Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Targets Harvard after it Rejects Administration Demandss; Trump Threatens Harvard's Tax Status, Freezes $2.2B in Grants; Trump Freezes $2.2B in Grants After Harvard Rejects his Demands; Trump Admin: Courts Can't Force us to Bring Back Deported Man; No More Sunny Days. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired April 15, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Today on "Inside Politics", no surrender. Harvard is refusing to give in to White House demands that the University says threaten its independence, even with billions of government dollars on the line. So, what comes next in President Trump's nationwide battle with higher education?

Plus, defying the courts, the Trump Administration is refusing to bring back a man they admitted in court was mistakenly deported to a dangerous prison in El Salvador. So, what will happen when the Justice Department and its lawyers go face-to-face with that federal judge today?

And Zuckerberg on the stand, I'll talk to Kara Swisher about the landmark anti-trust trial happening right now that could dismantle the Facebook founder's trillion-dollar empire. I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines and "Inside Politics".

We start with America's oldest college doing something multiple law firms, businesses and top universities in this country have not stand up to President Trump. And today, Harvard is paying the price. Literally, the White House says it's freezing more than $2 billion in grants to the university after it rejected the administration's demands for sweeping changes.

Moments ago, the president even went further. He threatened the university's tax-exempt status unless it acts, quote, in the public interest. But is it really the public interest, or does it go well beyond that to what President Trump's political interests are? That is clearly what Harvard thinks.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny is at the White House. So, Jeff, here's the bottom line. This all sort of came at Harvard and other universities with the pretext of the notion that they didn't fight anti-Semitism hard enough, but what they have asked for inside that White House, in terms of demands for reform, is far more than fighting anti-Semitism.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It certainly is Dana. I mean, it spans the gamut of sort of grievances that have been built up by this president, really, since he entered public life and well before that. But you're right. I mean, the actual thing that sparked it, at least, what the administration will say are the protests that broke out across college campuses on October 7th of course, when Israel was attacked, we saw them in real time.

We saw them unfold, and that's what the administration is using as one of the examples. But let's look at a few other examples of just specific things that the administration has raised to a variety of universities. The elimination of DEI programs, reforming programs with records of anti-Semitism, university governance and leadership reforms, comprehensive mask ban, of course, that goes back to the pandemic era, merit-based hiring and admission reform and audit of viewpoint diversity, as well as a student to discipline policies, including police involvement.

So, if you look at the actual sort of a points of fact that the universities are being presented with, and some of it also comes with the closure of the Department of Education, at least the recommended closure, universities are being hit with a wide gamut of things, and universities have grumbled, but have not pushed back until Harvard.

But Dana, this is very interesting, and we heard from Harvard in recent days, but a new letter from a couple conservative lawyers who have strong conservative credentials, points out that Harvard is going to stand its ground. Let's look at one specific phrase from that letter from a Robert Hurr and William Burke.

The university will not surrender its independence they write or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard, nor any private university, can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Of course, Burke was a Former Deputy White House Counsel in the Bush Administration, Robert Hurr, is the one who questioned President Biden. He was the Special Counsel.

So, interesting that Harvard has chosen conservative lawyers to represent them. Of course, they will go on to say that a lot of these dollars are used for medical research for the common good.

[12:05:00]

But it certainly is the front on a variety of fronts, of flexing the president's executive authority, one of many cases that we're seeing. But Harvard is doing something different. It's standing up. We'll see how they fair, Dana.

BASH: Yeah, absolutely. And Bill Burr, not only Bill Burke, rather, not only worked for George W Bush, he represented a lot of Trump players in the first go round, helped them out --

ZELENY: Steve Bannon.

BASH: -- including Steve Bannon, exactly so fascinating how Harvard is playing this, which is what we're going to get into. Thank you so much for your reporting, Jeff. And I am joined now by additional amazing reporters, CNN's David Chalian, Jack Kucinich of "The Boston Globe" and Seung Min Kim of "The Associated Press". So, let's just kind of look at the idea of what Harvard is doing here, and how it is different from the other universities. In the case of Columbia, there has been -- had been a negotiation and in which the university actually capitulated, and then there was a change in leadership, and it was kind of a mess, and it continues to be.

But if you look at the big picture, Harvard, $9 billion that's the threat that they are, excuse me, that's how much university funding that they get from the federal government. Cornell billion, Johns Hopkins, 800 million, and it goes down the list.

So, we're talking about private institutions that get federal dollars. And the idea that the Trump Administration, and apparently, according to "The New York Times", Donald Trump himself, has decided to use the federal funding as a cudgel to get at major changes to these institutions, which have long been in the cross hairs of conservatives, is fascinating, and the idea that Harvard is the one who is fighting back.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Well, and as you noted when you were talking to Jeff just a couple of hours ago, we heard from Donald Trump on social media escalating it, indicating this is a fight he wants. Donald Trump wants this fight. He sees Harvard getting good press or press in general attention for its push back.

And he says, OK, now I'm going to move to tax exempt status, because part of the play to his most fervent supporters, is to take on any sort of elite institution. Now, that's fine for a political conversation, but there are real world implications to this stuff. This isn't just an -- or conversation or an Ivy League Faculty Club conversation. I mean, there -- this money does fund research that could impact every American. It's --

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Affiliated hospitals --

CHALIAN: -- exactly.

KUCINICH: -- in Cambridge area. I mean, it really does have you're absolutely right. Sorry to interrupt real, real consequences.

CHALIAN: And it's just also a conversation, I think more broadly, this in a larger piece of a lot of what we're seeing out of the White House is just presidential power overreach or not. I mean, we'll see how the public reacts to this. But because of its elite nature, it is it plays right in the wheelhouse of Donald Trump's politics and his base, and that's why he wants the fight.

BASH: Right. I want you to come in because you do work for a Boston based newspaper, "The Boston Globe", and you just started to mention some of the ways that federal funds affect these institutions. Harvard is one that has a lot of independent money. It has a big, big endowment, and actually multiple. So, it's not to say that it won't be affected by the freeze on federal funds, because it's a lot of money.

KUCINICH: Even with a big endowment, you can only lean on that money without federal funding -- BASH: Yeah.

KUCINICH: -- for so long before you don't have a big endowment. I'm not here to stand up for Harvard or anything which is the matter of fact.

BASH: Yeah.

KUCINICH: -- those funds would run out. This federal fund is just a huge chunk of the research that you see, medical research, et cetera, et cetera. We don't know what the 2.2 billion is going to cut or what it actually applies to, but certainly a lot of these funds that you're talking about are for medical and science research.

BASH: And Seung Min, this is the letter that the Trump Administration sent to Harvard. They sent it on Friday. And one of the really or Thursday or Friday, and one of the really interesting ways that Harvard is managing this in a different way, and probably because they have very high-powered lawyers working for them who are used to the way conservatives act and react.

Is that when Alan Garber, who is the newish president of Harvard, responded to this. He linked to the original letter so that people could actually see what the administration is asking for. And yes, there is talk in here about programs to try to help and assuage the -- this is the administration's word, egregious record of anti-Semitism or other bias.

[12:10:00]

But like Jeff started talking about, there is a whole long list of other things that are totally and completely in the wheelhouse of conservatives that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. And I think Harvard is trying to use that transparency show to the public. This isn't necessarily just an anti-Semitism issue, as their task force says it is, but it is a much broader issue that's really trying to control the intellectual and academic freedom in our universities.

And I think the transparency element is important as well, because "The New York Times" story that you mentioned, it talked about how this task force works a lot in secrecy, you have members that we don't really know who they are. In terms of these members who are researching what to do with these academic institutions.

You have the federal government reaching out to upwards of 60 universities about where their funding is? What their activities are? But these universities don't know what's going to happen. You know, when these universities often find out their funding is getting frozen, when the White House kind of announces it or leaks it to a reporter, they're all caught off guard here.

So, I think what Harvard trying to do here is lay out for the public, this is what they want us to do. It's not necessarily in their initial mission of rooting out anti-Semitism. BASH: And I want to read a quote from that "New York Times" story that

I mentioned David. And this is from Chris Rufo, who is a conservative activist who has been working on these issues. The universities seem all powerful, and they have acted as if they were all powerful, and we're finally revealing that we can hit that where it hurts. We want to set them back a generation or two.

I just want to say that that sentence is not unpopular with a lot of people. And so yes, we're giving the reality of the sort of constitutional ask that the president is putting forward to Harvard and other universities, maybe not constitutional, but the way that he's pushing them and trying to get them to do things that they shouldn't necessarily have to do constitutionally.

Having said that, just on the politics of where these universities are and have been, there is a reason why Donald Trump feels that he's on terra firma politically in having this fight, because it really helped him, not just with Republicans, but with some Independents during the election.

CHALIAN: During the entirety of his political career.

BASH: Yeah.

CHALIAN: That's what I mean that this is clearly a political fight he wants to have. I don't think that just because going after elite institutions which are declining in popularity is something that may reward him politically, is a reason not to explore.

You know, as we are here, the role of whether it is the role of the president to dictate what should be, the learning environment, the educational environment, the research environment of these institutions, those two things aren't necessarily. You can hold both thoughts collectively. It could be a politically popular move with his base and work for him in that way and still be something that raises real questions about the role.

BASH: Yeah. Very well, said. Another one of our colleagues who had something to say that was very cogent. Stephen Collinson said in his story this morning, the White House wants to heavily influence the case loads of big-time law firms what is taught in top universities and the news Americans see on television.

These are classic pages from the play books of strong men leaders, the sense of a coming constitutional collision is growing impossible to ignore. Sit on that for a second, because we are going to expand this conversation to include some of that after a break. It is going to be a discussion about disregarding the courts. The Trump Administration coming face-to-face with a judge that it has been defying. We're going to have details on that after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

BASH: It depends on the meaning of the word facilitates. The Trump Administration says the Supreme Court did not require it to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back from the EL Salvadoran prison, despite a supreme court order that actually it said they need to, quote, facilitate his return.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: What the court also said was that these district judges do not have the right to interfere with the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign affairs, meaning President Trump's ability to do business with foreign nations, and they can't do that.

What they also said is just facilitate, meaning, if he wanted a plane flight, we could give him a plane flight, but we cannot effectuate it. Meaning, making it happen. President Bukele does not want to give him back to the United States, nor do we want him now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now disputes between the chief executive and the courts don't end there. Yesterday, an Associated Press Reporter was barred from covering an Oval Office news conference, days after a judge forbid the White House from punishing the AP for an editorial decision that the White House didn't like.

My panel is back and joining us is CNN's Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid, so Paula, I want to start with you, because we told our viewers that there is a key hearing going on right now, and there has been a development in that hearing.

[12:20:00]

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So that's right, we just got a new filing from Abrego Garcia lawyers ahead of this afternoon's hearing, and they're once again saying, look, the Supreme Court sided with us. He has to be returned to the United States. So, for those of us keeping score, they believe they won at the Supreme Court.

The White House believes it won at the Supreme Court, and the judge has said that she was affirmed with the Supreme Court. I actually think the White House probably has the strongest argument in order to explain that, let's go back to exactly what the Supreme Court said.

In its opinion last week they said, all right, we have to assess the district court's order that said the government needs to facilitate and effectuate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia to the U.S. and they gave a deadline. These are three things they needed to assess.

The Supreme Court said, yes, the government must facilitate his return, but when it comes to effectuating it, they said, you need to go back down to the district court. The Judge used to clarify what she meant, and they said that you need to do that, giving the deference owed to the executive branch. And they gave no deadline.

And I remember the moment we reported this breaking news from the Supreme Court I said, this is ambiguous, and ambiguity is a gift to the White House, and they are going to exploit it. So, you just heard the Attorney General say that -- you know, the court held that the court needs to defer to the executive branch. They just said there needs to be some deference, but they didn't define what.

And again, when you give the Trump Administration an ambiguous opinion like this, obviously they are going to use this to their advantage, but it doesn't mean that they are defying what the court said.

BASH: Can it go back to the Supreme Court?

REID: It could. I would be surprised if the justices want to take this up again and clarify once again what they said, but it certainly could go back for clarification. But it was actually up to the district court judge to clarify what she meant by quote, effectuate.

And the administration is saying, look, you said we needed to facilitate. You heard the Attorney General yesterday, she said, provide a plane that's facilitating. But when it comes to effectuate, they didn't say you needed to do that. They said the lower court judge needs to define that.

And they gave no deadline. And without a deadline, I mean, it's pretty clear, Mr. Abrego Garcia, at this point, is not returning to the U.S.

BASH: I want to talk more about how this, fits into the bigger picture, including what we were talking about in the first segment of what the White House is doing with universities. And there is a quote here from Adam Silver from "The Atlantic".

And the headline of this story is, the constitutional crisis is here. The Trump Administration is defying a supreme court order to retrieve a man it marooned in a gulag abroad while pretending to comply with it. What it could do to him. It could do to anyone, if the Trump Administration can defy court orders with impunity, and Congress is unwilling to act, there is no reason for it to respect the constitutional rights of American citizens either.

Now that is a very specific point of view, but you know, constitutional crisis is not a term that anybody uses lightly, but it is also a term that we should be pondering as we put all of these events together and connect those dots.

CHALIAN: Well, certainly the potential for a constitutional crisis exists. I don't know that we're quite there yet, given everything you just heard Paula say about the intentional ambiguity that the Supreme Court put into its ruling here. So, it's not as -- it's not as clear cut that the White House is defying a Supreme Court order because it's not clear cut what the Supreme Court order is saying here.

And by the way, a lot of court analysts look at that and say by design, so that John Roberts could get nine justices on to that order that doing so being ambiguous, his way to do that. But Dana, yes, we need to be on -- for this. And by the way, to the last point in "The Atlantic" piece you just read, and to the point that we heard from Donald Trump himself yesterday talking to the El Salvador leader in the Oval Office.

This is, I know we're very focused on this one case of this man from Maryland, but the larger issue of sending American citizens into a foreign prison without maybe all the due process that is accorded to them the Constitution. If that were to happen, I mean, I don't know how that would not be a constitutional right.

BASH: Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, because the -- there was some attempt at clean up. The Attorney General was on Fox last night, and it sounded like they were trying too very gingerly clean it up. But the president put an end to that this morning, because he doubled down when he went on Fox.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I call him home grown criminals. I mean the home grown the ones that grew up and something went wrong and they hit people over the head with a baseball bat we have and push people into subways just before the train gets there, like you see happening sometimes. We are looking into it and we want to do it. I would love to do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KUCINICH: I mean, this is precisely why this case is -- I mean, there's lots of reasons why this case is important, but the idea this could happen to American citizens.

[12:25:00]

And that, of course, would work its way through the courts, and it's a whole another set of constitutional issues with that. So yes, this is why we need, as you said, Dana, this is why we need to take this seriously.

KIM: I mean, it is. I mean, we should also make clear, it is very unclear what the administration is considering in deporting American citizens abroad.

BASH: Right.

KIM: First of all, they are --

BASHL U.S. --

KIM: -- exactly. I mean, first of all, they are U.S. citizen. So, by nature, they are not subject to immigration law, and deportation deals with immigration law. Obviously, there are extradition treaties if a U.S. citizen were able to commit a crime in another country, that could be an issue. The one kind of avenue I might be watching for, which experts have pointed out to us is these naturalized citizens who were not U.S. citizens by birth.

BASH: Yeah.

KIM: Theoretically, they could have their citizenship stripped, then they would become legal, legal immigrants, and then they could be --

BASH: Can I just while I have you, and I don't want to put you on the spot? But we did mention the fact that the White House seemed to defy a court order that "The Associated Press" that you work for be included back in the pool yesterday?

KIM: Right. I mean, all we can say is that we're really gratified by Judge McFadden's ruling last week, and we expect the White House to comply with the -- with his ruling.

BASH: OK. We'll see that goes into the question of constitutional crisis, where we are not yet. Don't go anywhere. Can you tell me how to get to? If the Trump Administration gets its way, the sunny days on Sesame Street could become very cloudy. We'll explain next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:30:00]