Latest news with #POLITICOMagazine
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
‘That's What Sold It': Why the Court Ruled Against Trump's Tariffs
When a coalition of Democratic attorneys general sued to block a large chunk of Donald Trump's tariffs, they expressed confidence they'd win in court. But even some of them seemed pleasantly surprised after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the administration unanimously and unequivocally on Wednesday night. 'You sit there and you say, 'Hey, was this panel unanimous?' And it was,' Dan Rayfield, the Oregon attorney general leading the states' lawsuit, told POLITICO Magazine as he fielded texts from happy supporters. The decision, from a three-judge panel featuring appointees of Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Trump himself, 'creates a little bit of cognitive dissonance for folks that trend right.' Rayfield spoke to us earlier this month about the AGs' strategy in challenging Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose wide-ranging tariffs, and we caught up with him again Thursday morning in the wake of the court's ruling. Even as the Trump administration moved to challenge the ruling and received a stay, Rayfield expressed optimism about their chances in the appeals court — and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. Rayfield notes that the judges — who were ruling on the AGs' suit and another lawsuit against the tariffs brought by businesses — dismissed the Trump administration's argument that its legal claim of emergency authority on trade was a 'political question' beyond judicial review. 'I think that's a really tough argument to make,' Rayfield said. 'Because if you agree — and this is what I think sold it — if you agree with President Trump's lawyers' assessment, nothing is reviewable.' Markets surged on the news of the tariff ruling Thursday morning, amid some hopes that the ruling could provide Trump a convenient off-ramp from his divisive tariff program. But Rayfield wasn't convinced of that even before the administration signaled it would continue fighting for the tariffs. 'I don't know if exit strategy is in the Trump vocabulary,' he said. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Attorney General Rayfield, this is a pretty big win — for the moment — for you and the other 11 attorneys general… That's not a lot of optimism there, Joe. You know, a lot can happen, it's a chaotic environment. But it's a big win for you and the other AGs who brought the suit challenging a huge swath of the Trump tariffs. What's the chatter among you and your attorney general colleagues — what's the mood? Well, this broke obviously [Wednesday] evening, and everybody was looking at the decision. That's the first thing you do, right? You sit there and you say, 'Hey, was this panel unanimous?' And it was. People always want to know where were those judges appointed? Two of them were Republican appointed judges. Now, I think that [question of who appointed each judge] plays into this narrative that judges are political, which I absolutely do not like, because I really believe that judges try to avoid that, but it is a reality of our world. People always want to get into those details, because I think conservative folks are looking for those third-party validators in that space. So this creates a little bit of cognitive dissonance for folks that trend right. The one sentiment that really was overwhelming for all of us: Hey, unanimous. You've got this nice talking point to show: that it is a bipartisan panel of judges that ruled in this way. You have judges that are incredibly educated and judges that applied the prior case law in this space. I think it was also very telling in the way that the court hearing went last week, where you had the Trump lawyers coming in basically saying, 'Hey, you can't review anything we do with emergency orders. And you can't review anything we do with respect to IEEPA. Those are all political questions.' And I think that spirit in the decision really came out, [with the court] kind of saying; 'No, that's not right. And frankly, Congress never intended that.' When we spoke earlier this month, you were confident that the facts of the case and the merits of the case — that the tariffs had exceeded the authority granted by Congress — were strong, and obviously the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed. The administration has already appealed the ruling — can you lay out what comes next, and how you're expecting those same arguments to land as you reach the appellate courts, and if you ultimately reach the Supreme Court? The first step will be the federal circuit in D.C., and so we'll move into that space. And this is a very interesting thing: This was a judgment on the merits. A lot of the cases that you've been seeing are these rulings on preliminary injunctions. This was a summary judgment ruling on the merits for this case. I think that what is very helpful is you go from a specialty court — a court that has been really educated in the issues of trade and the laws and the history — into the federal circuit. I think the arguments that we're making are very palpable and convey very nicely into an appellate court in that scenario. What you'll have is the Trump administration coming back and making the same darn arguments, right? And I think they really want to have a ruling in the federal circuit that says, 'Hey, this is a political question issue. You don't get to question the president and you and judges certainly don't get to make factual determinations on this statute. That's not your role.' I think that's a really tough argument to make, because if you agree — and this is what I think sold it — if you agree with President Trump's lawyers' assessment, nothing is reviewable. You could make an emergency on anything. I could say that our export of hockey players into Canada is incredibly alarming, and it's creating an advantage to Canadian hockey teams. And so this is an emergency, okay? That emergency isn't reviewable, then I could say, 'You know what? I am going to put a 1,000 percent tariff on Canadian maple syrup. So I can create leverage and really bring back balance to American hockey teams versus Canadian hockey teams. And none of that is reviewable by a court.' And I think that when you really start looking at the importance of constitutional separation of powers, co-equal branches of government, and no one branch having too much power, this really starts to tilt the scales if you really take the president's arguments at face value. And I think that's what sold it. I think those same arguments have salience. I know they have saliency in every level of court. But it'll be interesting to see, do the Trump administration's arguments continue in this vein, or do they recognize that this is, constitutionally, a really big challenge? The other thing that I think is fascinating: I think that the Trump administration is entirely short-sighted. These democratic principles are meant as a check against Democratic presidents and Republican presidents alike. If you play this out, a Democratic president could get into office, create an emergency on firearms — I think 40 percent of our firearms in the United States are imported, or at least components of them are — and you can really start extrapolating out. Irrespective of party, this is a real problem and really tugs at the fundamental strings of why we have the rule of law in place. The markets rallied in the morning after the ruling — do you think, in more political terms, that this ruling actually could give the president an exit strategy on some of this tariff agenda, which has proven so controversial? It's an interesting question. I believe that if you take the Trump presidency and his administration at face value, they really do believe in tariffs, in using that as leverage in some of these conversations. And I think he could continue to pursue that strategy via Article 19 [trade rules] — he won't be able to do everything under that — but that's what Congress intended. I don't know if exit strategy is in the Trump vocabulary, but it will be interesting to see how they pivot, if they pivot, moving forward. Have you talked to Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek about the ruling? The governor texted me last night. There are a bunch of times in my life when I've gotten a ton of text messages. Every election that you win, you get a ton of text messages from people that you didn't know were your friends, and that are your long-lost friends. And then when I became speaker. And then there were a ton of text messages yesterday from you name it — friends, family, small businesses and elected officials as well.
Politico
3 days ago
- Business
- Politico
‘That's What Sold It': Why the Court Ruled Against Trump's Tariffs
When a coalition of Democratic attorneys general sued to block a large chunk of Donald Trump's tariffs, they expressed confidence they'd win in court. But even some of them seemed pleasantly surprised after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the administration unanimously and unequivocally on Wednesday night. 'You sit there and you say, 'Hey, was this panel unanimous?' And it was,' Dan Rayfield, the Oregon attorney general leading the states' lawsuit, told POLITICO Magazine as he fielded texts from happy supporters. The decision, from a three-judge panel featuring appointees of Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Trump himself, 'creates a little bit of cognitive dissonance for folks that trend right.' Rayfield spoke to us earlier this month about the AGs' strategy in challenging Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose wide-ranging tariffs, and we caught up with him again Thursday morning in the wake of the court's ruling. Even as the Trump administration moved to challenge the ruling and received a stay, Rayfield expressed optimism about their chances in the appeals court — and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. Rayfield notes that the judges — who were ruling on the AGs' suit and another lawsuit against the tariffs brought by businesses — dismissed the Trump administration's argument that its legal claim of emergency authority on trade was a 'political question' beyond judicial review. 'I think that's a really tough argument to make,' Rayfield said. 'Because if you agree — and this is what I think sold it — if you agree with President Trump's lawyers' assessment, nothing is reviewable.' Markets surged on the news of the tariff ruling Thursday morning, amid some hopes that the ruling could provide Trump a convenient off-ramp from his divisive tariff program. But Rayfield wasn't convinced of that even before the administration signaled it would continue fighting for the tariffs. 'I don't know if exit strategy is in the Trump vocabulary,' he said. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Attorney General Rayfield, this is a pretty big win — for the moment — for you and the other 11 attorneys general… That's not a lot of optimism there, Joe. You know, a lot can happen, it's a chaotic environment. But it's a big win for you and the other AGs who brought the suit challenging a huge swath of the Trump tariffs. What's the chatter among you and your attorney general colleagues — what's the mood? Well, this broke obviously [Wednesday] evening, and everybody was looking at the decision. That's the first thing you do, right? You sit there and you say, 'Hey, was this panel unanimous?' And it was. People always want to know where were those judges appointed? Two of them were Republican appointed judges. Now, I think that [question of who appointed each judge] plays into this narrative that judges are political, which I absolutely do not like, because I really believe that judges try to avoid that, but it is a reality of our world. People always want to get into those details, because I think conservative folks are looking for those third-party validators in that space. So this creates a little bit of cognitive dissonance for folks that trend right. The one sentiment that really was overwhelming for all of us: Hey, unanimous. You've got this nice talking point to show: that it is a bipartisan panel of judges that ruled in this way. You have judges that are incredibly educated and judges that applied the prior case law in this space. I think it was also very telling in the way that the court hearing went last week, where you had the Trump lawyers coming in basically saying, 'Hey, you can't review anything we do with emergency orders. And you can't review anything we do with respect to IEEPA. Those are all political questions.' And I think that spirit in the decision really came out, [with the court] kind of saying; 'No, that's not right. And frankly, Congress never intended that.' When we spoke earlier this month, you were confident that the facts of the case and the merits of the case — that the tariffs had exceeded the authority granted by Congress — were strong, and obviously the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed. The administration has already appealed the ruling — can you lay out what comes next, and how you're expecting those same arguments to land as you reach the appellate courts, and if you ultimately reach the Supreme Court? The first step will be the federal circuit in D.C., and so we'll move into that space. And this is a very interesting thing: This was a judgment on the merits. A lot of the cases that you've been seeing are these rulings on preliminary injunctions. This was a summary judgment ruling on the merits for this case. I think that what is very helpful is you go from a specialty court — a court that has been really educated in the issues of trade and the laws and the history — into the federal circuit. I think the arguments that we're making are very palpable and convey very nicely into an appellate court in that scenario. What you'll have is the Trump administration coming back and making the same darn arguments, right? And I think they really want to have a ruling in the federal circuit that says, 'Hey, this is a political question issue. You don't get to question the president and you and judges certainly don't get to make factual determinations on this statute. That's not your role.' I think that's a really tough argument to make, because if you agree — and this is what I think sold it — if you agree with President Trump's lawyers' assessment, nothing is reviewable. You could make an emergency on anything. I could say that our export of hockey players into Canada is incredibly alarming, and it's creating an advantage to Canadian hockey teams. And so this is an emergency, okay? That emergency isn't reviewable, then I could say, 'You know what? I am going to put a 1,000 percent tariff on Canadian maple syrup. So I can create leverage and really bring back balance to American hockey teams versus Canadian hockey teams. And none of that is reviewable by a court.' And I think that when you really start looking at the importance of constitutional separation of powers, co-equal branches of government, and no one branch having too much power, this really starts to tilt the scales if you really take the president's arguments at face value. And I think that's what sold it. I think those same arguments have salience. I know they have saliency in every level of court. But it'll be interesting to see, do the Trump administration's arguments continue in this vein, or do they recognize that this is, constitutionally, a really big challenge? The other thing that I think is fascinating: I think that the Trump administration is entirely short-sighted. These democratic principles are meant as a check against Democratic presidents and Republican presidents alike. If you play this out, a Democratic president could get into office, create an emergency on firearms — I think 40 percent of our firearms in the United States are imported, or at least components of them are — and you can really start extrapolating out. Irrespective of party, this is a real problem and really tugs at the fundamental strings of why we have the rule of law in place. The markets rallied in the morning after the ruling — do you think, in more political terms, that this ruling actually could give the president an exit strategy on some of this tariff agenda, which has proven so controversial? It's an interesting question. I believe that if you take the Trump presidency and his administration at face value, they really do believe in tariffs, in using that as leverage in some of these conversations. And I think he could continue to pursue that strategy via Article 19 [trade rules] — he won't be able to do everything under that — but that's what Congress intended. I don't know if exit strategy is in the Trump vocabulary, but it will be interesting to see how they pivot, if they pivot, moving forward. Have you talked to Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek about the ruling? The governor texted me last night. There are a bunch of times in my life when I've gotten a ton of text messages. Every election that you win, you get a ton of text messages from people that you didn't know were your friends, and that are your long-lost friends. And then when I became speaker. And then there were a ton of text messages yesterday from you name it — friends, family, small businesses and elected officials as well.
Politico
5 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
Trump's gaze pans back to California
Presented by California Environmental Voters Announcement from Editorial Director, California Christopher Cadelago and Senior Executive Editor Alex Burns: We're excited to announce that David Siders, who got his start at POLITICO as a co-author of California Playbook, is returning home to a leadership role as Senior News Editor where he'll play a critical role in managing the news report and help oversee the Playbook newsletters to grow their reach across the Golden State. California is home to one of POLITICO's most successful expansions, and David will closely coordinate with newly installed Senior Policy Editor Joel Rubin and Politics Editor Katy Murphy to turbocharge policy and political reporting. Under Christopher Cadelago, David will help shape the most impactful journalism POLITICO is doing in a critical market by expanding the report into new coverage areas and geographies and drawing connections to fast-moving news in Washington. David has been a regular contributor to POLITICO Magazine. As an editor, he brought his rich narrative sensibility and empathetic management style to the Politics team during the tumultuous 2024 campaign, helping direct coverage of a wild campaign from start to finish. Before transitioning into editing, Siders was a national political correspondent for POLITICO, covering politics and campaigns, including the primaries and general election in 2020. Before that, he co-authored California Playbook with its founding anchor, Carla Marinucci, and was a senior writer for The Sacramento Bee. Siders lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and two daughters. THE BUZZ: SIDELINE STRIFE — Months before President Donald Trump pointed to a Californian transgender athlete's success as evidence that trans girls should be banned from teams matching their gender, conservative activists pushed to draw national scrutiny to the teen. Sophia Lorey, outreach director at the California Family Council, said she first attended one of the student's volleyball matches last fall 'to try to help girls that wanted help.' Chino School Board President Sonja Shaw, who in February disclosed the athlete's name and trans identity online, posted video from one of her track meets in which an adult protester shouted, 'That's a boy!' Within weeks, conservative activists were appearing on Fox News to air their grievances about the teen. In March, Charlie Kirk mentioned her by name on Gavin Newsom's podcast and asked the governor whether he'd denounce her participation in girls' track. And Trump's Tuesday morning Truth Social callout — and threat that 'large scale Federal Funding will be held back, maybe permanently' if California officials do not step in to prevent the trans athlete from competing in the state finals — came just over an hour after Fox aired an interview with conservative activist Jennifer Sey bemoaning her wins as unfair. (Trump called Newsom about the issue Tuesday, but a spokesperson for the governor said he missed the president's call while at an event and hoped to connect soon.) The episode demonstrates how the rise of the conservative media influencer class — and its proximity to the president — has given local hard-line activists in California unusual sway. Just last summer they were watching their allies suffer electoral defeats in local races. Now, they have the president amplifying their message. 'When Charlie Kirk — when all of these people do this — I am extremely grateful,' said Shaw, who earlier this month filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to try to block the student from competing. 'It does take these influencers to really expose it.' At least three segments focused on the Jurupa Valley High School student have run on Fox News in the last month. But it was on Newsom's podcast, 'This is Gavin Newsom,' where Kirk mentioned the athlete twice by name in an episode in which Newsom said he found the participation of trans girls in girls' sports 'deeply unfair.' 'You right now should come out and be like, 'You know what, the young man who's about to win the state championship in the long jump in female sports — that shouldn't happen,' Kirk advised Newsom. The governor did not seem to register the individual example and didn't address it specifically. He didn't know the athlete's name at the time, though he had been briefed on the case, a Newsom staffer told Playbook. A White House spokesperson did not respond to questions about how the case came to Trump's attention or whether the OCR complaints had any bearing. Republican leaders in the state Legislature swiftly sided with Trump on the policy question but did not explicitly back his call to revoke funding from California schools. 'No one should lose school resources because Newsom refuses to lead,' Assembly GOP leader James Gallagher said in a statement, blaming the governor for not requiring schools to comply with a Trump executive order barring transgender girls from girls' school sports. 'President Trump applied the pressure, and it's forcing this state to wake up. All Newsom has to do is follow the law.' Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones also in a statement blamed Newsom for putting school funding at risk but did not take a position on whether funding should be cut if California doesn't budge. 'Just follow federal rules and we wouldn't even be having this conversation,' Jones said. In her home near Riverside, the track star has described the intense national attention as baffling. Her mother characterized the backlash against her daughter as 'child abuse' in an interview with Capital and Main. 'Girls were just shocked that people would actually come to do that, and really bully a child,' the student told the California outlet. 'There's nothing I can do about people's actions, just focus on my own.' — with help from Melanie Mason GOOD MORNING. Happy Wednesday. Thanks for waking up with Playbook. You can text us at 916-562-0685 — save it as 'CA Playbook' in your contacts. Or drop us a line at dgardiner@ and bjones@ or on X — @DustinGardiner and @jonesblakej. WHERE'S GAVIN? Nothing official announced. STATE CAPITOL FIRST IN PLAYBOOK: PAROLE PUSH — The state Senate Republican Caucus plans later today to blast moderate Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio's attempt to expand parole for people who've been in prison for at least 25 years for crimes they committed as young adults. The proposal would allow people sentenced to life without parole whose offenses came when they were under 25 to seek early release. The coming messaging will focus on the possibility of people who committed hate crimes and murders being let out of prisons early, painting Democrats as soft-on-crime — a go-to move for Sacramento Republicans. Sen. Kelly Seyarto said the bill 'betrays victims' in a statement shared with Playbook, while Jones called it 'extreme.' The issue of parole for younger offenders has been thrust into the national spotlight as the brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez, who were convicted of killing their parents, seek parole. Their case has gotten attention from the likes of Newsom and Netflix producers due to nuances in their case, including allegations that their father was sexually abusive. The Menendez brothers were at first sentenced to life without parole but were re-sentenced to have a chance at parole, so the bill would not apply to them. Rubio, in a previous committee hearing, said her proposal 'recognizes that true public safety and a strong criminal justice system must also recognize the potential for rehabilitation and change.' NEEDLING THE NEWBIES — State senators engaged in some frat house-style antics on the floor Tuesday as new members presented their bills ahead of next week's deadline to pass legislation to the Assembly. Returning senators peppered their new colleagues with random questions about their bills, prompting laughter from those in the chamber. As state Sen. Jesse Arreguín presented a wonky bill on streamlining Local Agency Formation Commission permitting, state Sen. Caroline Menjivar and Sen. Angelique Ashby jumped in with trivial inquiries. Ashby asked him how many housing permits were issued by LAFCOs in California last year. This prompted state Sen. Shannon Grove to issue a lighthearted warning. 'I would like to remind my colleagues that hazing — if the individual does not participate voluntarily — it risks the safety of the individual who's being hazed,' she said, at one point appearing to read off her phone. 'And could cause physical and emotional harm. I respectfully ask you to be respectful.' — Lindsey Holden CLIMATE AND ENERGY OIL PATCH — Buoyed by Trump, a Texas-based company is pumping oil again at offshore wells in Santa Barbara that were shut down 10 years ago because of a spill. And while the Coastal Commission and local Democrats are putting up a fight, Newsom's administration isn't. Read more about the battle lines in last night's California Climate. Top Talkers BALLING ON A BUDGET — San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie will not cut funding for the city's public safety agencies and workers amid an $800 million budget deficit over two years, the San Francisco Chronicle Reports. 'We have made tremendous strides over the last three years to make our city safer, and I look forward to continue making progress in partnership with Mayor Lurie and the San Francisco Police Department going forward,' said District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. FAKE FEEDBACK — Esther Kim Varet, a Democratic challenger to California Rep. Young Kim, is raising money to run her first campaign TV ad. The 30-second commercial the candidate posted to X is mostly made by AI, featuring multiple prompt-generated people who make their case against the Republican representative. 'She pretends to be balanced, but she's almost as fake as I am,' said the actually fake person in the ad. The ad is running on Fox News throughout Kim's district and doesn't have a specific dollar figure attached to it, according to Varet's campaign. AROUND THE STATE — Equal Rights Advocates, a San Francisco nonprofit, urged a federal judge to uphold a new California free-speech law sparked by the #MeToo movement in an amicus brief filed in the clash between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. (Los Angeles Times) — Encinitas City Council will continue to allow homeless people living in their vehicles to spend the night in the parking lot of Encinitas Senior & Community Center. (The San Diego Union Tribune) — PG&E is studying requests for new data centers that would require a combined 8.7 gigawatts of electricity to operate. (Mercury News) PLAYBOOKERS PEOPLE MOVES — Antonio Isais is now briefings manager for San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie's office. He previously served as Northern California deputy regional director of external affairs in Newsom's office. BIRTHDAYS — Furkan Yalcin in the office of Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo … neurologist Stanley Prusiner … Kathleen Fullerton in the UC president's office … Kylie Minogue … actor Lukas Gage … Andy Stone of Meta … Uber's Josh Gold … BELATED B-DAY WISHES — (was Tuesday): Christina A. Snyder ... Neil J. Sheff WANT A SHOUT-OUT FEATURED? — Send us a birthday, career move or another special occasion to include in POLITICO's California Playbook. You can now submit a shout-out using this Google form.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘By Far the Most Serious Attack on the University to Date'
In just the last 24 hours, the Trump administration announced it would effectively ban international students from attending Harvard University, Harvard sued, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration's ban. The whirlwind of attacks and counterattacks surrounding one of America's preeminent educational institutions represented a significant escalation in the Trump administration's war on Harvard. As the institution wrote in its lawsuit, 'with the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard's student body.' Harvard has been on the leading edge of the fight between the Trump administration and elite universities, and unlike some peer institutions, it hasnot backed down. Former Harvard President Larry Summers has been a frequent critic of his old university, but he's been an enthusiastic defender amid Trump's latest attacks. 'Courage and capitulation are both contagious,' he said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. 'I am glad Harvard chose courage, because if Harvard, with all its good fortune, can't resist authoritarian steps, who can?' Summers argued the Trump administration's legal case would find little merit in the courts, adding that the effort to rid Harvard of international students would only damage the United States in the long run. 'It's hard to imagine a greater strategic gift to China than for the United States to sacrifice its role as a beacon to the world,' Summers said. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What was your initial reaction to the Trump administration banning international students at Harvard? I think it is by far the most serious attack on the university to date. It would be devastating if it was allowed to go into effect, not just for the university but for the image of the United States in the world, where our universities in general, and Harvard in particular, have been a beacon. It would make us poorer as we lose a major source of entrepreneurship — people like Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, or Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft. It would make us less secure. After all, World War II was won by scientific innovation done by immigrants to American universities. It's also a clear violation of First Amendment law because the approach taken represents a punitive vendetta against a political opponent. And in the way this is done, it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires various due process hearings and the like before an institution is deprived of important parts of its livelihood. What's your reaction to Harvard's lawsuit and the subsequent block by a judge? What more should Harvard be doing? Harvard did the necessary and right thing. The alacrity with which the court responded within a couple of hours of Harvard's filing speaks to the overwhelming lack of merit of the government's position. I'm certainly someone who has been critical of Harvard on antisemitism, on excessive identity politics, on lack of political diversity, on the need to more vigorously support American national security. But the merits of this case are overwhelming, and Harvard needs to point them out as vigorously as it can, both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. What's the practical fallout for Harvard, and for the United States more broadly, if international students aren't attending? It will do grave damage to the quality of the education we provide, the experience that our students have and the progress that we make in our laboratories, in our data centers, in our libraries. Closing yourself off from any group, and especially the 97 percent of the world's population that lives outside the United States is a prescription for failure. Damaged universities mean less prosperity and fewer new ideas, ranging from the golf tee to Sesame Street to transplantation to stem cell cures for diabetes to so many more things that came from Harvard research. No small part of that contribution came from foreign scholars. All of that is at risk with these actions. It's hard to imagine a greater strategic gift to China than for the United States to sacrifice its role as a beacon to the world and a source of attraction for the most talented young people all over the world. They must be taking great satisfaction in seeing our society turn on itself and resist sophisticated study, just as they did during the Cultural Revolution. They know how much damage their Cultural Revolution did. Seeing us taking steps, even in small ways, in that direction — by expelling people from universities, by imposing government control on what is taught and what is researched and even what books are in the library — must be a source of great comfort to them at a time when, increasingly, the United States is outcompeting China. Trump has made attacking prominent American universities a priority in his second term. Can you shed some light on what might be behind that decision? I am not privy to the Trump administration's thinking. But it is common for right-wing populists, whether it is Germany in the 1930s or Argentina through much of its post-war history or Ronald Reagan's first campaign for governor in California — to take three very different cases — to attack universities as symbols of decadent elites. There are certainly grounds for concern. I've spoken out about antisemitism, about excesses of identity politics, about lack of ideological diversity in the Harvard context for a very long time. But the approach that universities need to take, it seems to me, is resist and reform. President Trump's attacks on universities are of a piece with his attacks on law firms that represent his political opponents, with his attacks on appropriated funds, with his efforts to ally with anti-democratic political forces around the world like President Putin and the German AfD. If an institution like Harvard — with its $52 billion endowment, its great prestige and its extraordinary network of alumni — cannot resist moves towards authoritarianism, who can? I think the position of those universities who have stood up against the administration are entirely appropriate, but to say that universities should resist extra legal extortion is not to say that they should be satisfied with the status quo. There are a variety of serious problems with what has been going on in our leading universities for many years, and if any good comes with this, it will be a strengthened impetus to necessary reform. My fear is that the adoption of heavy handed [tactics by the] Trump administration on anti-semitism, identity politics and ideological diversity will actually set the cause back, because those who want to resist necessary reform will be able to wrap themselves up in the issue of resisting President Trump and not deal with the underlying substance. In the last decade, Harvard — and many institutions like it — has had an endowment that's ballooned. It has plenty of well-heeled alums who give back to the school, and it seems to constantly be in competition with schools like it to provide nicer amenities that are attractive to families of means. These elite schools are in a constant arms race with each other in a way that doesn't always have to do with the best education. Does this make these institutions a softer target for someone like Trump, and is reform necessary, even if it has nothing to do with international students? I was very proud to have altered Harvard's policies so that any student with a family income below $80,000 could come with no payment or no borrowing expected from their family. Building on that initiative, which was widely emulated, now 70 percent of the students at Harvard receive financial aid. Many of our students share bedrooms on our campus. From time to time, I eat in the student dining halls, and the food is something less than sumptuous. Yes, we have invested hugely in curing cancer, invested hugely in cutting edge data science applied to questions ranging from managing the economy to measuring equal opportunity to promoting human health, but I think it has been a great strength of the United States that our universities have competed with each other to excel and to attract the best students and faculty. All you have to know about the American university system is that until the Trump administration started acting punitively towards foreign students, students from all over the world who could choose to try to come to universities in any country disproportionately chose to come to the United States. And the share of students at Harvard and many other elite colleges whose parents do not have a college degree has gone way up over the last several decades. So yes, there are important things to fault about our universities, but the idea that they are not providing an excellent product, I do not believe that's right, and the choices that so many people make from all over the world suggest that the critics are badly misguided. Harvard has decided to fight the administration much more directly than many of its peer institutions. Why, and how's it working so far? Courage and capitulation are both contagious. I am glad Harvard chose courage, because if Harvard, with all its good fortune, can't resist authoritarian steps, who can? We will have to see how this works out. I was gratified that the court responded so quickly and firmly in Harvard's favor this morning. In general, the run of judicial rulings is not going the Trump administration's way. I expect there will be more judicial rulings standing up for the very elementary idea that you can't destroy institutions without due process, which is what the administration has been attempting to do again and again in so many spheres. In an 'America first' era, has Harvard already lost some global influence no matter the Trump administration's decision on international students? I think it says something very powerful about Harvard that Xi Jinping sent his daughter to study there. As I travel around the world, I certainly don't discern any diminution in the extent to which what happens at Harvard is watched very closely. Harvard serves as a beacon of opportunity to young people from all over the world. Inevitably, Harvard is seen as a quintessentially American institution. And if America as a country sacrifices its attractiveness, some part of that will definitely spill over to Harvard. But I think of Harvard as part of what is best in what America has to offer the world. If you look at the competitiveness of different industries, you look at where we export heavily, import relatively little, higher education stands out as a positive example where we sell large amounts of services to foreign students and foreign countries. We import far less from other countries. So you would think on the Trump administration's mercantilist logic that favors exports over imports, that higher education would be a sector they would want to support and nurture. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Will it be possible to reverse the damage being done to higher education after the Trump administration, or is some of this permanent? There's no question that we are giving a strategic gift to China, that we are strengthening the competitive position of universities in other English-speaking countries, whether it's Britain or Canada or Australia or New Zealand. There's no question that those who had a scarring experience at an American airport are down the road less likely to want to send their children to Harvard or other universities. But ultimately, I believe that American institutions, including American universities, have a profound resilience. It is precisely the capacity of Americans to become alarmed, to paint dire scenarios, that make those forecasts self-denying prophecies. No question, damage has been done. But I believe that if we are able to recognize that and return to a recognition that our universities are priceless national assets, while at the same time the universities learn that they have to be in broader connection with the interests of the larger society, I believe we can come out of this very difficult period in a positive way.
Politico
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
‘By Far the Most Serious Attack on the University to Date'
In just the last 24 hours, the Trump administration announced it would effectively ban international students from attending Harvard University, Harvard sued, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration's ban. The whirlwind of attacks and counterattacks surrounding one of America's preeminent educational institutions represented a significant escalation in the Trump administration's war on Harvard. As the institution wrote in its lawsuit, 'with the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard's student body.' Harvard has been on the leading edge of the fight between the Trump administration and elite universities, and unlike some peer institutions, it has not backed down. Former Harvard President Larry Summers has been a frequent critic of his old university, but he's been an enthusiastic defender amid Trump's latest attacks. 'Courage and capitulation are both contagious,' he said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. 'I am glad Harvard chose courage, because if Harvard, with all its good fortune, can't resist authoritarian steps, who can?' Summers argued the Trump administration's legal case would find little merit in the courts, adding that the effort to rid Harvard of international students would only damage the United States in the long run. 'It's hard to imagine a greater strategic gift to China than for the United States to sacrifice its role as a beacon to the world,' Summers said. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What was your initial reaction to the Trump administration banning international students at Harvard? I think it is by far the most serious attack on the university to date. It would be devastating if it was allowed to go into effect, not just for the university but for the image of the United States in the world, where our universities in general, and Harvard in particular, have been a beacon. It would make us poorer as we lose a major source of entrepreneurship — people like Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, or Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft. It would make us less secure. After all, World War II was won by scientific innovation done by immigrants to American universities. It's also a clear violation of First Amendment law because the approach taken represents a punitive vendetta against a political opponent. And in the way this is done, it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires various due process hearings and the like before an institution is deprived of important parts of its livelihood. What's your reaction to Harvard's lawsuit and the subsequent block by a judge? What more should Harvard be doing? Harvard did the necessary and right thing. The alacrity with which the court responded within a couple of hours of Harvard's filing speaks to the overwhelming lack of merit of the government's position. I'm certainly someone who has been critical of Harvard on antisemitism, on excessive identity politics, on lack of political diversity, on the need to more vigorously support American national security. But the merits of this case are overwhelming, and Harvard needs to point them out as vigorously as it can, both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. What's the practical fallout for Harvard, and for the United States more broadly, if international students aren't attending? It will do grave damage to the quality of the education we provide, the experience that our students have and the progress that we make in our laboratories, in our data centers, in our libraries. Closing yourself off from any group, and especially the 97 percent of the world's population that lives outside the United States is a prescription for failure. Damaged universities mean less prosperity and fewer new ideas, ranging from the golf tee to Sesame Street to transplantation to stem cell cures for diabetes to so many more things that came from Harvard research. No small part of that contribution came from foreign scholars. All of that is at risk with these actions. It's hard to imagine a greater strategic gift to China than for the United States to sacrifice its role as a beacon to the world and a source of attraction for the most talented young people all over the world. They must be taking great satisfaction in seeing our society turn on itself and resist sophisticated study, just as they did during the Cultural Revolution. They know how much damage their Cultural Revolution did. Seeing us taking steps, even in small ways, in that direction — by expelling people from universities, by imposing government control on what is taught and what is researched and even what books are in the library — must be a source of great comfort to them at a time when, increasingly, the United States is outcompeting China. Trump has made attacking prominent American universities a priority in his second term. Can you shed some light on what might be behind that decision? I am not privy to the Trump administration's thinking. But it is common for right-wing populists, whether it is Germany in the 1930s or Argentina through much of its post-war history or Ronald Reagan's first campaign for governor in California — to take three very different cases — to attack universities as symbols of decadent elites. There are certainly grounds for concern. I've spoken out about antisemitism, about excesses of identity politics, about lack of ideological diversity in the Harvard context for a very long time. But the approach that universities need to take, it seems to me, is resist and reform. President Trump's attacks on universities are of a piece with his attacks on law firms that represent his political opponents, with his attacks on appropriated funds, with his efforts to ally with anti-democratic political forces around the world like President Putin and the German AfD. If an institution like Harvard — with its $52 billion endowment, its great prestige and its extraordinary network of alumni — cannot resist moves towards authoritarianism, who can? I think the position of those universities who have stood up against the administration are entirely appropriate, but to say that universities should resist extra legal extortion is not to say that they should be satisfied with the status quo. There are a variety of serious problems with what has been going on in our leading universities for many years, and if any good comes with this, it will be a strengthened impetus to necessary reform. My fear is that the adoption of heavy handed [tactics by the] Trump administration on anti-semitism, identity politics and ideological diversity will actually set the cause back, because those who want to resist necessary reform will be able to wrap themselves up in the issue of resisting President Trump and not deal with the underlying substance. In the last decade, Harvard — and many institutions like it — has had an endowment that's ballooned. It has plenty of well-heeled alums who give back to the school, and it seems to constantly be in competition with schools like it to provide nicer amenities that are attractive to families of means. These elite schools are in a constant arms race with each other in a way that doesn't always have to do with the best education. Does this make these institutions a softer target for someone like Trump, and is reform necessary, even if it has nothing to do with international students? I was very proud to have altered Harvard's policies so that any student with a family income below $80,000 could come with no payment or no borrowing expected from their family. Building on that initiative, which was widely emulated, now 70 percent of the students at Harvard receive financial aid. Many of our students share bedrooms on our campus. From time to time, I eat in the student dining halls, and the food is something less than sumptuous. Yes, we have invested hugely in curing cancer, invested hugely in cutting edge data science applied to questions ranging from managing the economy to measuring equal opportunity to promoting human health, but I think it has been a great strength of the United States that our universities have competed with each other to excel and to attract the best students and faculty. All you have to know about the American university system is that until the Trump administration started acting punitively towards foreign students, students from all over the world who could choose to try to come to universities in any country disproportionately chose to come to the United States. And the share of students at Harvard and many other elite colleges whose parents do not have a college degree has gone way up over the last several decades. So yes, there are important things to fault about our universities, but the idea that they are not providing an excellent product, I do not believe that's right, and the choices that so many people make from all over the world suggest that the critics are badly misguided. Harvard has decided to fight the administration much more directly than many of its peer institutions. Why, and how's it working so far? Courage and capitulation are both contagious. I am glad Harvard chose courage, because if Harvard, with all its good fortune, can't resist authoritarian steps, who can? We will have to see how this works out. I was gratified that the court responded so quickly and firmly in Harvard's favor this morning. In general, the run of judicial rulings is not going the Trump administration's way. I expect there will be more judicial rulings standing up for the very elementary idea that you can't destroy institutions without due process, which is what the administration has been attempting to do again and again in so many spheres. In an 'America first' era, has Harvard already lost some global influence no matter the Trump administration's decision on international students? I think it says something very powerful about Harvard that Xi Jinping sent his daughter to study there. As I travel around the world, I certainly don't discern any diminution in the extent to which what happens at Harvard is watched very closely. Harvard serves as a beacon of opportunity to young people from all over the world. Inevitably, Harvard is seen as a quintessentially American institution. And if America as a country sacrifices its attractiveness, some part of that will definitely spill over to Harvard. But I think of Harvard as part of what is best in what America has to offer the world. If you look at the competitiveness of different industries, you look at where we export heavily, import relatively little, higher education stands out as a positive example where we sell large amounts of services to foreign students and foreign countries. We import far less from other countries. So you would think on the Trump administration's mercantilist logic that favors exports over imports, that higher education would be a sector they would want to support and nurture. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Will it be possible to reverse the damage being done to higher education after the Trump administration, or is some of this permanent? There's no question that we are giving a strategic gift to China, that we are strengthening the competitive position of universities in other English-speaking countries, whether it's Britain or Canada or Australia or New Zealand. There's no question that those who had a scarring experience at an American airport are down the road less likely to want to send their children to Harvard or other universities. But ultimately, I believe that American institutions, including American universities, have a profound resilience. It is precisely the capacity of Americans to become alarmed, to paint dire scenarios, that make those forecasts self-denying prophecies. No question, damage has been done. But I believe that if we are able to recognize that and return to a recognition that our universities are priceless national assets, while at the same time the universities learn that they have to be in broader connection with the interests of the larger society, I believe we can come out of this very difficult period in a positive way.
