many as them possible. Now we are 18 months afterwards, and long ago already I had the feeling and the knowledge that we have achieved as much as a military operation can achieve. In the course of these actions. unfortunately, also quite a few non-involved Palestinians were killed. We lost our soldiers as of course.

And the main objective, which is almost universally recognized, is that we have to free the hostages. There are still 58 Israeli hostages which are still abducted and held by Hamas.

At this point now, there is a widespread understanding which I subscribed to that there is no objective that can be achieved by an expanding military operation. We are going to lose the Israeli hostages. We are going to lose the lives of Israeli soldiers. Thousands of Palestinians, non-involved Palestinians are going to be killed as a result of further military operations, which almost no one in Israel thinks is at this time valid and is going to achieve anything of value.

Not only this, but ministers in the Cabinet of Netanyahu, as I call them the thugs of the Cabinet, are calling for starving Gaza. And they say, when asked, how come? They said everyone in Gaza is a terrorist, all of them are Hamas, and all of them should be wiped out and be starved and so on.

This is a war crime. There is no other word to describe it but a war crime. And I totally can't accept it. It's unacceptable, unbearable and unforgivable.

ZAKARIA: You say, again, I really recommend that people read this piece. You say in it, I believe the government of Israel is now the enemy from within. It has declared war on the state and its inhabitants. No external foe we fought against over the past 77 years has caused greater damage to Israel than what the current government has inflicted on us.

Do you believe that other Israelis, a large number of Israelis, share these views?

OLMERT: Yes. Hundreds of thousands. Fareed, I don't know of any country, a democratic country in the Western world, OK, which had a disagreement within, had such a phenomenon of hundreds of thousands of Israelis now rioting and demonstrating on a daily basis in the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and across the country, day in, day out, against the violence of the government outside and against the steps taken by the government within the state of Israel, which are challenging the basis of our democratic values.

What Netanyahu is doing and a group of thugs, which are part of this Cabinet, is polarizing the Israeli society. I think that it is very important that the international community people will know that the voice of Israel is not the voice of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and Netanyahu. Not the voice of those who call to starve Gaza, not the voice of those who are inflicting on a daily basis atrocities against Palestinians living in the West Bank.

And that's what they are doing. And I just can't acquiesce with it. I don't want to. I know some people don't like it when I speak up as I do, and when I write as I do, but I believe that we are fighting for the soul of the state of Israel, and I will not be intimidated by any criticism or disagreement.

ZAKARIA: Ehud Olmert, thank you. Always a pleasure to have you on.

OLMERT: Thank you, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, after a series of court orders, the future of Donald Trump's tariffs are uncertain. We will talk about that, about Russia, Ukraine and more with Ed Luce and Kori Schake, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:19:10]

ZAKARIA: It's been a chaotic week for Donald Trump and his economic agenda as usual. On Wednesday, a federal court blocked some of Trump's most sweeping new tariffs. Then on Thursday, an appeals court temporarily paused that decision in order to review the government's request for a longer term stay of the Wednesday order.

Joining me now is Ed Luce, U.S. national editor and columnist at the "Financial Times," and the author of an absolutely terrific new book, "Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Great Power Prophet." Really worth reading and worth buying. So go out and get it.

Kori Schake is also with us, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Kori, what are we to make of this, you know, Trump imposing these tariffs, the courts blocking it? What is it -- what does it tell us?

[10:20:01]

KORI SCHAKE, DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY STUDIES, AEI: So I think it tells us two things. First, the Trump administration doesn't understand basic economics, that tariffs are a tax on consumers, not on producers. It also tells us they don't understand strategy because fighting on all fronts simultaneously, treating your closest friends and allies no different from your adversaries, suggests that they don't understand we actually need allied help if we are going to control tech transfer to China, if we are going to control -- contain Chinese bad behavior in the international trading system.

It's terrible economics. It's terrible strategy.

ZAKARIA: Ed, it also strikes me that the courts here have been the only check on what is really a kind of imperial use of power. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but the judges' decision, these three judges, two of whom are appointed by Republican presidents, seems pretty sensible. It says this is -- this statute has never been used like this before. It's the first time any president is trying to use it to impose tariffs.

You're claiming an international emergency. And I could have added you're claiming an international emergency simultaneously against 90 countries. What strikes me is the only pushback to Trump's kind of imperial presidency is not Congress, from whom he's stealing these powers, but the courts.

EDWARD LUCE, U.S. NATIONAL EDITOR AND COLUMNIST, FINANCIAL TIMES: Yes. I mean, I would add one more to that. A colleague of mine, Robert Armstrong, coined the acronym TACO, "Trump Always Chickens Out," and TACO is about the bond markets. And that does appear to act as a check on Trump because when bond prices plummet, when the cost of U.S. debt, you know, gets higher, when it gets tougher for the taxpayer. Trump chickens out.

ZAKARIA: So American democracy is being saved by courts and the bond market?

LUCE: The courts and the bond market. So Article III that deals with the judiciary of the Constitution is the one that's sort of working. They are throwing sand into the gears. They are quite rightly pointing out that the IEEPAs, as this act is known, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, is not -- its requirements for an emergency, you know, are not met by the Trump administration, to put it mildly.

I don't think anybody, whether they're, you know, in law or in economics, would disagree with that ruling. And I don't think the courts on their own and even the bond markets on their own are going to be enough. Other sections, including Republicans in Congress, free trading conservatives are going to have to assert themselves at some point.

ZAKARIA: And the business community, which has been very quiet.

Kori, I noticed, so he's now going after the Federalist Society, which is the most conservative, you know, wing of the legal establishment. Do you think that there is a kind of rift, a growing rift between conservatism and Donald Trump?

SCHAKE: Yes, I think that's exactly right, Fareed. You know, I worked for John McCain in 2008, and John always said that politics is a game of addition. The Trump administration is playing politics as a game of subtraction. And at some point, the law of gravity is going to kick in.

ZAKARIA: I feel as though, you know, back to the point you were making, that the strategy toward China and the strategy toward Europe seem strangely out of sync. Do you think that the Europeans will be able to persuade Donald Trump of this fact? Because he -- it seems so sensible, on the other hand, he really seems to hate Europe.

SCHAKE: There really is an animus towards America's closest friends and allies, not just by President Trump, but Vice President Vance, Secretary Hegseth. It's mysterious. It's genuinely mysterious how antagonistic they are towards the biggest investors in the American economy, the countries with whom we have the biggest trade, the countries we need if we are to get to an economy of scale to manage China's challenge.

ZAKARIA: What do Europeans think of all this?

LUCE: So they're pretty unanimously flabbergasted, outraged. But I don't think they're panicked. I think they realize, and particularly after these two court rulings, two of the three, putting a stay on Trump's tariff, I think they feel their leverage now has really increased in these negotiations because Trump doesn't have much legal ground to stand on.

ZAKARIA: Stay with us. Next on GPS, I will ask our great panel about Russia, which is stepping up its attacks in Ukraine, defying Trump's efforts for a peace deal. What does all that mean, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:29:05]

ZAKARIA: This week, a U.S. representative to the United Nations said that if Russia continues this catastrophic war, the White House would consider stepping back from its role seeking peace. That statement came as Russia has intensified drone and missile attacks on Ukraine and as Trump has actually stepped up criticism of Putin, accusing him of playing with fire.

Joining me again are Ed Luce and Kori Schake.

Kori, do you think this is finally the education of Donald Trump by which I mean he finally seems to realize that the great obstacle to peace in Ukraine is Vladimir Putin?

SCHAKE: I think that underestimates President Trump's obduracy on the Russian issue because it has been clear since February of 2022 that Russia is the aggressor, Russia is the problem, and President Trump and the administration have pushed on Ukraine to make compromises, to make sacrifices, and not at all on Russia. I mean, Russia called for negotiations in Istanbul. President Trump was willing to show up. President Zelenskyy was willing to show up. President Putin sent a low-level delegation, and there were no negative consequences. So, we have shifted the balance from supporting Ukraine's efforts to preserve its sovereignty, to assisting Russia's efforts to squash it. It's shameful.

ZAKARIA: Yes, I've described this as the most one-sided diplomatic love affair in history. Trump keeps making these concessions. You know, they won't be -- Ukraine won't be part of NATO. We won't have any troops there. You can keep all the territory you've grabbed. And Putin doesn't -- he just pockets every concession and never makes one himself.

SCHAKE: I think that's right. His strategy is playing for time, hoping that a summer offensive might pick up some meaningful territory from Ukraine, or that Ukraine will run out of long-range weapons and Russia can continue to terrorize the civilian society and the cities of Ukraine.

ZAKARIA: Ed, do you think you were talking before the break about how the Europeans are not -- you know, they are not dismayed by the way things are because it has actually unified them in a way. Do you think a unified Europe can provide Ukraine with much of the assistance it needs? And would that be enough for Ukraine?

LUCE: I mean, they're certainly getting the political -- sort of more political will than they used to have. You know, you seeing British prime minister and the French prime minister and the German chancellor, and now, of course, the Canadian prime minister doing sort of coordinated joint statements on Ukraine, which is -- which is new because it's different to the U.S.'s stance on Ukraine.

So, yes, there's a lot more European action. But whether they can fill the big gaps that we assume at some point, you know, Trump is going to just stop supplying. I mean, the Biden money that was passed last year is the military supply from America is running out. Whether the Europeans can fill, you know, the Patriot missile, the Patriot defense system gap, or indeed the intelligence, I'm not sure the Europeans have real capabilities in some of these areas.

They can buy it from America and give it to Ukraine. Maybe Trump is OK with that because they're paying for it, but they can't really substitute for the United States.

ZAKARIA: In your book, you talk about Brzezinski and Russia a lot. I had forgotten, and you wonderfully reminded me that his dissertation, written in the 1950s, predicted the fall of the Soviet Union because of the fact that it had trapped within it all these nationalities that would be struggling to break free and that, you know, the communism was not going to keep them together. It feels like, in a strange way, that we are watching that same dilemma of Putin trying to maintain a kind of the last multinational empire.

LUCE: Yes, I mean, the -- of course, Brzezinski's Polish sensibility, given Poland's history with Russia, gave him, I think, that extra edge and he spoke Russian. So, that was all very, very helpful.

But when Putin said the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century, he didn't mean, oh, he wasn't lamenting the end of Marxist-Leninism or Bolshevism. He was lamenting the end of the Russian empire, and he was expressly declaring, this is a quarter of a century ago, his intention of rebuilding the Russian empire. And that is what he's now doing.

And Brzezinski -- one of the reasons that the subtitle uses -- my big biography uses the word prophet is because he really did forecast this, and he did forecast that Putin and China would form a sort of alliance of the aggrieved. And I think we saw that last month, in May on Red Square, Putin with, you know, Xi Jinping, you know, with North Korea. The alliance of the aggrieved was there with Putin and they're backing this empire revanchism that Putin has consistently told us that he's -- that he's all about.

ZAKARIA: And, you know, it feels to me like far from denigrating the Ukrainians, we should be thanking them because they're the one -- they're the one people fighting and dying to stop this from happening.

SCHAKE: For five percent of the U.S. defense budget Ukraine has fought the Russian military largely to a standstill and imposed 780,000 casualties on the Russian army. That is advantageous to the security of Europe and the security of the United States.

So, I absolutely agree with you. We should not only be thanking the Ukrainians. We should be equipping them to succeed.

[10:35:02]

ZAKARIA: All right. Always a pleasure to have you guys here. Don't forget Ed Luce's book "Zbig" which is really a terrific read about it. It feels like a time gone by when you had this kind of great statesmen running American foreign policy.

Next on GPS, if the western press were allowed into Gaza, would the war end? My next guest says, yes, immediately.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:05]

ZAKARIA: The images out of Gaza this week have been stunning, as large crowds of Palestinians starving for food after an 11-week Israeli blockade on aid desperately scramble to grab what they can from the first truckloads that have been allowed to trickle in. It makes one wonder, what is life actually like in Gaza right now?

Joining me now is Arwa Damon, who has visited the strip four times since the war began just over 600 days ago. Damon is a former CNN correspondent who pivoted to humanitarian work and founded INARA, a charitable organization that provides medical and mental health services to children impacted by war.

Arwa, welcome. So, I'm trying to think of what's the best way for you to give us a sense of what life is like in Gaza. And since you work with children, how have they reacted to this unending war? ARWA DAMON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR AID, RELIEF AND ASSISTANCE: You know, we've seen different kinds of ways that this sort of, you know, deep, intense trauma manifests in a child. And I think the starkest and best way to describe it is when you meet and see children that have quite literally been shocked into silence.

So, children go non-verbal. They are unable to process what it is that they're seeing. And coupled with the reality that the security blanket that a child would normally turn to, their parents, for protection, they know that doesn't exist.

A child knows their parents cannot keep them safe, cannot feed them, cannot make their pain go away. And so, you have these multiple traumas that are constantly hitting them all the time. And then add to that just the daily struggle of trying to stay alive.

ZAKARIA: So, what does Gaza look like? When you -- when you go in there what are you seeing?

DAMON: It feels as if you're sort of in the opening scenes of some sort of bizarre, apocalyptic Hollywood zombie movie. But then you realize in the -- in the middle of all of this, you know, utterly dystopian scenery people are actually trying to live. In and among the rubble, there's little children who aren't wearing shoes, who are lugging, you know, gallons of water that are heavier than they are.

There's this one horrible scene of a father who's trying to push, you know, his son in a wheelchair, and he just completely collapses from exhaustion. You have the elderly that are trying to crawl along because they don't have any other means of transportation. And it is so hard to comprehend how people are actually surviving.

And there's one thing, Fareed, that I really wish everybody could see and understand is the level of kindness and compassion and humanity that still exists among so many it blows my mind. Because, you know, we work in the same shelters over and over again. So, the people there, they kind of -- you know, they know me and they know when I'm coming back.

And the welcome that I get the, oh, my God, I'm so glad you're safe, which is stunning because, you know, I've been on the outside. There's a level of kindness and purity that exists to so many people there that I don't think the outside world really understands or appreciates.

ZAKARIA: There are people who say -- there is a narrative that, look, it was put out by some Israeli officials at the start of the war. The Gazans voted for Hamas. They support Hamas. They celebrated after October 7th. What's your sense?

DAMON: So, if we look at a poll that was done by the "Arab Barometer," actually, incidentally, just before October 7th, they found that if there in fact had been elections, the Hamas candidate would have gotten less than 25 percent of the vote. Add to that Gaza's population is extremely young, so the vast majority of Gazans, more than 50 percent, were not even born or old enough to vote when Hamas came into power.

Let's also remember that before October 7th, twice Gazans tried to rise up against Hamas and were unable to do so. And even if we look at the videos that came out -- and I Understand, I mean, horrific the scenes of, you know, the hostages being pulled into Gaza and people around there celebrating, even if we're generous and say, you know, how many people were in those videos? Five thousand? Let's call it 10,000. Let's even call it 20,000. That's one percent of the population. I have not in my four trips to Gaza, heard a single person support Hamas.

ZAKARIA: You say that if people knew what was going on, if the press were let in, the western press were let in, the war would end tomorrow. I assume by that you mean that even most Israelis have no idea what is going on in Gaza?

[10:45:01]

DAMON: No. And most people -- because it is so impossible to describe. I mean, even when you watch it in the videos, even if you're someone who's watching the videos every single day, it's very different when you see it because the camera shoots straight and when you realize it's actually -- it's 360 around you.

And add to that a lot of the, you know, the narrative, the, oh, we're targeting Hamas. We're not targeting civilians. You know, Hamas is doing this. Hamas is doing that.

When you're on the ground and you're seeing it for yourself, you realize that that quite simply, Fareed, is not true. There is nothing about Gaza's landscape that says anything other than this is the annihilation of a population and every single aspect of what is needed to actually keep a people alive.

ZAKARIA: Arwa Damon, good to have you on.

DAMON: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, Mexico is becoming the first country in the world to have all of its judges elected by popular vote. President Claudia Sheinbaum says the move will make Mexico the most democratic country in the world. Is she right? I'll tell you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:41]

ZAKARIA: And now for the last look. Mexico's Claudia Sheinbaum has some of the highest approval ratings of any sitting world leader. She has won praise domestically and abroad for her defiance of President Trump's tariff threats.

But behind her calm and pragmatic image lies a far more disruptive domestic agenda, one that could radically undermine Mexico's rule of law. Today, Mexicans are voting for the first time ever to choose all their judges who will fill hundreds of positions from the nation's Supreme Court down to its local courts. No other country has ever done this.

The radical idea was passed last year by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, known as AMLO, and his party Morena. Now, it's being championed by his protege Sheinbaum, who won in a landslide last year. She says this vote will make Mexico, quote, "the most democratic country in the world."

At first glance, it sounds appealing. More power to the people, right? And Mexico's justice system is deeply flawed. Survey data suggest that more than 90 percent of crimes go unreported or uninvestigated, while Human Rights Watch says fewer than 16 percent of investigations are resolved.

In response, Morena says having elected judges rather than appointed ones will make justice less corrupt and more accessible. It's a popular idea. A recent Pew survey found that 66 percent of Mexicans approve of electing their judges, though support for the changes divided on partisan lines.

But critics warn this looks less like reform and more like a power grab. Morena's huge majority means that most judicial candidates are now vetted by party loyalists. The reform has drawn a sharp rebuke from former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, who led electoral reforms that ended seven decades of one-party rule in 2000. He wrote recently that it will obliterate the judiciary as an independent and professional entity and place it at the service of those who hold and concentrate political power.

Another major concern is the lowering of qualifications. Under the old system, becoming an appellate court justice could take decades through masters degrees, PhDs and special training. Now, the requirements are minimal. Basically, you need a law degree, good grades, and just five years of legal experience.

"The Economist" puts it bluntly, cases on constitutional law and million-dollar commercial disputes will be heard by people who may never have set foot in a courtroom.

To justify her reforms, Sheinbaum points to the U.S. where 39 states elect at least some of their judges, though federal ones are all appointed. But even this more modest model has its problems, like expensive campaigns and judges who can be swayed by public opinion.

Bolivia offers another warning. Since it introduced elections for its high court in 2009, the voting public doesn't seem thrilled with their new power. An "International Court of Justice" report last year found that most votes cast in recent elections were blank or null, not necessarily in protest but because voters didn't know whom to choose.

Mexico could face a similar problem. Sample ballots showed long, dizzying lists of dozens of unfamiliar names, making it nearly impossible for voters to make informed decisions. Some worry that the drug cartels could finance electoral campaigns. And in fact, former cartel lawyers are on the list of candidates for this election.

All this fits a global pattern, where populist leaders see independent judiciaries as the last great check on their power and then move to dismantle them. Look at Israel, whose prime minister, Netanyahu, is trying to weaken the Supreme Court's writ.

In India, Prime Minister Modi has spent years tightening control over his country's judges through a combination of coercion and patronage. Turkey's President Erdogan has stacked his judiciary with loyalists, enabling him to arrest his key rival and former Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu just days before he was to be nominated as a candidate for the next presidential election.

[10:55:12]

And in the United States, the second Trump administration has ramped up verbal attacks on judges whenever rulings don't go its way. In Mexico, the courts were once the biggest curb on Morena's power until now.

Justice should be based on fairness, independence and expertise. Instead, Mexico's changes turned the country's rule of law into a popularity contest. As Mexican political scientist Denise Dresser told GPS, this is the final nail in the coffin of what used to be Mexico's very dysfunctional, very incomplete but existent electoral democracy.

The rest of the world should take note. Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)