>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & COMPANY.

"HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

AS HARVARD UNIVERSITY FIGHTS BACK AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE HAS HIT A 30-DAY PAUSE BUTTON.

I ASK HARVARD PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT STEVEN WHAT THIS MEANS FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

>> AND HOW FREEZING FEDERAL GRANTS IS IMPACTING HER OWN LEADING RESEARCH.

>> THEN -- >> IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE?

IT WAS UNDER THE LUNCH TROLLEY.

>> OH DEAR.

WHO SHOT YOU?

>> JERRY'S FROM OUT OF TOWN, HELP YOURSELF TO A HAND GRENADE.

>> YOU'RE VERY KIND.

>> THE VE NEESHS SCHEME.

>> THE FACT WE CAN GET IT ENACTED AND ON THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IT'S HAD.

>> WALTER ISAACSON SPEAKS TO BLAKE MOORE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN HELPING PASS TRUMP'S BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.

>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT, JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS, CANDACE KING WEI, THE SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI SEMITISM, THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LAYLA AND MICKEY STRAUSS, MARK J. BLESHER IN, THE FOUNDATION, SETON J. MELVIN, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND CONY FUND, CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, JEFFREY KATZ, AND BETH ROGERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

> >> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE, I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.

GRADUATION DAYS ARE ALWAYS MOMENTOUS OCCASIONS, BUT AT HARVARD TODAY THERE'S NEVER BEEN ONE LIKE IT, AS STUDENTS CELEBRATE THE END OF THEIR ACADEMIC JOURNEY, SIX MILES AWAY LAWYERS IN COURT FIGHTING BACK AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTEMPT TO BAN INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

THE JUDGE THERE SAYS SHE WILL ORDER THE ADMINISTRATION NOT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO HARVARD'S STUDENT VISA PROGRAM INDEFINITELY.

HERE'S HARVARD'S PRESIDENT ALAN GARBER SPEAKING TODAY AT THE COMMENCEMENT.

>> WELCOME, MEMBERS OF THE CLASS OF 2025.

MEMBERS OF THE CLASS OF 2025, FROM DOWN THE STREET, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND AROUND THE WORLD.

AROUND THE WORLD JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.

>> THAT'S ONLY ONE FRONT IN A SUSTAINED ATTACK BY THIS ADMINISTRATION ON HARVARD.

IT'S ALSO FROZEN MORE THAN $2 BILLION IN FEDERAL RESEARCH GRANTS, BUT THE LATEST MOVE EXTENDS FAR BEYOND ONE UNIVERSITY.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS HALTING INTERVIEWS ABROAD FOR FOREIGN CITIZENS APPLYING FOR STUDENT VISAS AS IT SAYS IT PLANS TO EXPAND SOCIAL MEDIA VETTING OF ALL APPLICANTS.

OVERNIGHT THOUSANDS OF LIVES HAVE BEEN THROWN INTO TURMOIL.

FOR SCHOLARS OF DEMOCRACY, TARGETING HIGHER EDUCATION IS BOTH SHOCKING AND PREDICTABLE.

STEVEN IS A PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AND LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES AT HARVARD AND THE CO-AUTHOR OF HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE.

HE'S JOINING US FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU, ON THE ONE HAND IT'S PRETTY GRIM TIMES FACING THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATION, ON THE OTHER HAND, HARVARD IS GETTING A LOT OF SUPPORT AND SEEMS TO BE, YOU KNOW, FRONT AND CENTER PUSHING BACK AGAINST THIS.

HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE MOOD AT HARVARD?

>> THE MOOD IS VERY COMPLEX.

IT'S REALLY, REALLY MIXED.

ON THE ONE HAND, THERE IS ALMOST UNANIMOUS SUPPORT AMONG FACULTY AND STUDENTS FOR HARVARD'S LEADERSHIP IN PUSHING BACK AGAINST TRUMP.

WHAT HAD BEEN A VERY DIVIDED CAMPUS LAST YEAR HAS REALLY COME TOGETHER IN DEFENSE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, IN DEFENSE OF RESEARCH, IN DEFENSE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, WHICH IS -- AND SO STUDENTS AND FACULTY ARE VERY PROUD OF HARVARD.

BUT THERE IS TREMENDOUS, TREMENDOUS CONCERN AND UNCERTAINTY FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR RESEARCH AND IN PARTICULAR OUR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

BECAUSE WE ARE A VERY INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, REALLY COULD NOT OPERATE AS HARVARD WITHOUT OUR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

>> I WANT TO PLAY SOMETHING THAT TRUMP SAID YESTERDAY.

I MEAN, WE KNOW THAT THE ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS THAT ALL THIS IS ABOUT ANTISEMITISM, COMBATTING ANTISEMITISM.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT HARVARD, EVEN, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR AND BEYOND HAVE TAKEN MEASURES AGAINST ANTISEMITISM AND, APPARENTLY, DEI.

TRUMP HAS ALSO PULLED, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, BILLIONS IN FEDERAL GRANTS AND THE LATEST HE'S DOING WITH INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT?

AND THEN I'M GOING TO PLAY A LITTLE SOUND BITE OF TRUMP.

>> ABSOLUTELY I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANTISEMITISM.

IT'S NOT ABOUT DEI.

THESE ARE PRETEXTS.

AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS, WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR, THIS IS AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT THAT IS USING THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT, THE STATE, AS A WEAPON TO PUNISH, TO BULLY, TO SILENCE BUSINESS, MEDIA, LAW FIRMS, UNIVERSITIES, AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF CIVIL SOCIETIES.

SO THIS IS PART OF A MUCH BROADER ATTACK ON AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

AUTOCRATS GO AFTER UNIVERSITIES.

AUTOCRATS, LEFT WING AUTOCRATS, CENTRIST AUTOCRATS, RIGHT WING AUTOCRATS, IT'S HARD TO FIND AN AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THAT DOES NOT GO AFTER UNIVERSITIES.

AND THEY ALWAYS FIND A PRETEXT.

SOMETIMES IT'S TERRORISM, SOMETIMES IT'S COMMUNISM.

IN THIS CASE, TRUMP IS USING ANTISEMITISM.

BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE MORE ANTISEMITES IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAN THERE ARE AT HARVARD.

>> AND ACTUALLY IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE THE HILLEL ORGANIZATION ON CAMPUS HAS COME OUT AND SPOKEN AGAINST, YOU KNOW, DENYING FOREIGN STUDENTS.

SOME ARE ISRAELI STUDENTS, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE.

IT'S JUST A BLANKET BAN.

>> INDEED.

>> THERE'S MANY JEWISH GROUPS AND SYNAGOGUES AND OTHERS WHO HAVE ACCUSED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S RATIONALE AS BEING CYNICAL AND, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD MAKE NO MISTAKE THAT IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT PROTECTING THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.

BUT HERE'S WHAT TRUMP RECENTLY SAID, OKAY, ABOUT THE MONEY.

HE SEEMS FIXATED ABOUT HARVARD'S MONEY.

>> THEY'RE TAKING $5 BILLION, AND I'D RATHER SEE THAT MONEY GO TO TRADE SCHOOLS.

AND BY THE WAY, THEY'RE TOTALLY ANTISEMITIC AT HARVARD, AS YOU KNOW, AND SOME OTHER COLLEGES TOO, IN ALL FAIRNESS TO THEM.

AND IT'S BEEN EXPOSED, VERY EXPOSED.

AND I THINK THEY'RE DEALING VERY BADLY.

EVERY TIME THEY FIGHT, THEY LOSE ANOTHER $250 MILLION.

YESTERDAY WE FOUND ANOTHER $100 MILLION.

I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE A CAP OF MAYBE AROUND 15%.

NOT 31%.

WE HAVE PEOPLE WANT TO GO TO HARVARD AND OTHER SCHOOLS, THEY CAN'T GET IN, BECAUSE WE HAVE FOREIGN STUDENTS THERE.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FOREIGN STUDENTS ARE PEOPLE THAT CAN LOVE OUR COUNTRY.

>> I MEAN, THERE IS A LOT THERE.

I JUST WONDER WHAT YOU MAKE OF THE PHILOSOPHY COMING FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP OR HIS ADMINISTRATION.

DO YOU THINK THERE'S A CONCERTED --I MEAN, IS IT A PLAN THAT WILL WORK?

HOW DO YOU CHARACTERIZE WHAT THEY'RE DOING?

>> I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A COMBINATION OF AUTHORITARIANISM AND INEPTITUDE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU --BUT IT'S A PHILOSOPHY OF THE WEAK.

BECAUSE THEY COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT RATIONALE FOR THINGS LIKE TRADE SANCTIONS, TAX ON UNIVERSITIES EVERY WEEK.

SO I DON'T SEE A CLEAR PHILOSOPHY.

WHAT I SEE IS AN EFFORT TO ATTACK, PUNISH, AND WEAKEN CIVIC INSTITUTIONS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION VIEWS AS OPPOSITION OR AS THEY VIEW AS ENEMIES OF THE GOVERNMENT.

AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT AUTOCRATS DO.

>> AND ARE YOU --YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE STUDIED AUTOCRACIES AROUND THE WORLD.

YOU HAVE GOT A PARTICULAR EXPERTISE IN LATIN AMERICA, AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF LATIN AMERICAN STUDENTS AT HARVARD.

TELL ME ABOUT HOW THIS FITS IN, WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH SOME OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES OR OUT AND OUT AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES THAT YOU'VE STUDIED AND PARTICULARLY IN YOUR BOOK.

>> WELL, SOME OF THIS IS VERY FAMILIAR.

EFFORTS TO USE THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT TO GO AFTER, TO PUNISH AND WEAKEN OPPONENTS IN CIVIL SOCIETY ARE VERY, VERY COMMON IN AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES, WHETHER IT IS CONTEMPORARY INDIA OR NICARAGUA, TURKEY, CERTAINLY VENEZUELA, THESE GOVERNMENTS WENT AFTER UNIVERSITIES.

BECAUSE UNIVERSITIES ARE INEVITABLY, INVERTBLY, CENTERS OF DISSENT.

DISSENT AGAINST LEFT WING GOVERNMENTS, DISSENT AGAINST RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS.

SO THAT'S PRETTY COMMON.

THE ASSAULT ON FOREIGN STUDENTS IS, I HAVE TO SAY, TOOK ME BY SURPRISE.

AS YOU KNOW VERY WELL, OUR ABILITY TO ATTRACT, OUR COUNTRY'S ABILITY TO ATTRACT THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD GOING BACK TO AT LEAST THE 1930s IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S MADE US SO RICH, SO PROSPEROUS, SO POWERFUL.

IT'S BEEN ONE OF THE GREATEST BENEFITS THAT WE ENJOY IN THIS COUNTRY.

YOU KNOW, HARVARD --I SENT STUDENTS TO CUBA.

WE SENT STUDENTS TO CHINA.

THEY DON'T EVEN --THEY DON'T EVEN KEEP OUT INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

THIS IDEA OF SHUTTING DOWN STUDENT VISA INTERVIEWS ALL OVER THE WORLD, THE ONLY COUNTRY I CAN COMPARE THAT TO RIGHT NOW IS NORTH KOREA.

IT'S INSANE.

>> PROFESSOR, I'M NOT ENTIRELY DISINTERESTED PARTY, I WAS A FOREIGN STUDENT IN THE UNITED STATES 45 YEARS AGO, AND I ACTUALLY GAVE THE GRADUATION SPEECH JUST YESTERDAY TO THE HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GRADUATES, MORE THAN HALF OF WHOM ARE, AS YOU SAY, INTERNATIONALS.

I SPOKE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I KNOW YOU'VE SPOKEN ABOUT AND EVEN FORMER HARVARD PRESIDENT DREW HAS WRITTEN ABOUT.

THE APPARENT LACK OF RESISTANCE, NOT AT HARVARD, BUT AROUND THE COUNTRY TO THIS ASSAULT THAT YOU'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, I JUST WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I SAID AND GET YOU TO COMMENT ON HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.

AND I WAS QUOTING BASICALLY THE PATRON SAINT OF BROADCAST JOURNALISTS, EDWARD R. MURROW, WHO AFTER HIS DISTINGUISHED WORLD WAR II CAREER AT A CORRESPONDENT TOOK ON McCARTHYISM AND THE RED SCARE AT HOME.

THIS IS WHAT I SAID.

>> SO ALWAYS REMEMBER, AS EDWARD R. MURROW SAID, THAT DISSENT IS NOT DISLOYALTY.

DISSENT IS ACTUALLY AN INVALUABLE PART OF OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

WE CANNOT SURRENDER TO ANY SYSTEM THAT DEEMS ONLY POWER-APPROVED SPEECH OR THOUGHT IS ALLOWED.

THE WHOLE POINT OF JOURNALISM AND ANY OTHER ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE IS TO INVESTIGATE POWER, SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER, HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOR.

EDWARD R. MURROW SAID ON HIS PROGRAMS HOLDING SENATOR JOE McCARTHY TO ACCOUNT, NO ONE MAN CAN TERRORIZE A WHOLE NATION UNLESS WE ARE ALL HIS ACCOMPLICES.

>> PROFESSOR, I WONDER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT QUOTE FROM MURROW.

THAT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS THAT EVERYBODY'S TERRORIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, OR AM I WRONG?

>> I THINK IT'S A MIX.

SO IT'S A SHAME THAT MURROW'S WORDS ARE SO RELEVANT, SO PERTINENT TODAY.

BUT I THINK YOU WERE RIGHT TO RAISE THEM.

MY SENSE --I SHARE THE VIEW THAT AMERICANS HAVE BEEN VERY SLOW TO REACT TO TRUMP'S AUTHORITARIANISM.

I THINK THIS HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH AUTHORITARIANISM.

WE HAVE NO COLLECTIVE MEMORY OF AUTHORITARIANISM.

UNLIKE, SAY, GERMANY OR ARGENTINA OR CHILE OR BRAZIL OR SOUTH KOREA.

WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT.

MANY, MANY AMERICANS STILL BELIEVE THAT IT CAN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN HERE.

AND SO WE WERE SLOW TO RESPOND.

MY HOPE IS THAT HARVARD'S RESPONSE AND THE SLOWLY MORE BOLDER RESPONSES THAT WE'RE SEEING AMONG LAW FIRMS AND SOME OTHER ACTORS IN CIVIL SOCIETY THAT WE'RE TURNING THE SHIP AROUND.

BUT THE FIRST FEW MONTHS WE WERE LIKE A DEER IN HEADLIGHTS.

WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT WE WERE FACING.

>> AND I ASSUME THAT HARVARD WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF LIKE-MINDED UNIVERSITIES WHICH ARE ALSO UNDER THREAT COME OUT AND JOIN THIS, YOU KNOW, PUSHBACK.

ACCORDING TO BASICALLY AMERICAN RULE, THE RULE OF LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND ALL THE REST OF IT.

THIS IS NOT SOME WEIRD FIGHT THAT HARVARD IS PUSHING, IT'S A PATRIOTIC FIGHT.

I MEAN, IT'S FOR AMERICAN VALUES.

ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT OTHER UNIVERSITIES WHO ALSO HAVE BIG ENDOWMENTS, MAYBE NOT AS BIG AS HARVARD'S, BUT HAVE EITHER CAPITULATED OR NOT JOINED THIS FIGHT PUBLICLY, LETTING HARVARD TAKE THE LEAD.

>> I'M DISAPPOINTED.

HAVING FOLLOWED EVENTS VERY CLOSELY THE LAST FOUR, FIVE MONTHS, I'M NOT SURPRISED ANYMORE.

IT TURNS OUT THAT WHETHER IT'S MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS OR LAW FIRMS OR BUSINESSES OR UNIVERSITIES, IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO GET CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS TO JOIN IN COLLECTIVE ACTION.

EACH LEADER OF EACH ORGANIZATION MAY IN PRINCIPLE WANT TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY BUT IS ALSO VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SAVING HIS OR HER OWN HIDE AND PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION.

AND SO RATHER THAN STICK THEIR NECK OUT IN DEFENSE OF A PRINCIPLE, IN DEFENSE OF ANOTHER UNIVERSITY OR ANOTHER ORGANIZATION, THE FIRST REACTION, THE FIRST INSTINCT IS TO KIND OF HIDE UNDER THE TABLE AND HOPE THEY DON'T COME FOR US.

AND THAT IS --THAT'S REALLY DISRUPTIVE OF DEMOCRACY.

PUTS OUR WHOLE DEFENSE -- DEMOCRATIC DEFENSES AT RISK.

>> MM-HMM.

AND FINALLY, DO YOU THINK THERE IS ANY ROOM AT A PLACE LIKE HARVARD OR ELSEWHERE TO DIVERSEFY --I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT REAL WORD TO USE --BUT THAT IT'S NOT JUST ONE ECHO CHAMBER OF ONE TYPE OF THOUGHT.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RAISING LIES TO THE LEVEL OF TRUTHS, BUT JUST DIVERSE OPINIONS AND DIVERSE IDEALOGICAL VIEWS.

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THESE ISSUES OF IDEALOGICAL DIVERSITY HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT OVERSTATED.

WE HAVE MANY, MANY WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL REAGAN CONSERVATIVES AT HARVARD, BELIEVERS IN FREE MARKETS, BELIEVERS IN A HAWKISH FOREIGN POLICY, FOR EXAMPLE.

WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IS MANY TRUMPISTS.

IT'S TRUE THAT HARVARD LEANS LEFT OF CENTER, THAT IT'S LIBERAL, BUT THAT'S TRUE OF REALLY ALL UNIVERSITIES EVERYWHERE.

THAT'S NOT A NEW PHENOMENA.

THE THING IS THAT IN WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, POLITICS ARE NOT PLEASED BY LEFT AND RIGHT AS WE GREW UP UNDERSTANDING THEM.

THEY'RE INCREASINGLY --BY AN URBAN, SECULAR, COSMOPOLITAN WING, AND AN ETHNONATIONALIST WING THAT IS, IN MANY CASES ANTI-SCIENCE AND ANTI-LIBERAL.

>> YEAH.

>> AND IT'S TRUE, IT IS TRUE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THESE ANTI-LIBERAL, ANTI-SCIENCE FOLKS ON OUR CAMPUS.

I'M NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULD.

>> YEAH, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO BRING THAT UP WITH MY NEXT GUEST, ALSO A PHYSICIAN AND PROFESSOR AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY IN THE SCIENTIFIC FIELD.

STEVEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING WITH US AND EXPLAINING THIS MOMENT.

SO HERE TO HELP UNDERSTAND MORE OF THE IMPACT OF ALL OF THIS ON ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND WORK AND MANY, MANY LIVES IS DR. KARI NADU, CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AT HARVARD.

DOCTOR, YOU'VE BEEN LISTENING TO OUR CONVERSATION, WHAT HAS THIS DONE MATERIALLY, THE CANCELING OF SO MANY CONTRACTS, THE REMOVAL OF SO MUCH MONEY FOR RESEARCH, THE KIND OF WHICH YOU DO.

>> YES, HE IS CORRECT, THIS HAS REALLY BEEN A TERRIBLE HIT TO HARVARD, BUT IN THE END WHO'S REALLY HURTING ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, UNFORTUNATELY.

AND THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM NOT JUST AT OUR UNIVERSITY BUT MANY OTHERS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU DEGRADE SCIENCE, FOR ME AS A PHYSICIAN, AS A PROFESSOR THAT TAKES CARE OF PEOPLE'S HEALTH AND THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, WHEN YOU DEGRADE SCIENCE, YOU ALSO DEGRADE THE HEALTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE GLOBE.

>> DOCTOR, THE ADMINISTRATION MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THEY'RE CUTTING FEES AND FUNDS FOR HARVARD UNIVERSITY, THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS A PRIVILEGE THAT HARVARD HAS FOR ITSELF.

BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THESE FEES AND FUNDS ARE FOR THE GREATER GOOD, FOR RESEARCH AND HEALTH AND ALL THE REST OF IT FOR THE WHOLE POPULATION.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

THESE ARE CONTRACTS THAT SCIENTISTS, NOT JUST AT HARVARD BUT AT OTHER UNIVERSITIES THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE COUNTRY, WORKED VERY HARD TO BE ABLE TO RIGOROUSLY PROVE THAT THEY DESERVE TO HAVE THESE CONTRACTS THROUGH REVIEW AND THROUGH A PROCESS IN OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AND THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IF THEY CHOOSE YOU IN THE TOP 10% OF THE REVIEWS THAT THEY DO, THEN THEY CHOOSE TO GIVE YOU FUNDS AND THEN THERE'S A CONTRACT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THE WORK.

AND THAT WORK IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND FOR THE GLOBE.

FOR EXAMPLE, EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE PUT INTO RESEARCH AND SCIENCE FROM THE NIH GIVES $5 OUT FOR THE ECONOMY.

>> WOW.

DOCTOR, CAN I ASK YOU WHAT YOU SPECIFICALLY DO?

I KNOW THAT YOU ARE IN THE FOOD ALLERGY BUSINESS OR RESEARCH, SCIENCE.

THERE ARE OTHERS, CANCER TRIALS AND THE LIKE, WHICH HAVE ALL HAD FUNDS PULLED.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY DO YOU DO AND HOW IS IT AFFECTING YOUR PATIENTS AND TRIAL CANDIDATES?

>> YEAH, SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT WHEN THESE FUNDS ARE PULLED IT AFFECTS SO MANY PEOPLE, NOT JUST ONE INVESTIGATOR LIKE ME.

I'LL GIVE YOU MY STORY, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

FROM THE $200 MILLION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAS BEEN CUT FROM THE SCHOOL PUBLIC HEALTH AT HARVARD, WE UNFORTUNATELY WERE DOING A CLINICAL TRIAL.

SO THOSE FUNDS WERE IMPORTANT FOR ACTIVE CLINICAL STUDIES THAT WERE MEANT TO HELP PEOPLE.

IN MY CASE, I WAS RUNNING A CLINICAL TRIAL THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IN MANY STATES, NOT JUST AT HARVARD, AND IT ALSO AFFECTED PEOPLE IN LONDON.

SO 800 INFANTS WHO HAD A HIGH RISK FOR A CHRONIC DISEASE LIKE NEAR FATAL FOOD ALLERGIES NOW HAVE HAD A CLINICAL TRIAL PULLED BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF NIH FUNDING.

THEY WERE IN THE TRIAL FOR FIVE YEARS.

THEY HAD TWO MORE YEARS TO GO.

AND THIS INTERVENTION WAS MEANT TO REDUCE THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF NEAR-FATAL FOOD ALLERGIES.

>> WOW.

>> AND WHEN THIS TYPE OF CLINICAL TRIAL IS ENDED, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, FOR CANCER OR FOR PARKINSON'S OR FOR OTHERS, I WORK IN FOOD ALLERGY, BUT WHEN THAT HAPPENS, YOU PUT PATIENTS' LIVES AT RISK AND YOU PUT THEIR SAFETY AT RISK.

>> AND DOCTOR, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT IS THIS A TAP THAT CAN BE TURNED ON AND OFF?

IN OTHER WORDS, THESE PATIENTS WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, LET'S SAY IN A MONTH OR TWO OR THREE OR FOUR THIS FUNDING COMES BACK.

IS IT EASY TO TURN IT BACK ON AGAIN?

>> I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE EASY.

IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, IF THE GLOBE UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S AT RISK HERE.

AND WHAT'S AT RISK HERE ARE LIVES AND PEOPLE.

AND IMPORTANTLY, PROGRESS AND THE ECONOMY.

AND SO IF THIS COULD BE PUT BACK ON, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THOSE CLINICAL STUDIES.

WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON WHAT WE PROMISED THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WHEN WE SIGNED OUR CONTRACT.

WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON WHAT WE PROMISED THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP FOR THESE TRIALS ACROSS THE U. S. AS WELL AS THE GLOBE.

SO YES, IT'S POSSIBLE TO TURN THIS BACK ON AND TO DO IT RIGHT.

AND IMPORTANTLY, THERE ARE RESEARCHERS THAT DO THIS RIGHT.

THEY INCLUDE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCHERS, INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

THEY INCLUDE WELL EXPERIENCED PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS RIGHT.

AND THEY INCLUDE FAMILIES AND PATIENTS THAT ALSO HAVE SIGNED UP TO NOT ONLY TRY TO HELP THEMSELVES BUT ALSO HELP SCIENCE PASS THE LEGACY TO OTHERS.

AND THAT CAN'T BE POSSIBLE IN TRADE SCHOOLS.

THAT CAN'T BE POSSIBLE IN PLACES THAT DON'T HAVE THAT LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE TO BE ABLE TO WORK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR THE GLOBE TO TRY TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES.

>> I MEAN, IT IS A DIRE SITUATION AND AMERICA APPEARS TO BE TOSSING OUT ALL ITS PREEMINENT SCIENCE RESEARCH AND FIRST PLACE IN THIS INCREDIBLE FIELD.

DR. KARI NADU, THANK YOU FOR BEING ON, AND GOOD LUCK TO YOU AND ALL THE PATIENTS.

>> THANK YOU.

> >> NEXT TO A MOVIE DIRECTOR WHO'S ATTAINED CULT STATUS FOR HIS OFFBEAT FILMS PAINTED IN GLORIOUS TECH COLOR.

WES ANDERSON CAPTURED THE WORLD'S ATTENTION IN 1998 AND SINCE THEN HE'S MADE BELOVED MODERN CLASSICS LIKE "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL", AND FANTASTIC MR. FOX.

EACH SHOT WITH HIS IDIOCRATTIC SENSE OF STYLE.

NOW HE'S BACK WITH A NEW MOVIE, THE VENETIAN SCHEME.

>> INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEME, MY MOST IMPORTANT PROJECT OF MY LIFETIME.

>> OUR OBJECTIVE, DISRUPTING, OBSTRUCTING, IMPEDING, QUARTERS ENTERPRISE IN ANY MANNER POSSIBLE.

>> GET THE HAND GRENADES.

>> WES ANDERSON JOINED ME FROM NEW YORK JUST AFTER THE MOVIE PREMIER.

WES ANDERSON, WELCOME TO OUR PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

>> PEOPLE HAVE NOW COME TO DESCRIBE YOUR FILMS AS SORT OF ANDERSONIAN, ANDERSONESQUE, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT?

DO YOU SEE THAT THERE IS A VISION AND A VISUAL AND AN AESTHETIC?

>> I HAVE TO SAY I DO.

I THINK --AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MOVIES --I THINK I'VE DONE 11 OR 12, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YOU KNOW, FOR ME, EVERY --WHEN I MAKE A NEW FILM, I'M THINKING OF IT AS A CLEAN SLATE, A FRESH START, NEW CHARACTERS, NEW STORY.

TO ME IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING.

BUT EVERY TIME I RELEASE A TRAILER FOR THE NEXT ONE, THE FIRST THING I HEAR IS YOU CAN TELL IT WAS ME IN THE FIRST TEN SECONDS.

AND I'VE HAD TO ACCEPT THAT THAT IS SIMPLY TRUE.

>> IS IT GOOD OR BAD?

>> IT'S NOT EXACTLY -- WELL, I THINK IT'S MORE LIKE HANDWRITING OR SOMETHING.

YOU KNOW, MY IDENTITY --I CAN'T CHANGE MY HANDWRITING.

IT'S JUST THE WAY IT COMES OUT WHEN I MOVE MY HAND, WHEN I MOVE MY PENCIL ACROSS THE PAPER.

AND I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I --EVEN THOUGH I'M TRYING TO MAKE DECISIONS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT EVERY TIME AND SURPRISE MYSELF AND ANYONE ELSE, I SORT OF ACCEPT THAT I HAVE A CERTAIN KIND OF VOICE THAT HAPPENS TO BE QUICKLY IDENTIFIABLE.

>> YEAH, YOU ALSO HAVE --ALSO IN QUITE A LOT OF THE SAME CHARACTERS, RIGHT?

I MEAN, YOU GO BACK TO PEOPLE LIKE TOM HANKS AND OTHERS.

I'M JUST SAYING TOM HANKS BECAUSE I JUST KIND OF RECOGNIZE HIM.

BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHERS.

WHY DO YOU DO THAT?

I'M REALLY FASCINATED BY THAT.

>> WELL, I ALWAYS LIKED --FROM WHEN I FIRST STARTED MAKING FILMS, WHICH IS A VERY LONG TIME AGO, I LIKED THE IDEA OF HAVING A SORT OF STOCK COMPANY LIKE A THEATER TROUPE.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT OF BERGMAN, YOU KNOW, WHO HAD THESE --THIS GROUP OF ACTORS.

OR SOMEONE LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, LIKE POWELL AND PRESSBURGER IN ENGLAND.

THERE ARE ACTORS WHO APPEAR AND REAPPEAR.

I ALWAYS LIKE THAT.

AND I LOVE THE START OF A MOVIE BEING A KIND OF REUNION.

THE OTHER THING IS OVER THE YEARS I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW AND WORK WITH A GOOD NUMBER OF MY VERY FAVORITE ACTORS.

SO THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR I ALREADY KNOW SO MANY OF MY FAVORITES.

I GO BACK TO THEM AND SEE IF I CAN LURE THEM IN AGAIN.

>> SO I SAID TOM HANKS, BUT IN THIS ONE YOU HAVE SCARLETT JOHANSSON, JEFFREY WRIGHT, ET CETERA.

YOU'VE WORKED WITH ALL OF THEM BEFORE.

LET'S JUST TALK QUICKLY ABOUT THE PLOT.

SO IT IS A FATHER/DAUGHTER STORY.

IT'S QUITE COMPLICATED, FILLED WITH ALL SORTS OF UNPREDICTABLE TWISTS AND TURNS.

BUT AT THE HEART OF IT, IT IS, AS I SAY, A FATHER AND A DAUGHTER BUILDING A RELATIONSHIP.

AND THIS LARGER THAN LIFE FATHER HAS ALL SONS EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE DAUGHTER.

AND AT ONE POINT HE SAYS YOU'RE GOING OR THE MY HEIR.

SO I'M GOING TO PLAY THIS CLIP, AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.

THE FATHER IS ZAZA QUARTER PLAYED BY BENICIO DEL TORO.

AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE DAUGHTER MIA IN A SECOND.

LET'S PLAY THIS CLIP.

>> I'VE APPOINTED YOU SOLE HEIR TO MY ESTATE.

PROVISIONALLY MANAGER OF MY AFFAIRS AFTER THE EVENT OF MY DEMISE ON A TRIAL BASIS.

>> WHY?

>> WHY WHAT?

>> WHY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER SINCE YOU SURVIVED AGAIN.

WHY AM I SOLE HEIR?

YOU HAVE EIGHT SONS AT LAST COUNT.

>> NINE SONS.

>> NINE SONS, WHAT ABOUT THEM?

>> THEY'RE NOT MY HEIRS.

>> WHY NOT?

>> I HAVE MY REASONS?

>> WHICH ARE WHAT?

>> MY REASONS?

I'M NOT SAYING.

I'M SAYING I'M NOT SAYING.

>> IT'S SO WES ANDERSON, OF COURSE, I WAS WRONG, SHE'S GORDON LEISL IN THE FILM, MIA IN REAL LIFE.

HAD SHE HAD A BODY OF WORK?

>> I SAW HER AUDITION A LITTLE QUICK TIME ON MY LAPTOP AMONG A THOUSAND OTHER AUDITIONS FOR THIS ROLE.

AND SHE WAS --IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WE'D GIVEN THEM, EACH ACTRESS AUDITIONING, WE'D GIVEN THEM A SCENE WE PREPARED.

THE SORT OF SCENE THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE WHAT'S IN THE MOVIE TO PLAY THE CHARACTER.

AND SHE MADE --IT SEEMED LIKE SHE WAS --IT SEEMED LIKE A DOCUMENTARY.

IT SEEMED LIKE JUST DOCUMENTARY FOOTAGE.

TOTALLY AUTHENTIC.

AND I DIDN'T KNOW HER, ANY FAMILY CONNECTION.

I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HER AT ALL.

I JUST SAW THIS LITTLE CLIP.

BUT I BASICALLY WATCHED IT AND THOUGHT, I THINK WE MAY BE ABLE TO SHUT DOWN OUR SEARCH RIGHT NOW.

I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE HER.

AND WHEN I INTRODUCED HER TO BENICIO DEL TORO, THE TWO OF THEM TOGETHER HAD SOMETHING JUST CHEMICAL INSTANTLY THAT I THOUGHT, WELL, LET'S FILM THAT.

>> SO AM I RIGHT, IS IT A FATHER/DAUGHTER STORY?

WHAT IS YOUR VISION ABOUT THIS FILM?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING LIKE WHEN YOU'RE --WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER A WORK OF JOURNALISM, YOU'RE GATHERING ALL YOUR FACTS AND INFORMATION AND IMPRESSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS AND ORDERING THEM INTO SOMETHING THAT'S HISTORIC.

AND I THINK THE SAME THING HAPPENS WHEN YOU WRITE A FICTIONAL MOVIE EXCEPT YOU'RE -- THERE'S NO FACT CHECKER AND YOU USE YOUR IMAGINATION.

AND YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE IT'S ALL COMING FROM.

I'D FIND I DON'T KNOW MY INTENTIONS FOR THE STORY, IT SORT OF REVEALS ITSELF AS IT GOES ALONG.

THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENS FOR ME ANYWAY.

AND THIS MOVIE, I THOUGHT, WAS A MOVIE ABOUT A BUSINESSMAN AND HIS GRAND VENTURE THAT HE'S UNDERTAKING AND THIS SORT OF BRUTALITY OF THIS VERY RICH MAN, BENICIO.

BUT SOMEHOW THE STORY LED US IN ANOTHER DIRECTION AND THERE WAS A LAYER TO THIS CHARACTER THAT I SORT OF HADN'T ANTICIPATED.

AND IT BECAME, I THINK, THE CENTER OF THE MOVIE IS ENTIRELY WHAT YOU DESCRIBE, IT'S A FATHER/DAUGHTER STORY.

AND HIS BUSINESS PLAN THAT IS WILDLY COMPLEX IS ALMOST A RITUAL FOR HIM TO GET BACK TOGETHER WITH HER.

THEY'VE BEEN ESTRANGED FOR MANY YEARS.

>> AND I, YOU KNOW, I EMITTED TO MENTION, BECAUSE IN THAT SCENE SHE IS WEARING A NUN'S HABIT.

SHE'S A NOVICE.

SHE WANTS TO BE A NUN.

I ASSUME THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ESTRANGED.

SO TELL US WHY.

>> THERE'S A SORT OF BIBLICAL MOTIF THROUGHOUT THIS FILM.

YOU KNOW, THIS CHARACTER, HE KEEPS GETTING KILLED.

YOU KNOW, HE --THERE'S A SERIES OF ALMOST SUCCESSFUL ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS.

AND HE'S CONFRONTING HIS OWN DEATH AGAIN AND AGAIN AND IT BEGINS TO CHANGE HIM.

AND SO ANYWAY, THERE'S A SORT OF BIBLICAL ELEMENT TO THE FILM AND PART OF THAT IS HIS DAUGHTER WHO'S BEEN IN A SWISS CONVENT ALL THIS TIME.

SHE'S DEEPLY --SHE'S A DEVOUT GIRL, WHICH HE IS NOT.

HE IS AN ATHEIST.

BUT ANYWAY, THEIR BELIEFS AND THEIR OWN SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVES ARE A BIG PART OF THE STORY THAT UNFOLDS.

>> IN THIS SCENE, A SWEDISH SHOOTER, PLAYED BY MICHAEL CERA, HE MAKES AN UNFORTUNATE DISCOVERY ON ZAZA'S PRIVATE PLANE.

>> IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE?

IT WAS UNDER THE LUNCH TROLLEY.

>> OH DEAR.

>> HOW MUCH TIME DOES IT SAY?

>> 18 MINUTES.

>> PERFECTLY FINE.

WE LAND IN TEN.

MYSELF, I FEEL VERY SAFE.

>> WES, MY HEAD IS ALL OVER THE PLACE TODAY.

I'VE JUST FLOWN OWN THE RED EYE, SO I SAID SWEDISH, HE'S NORWEGIAN.

IT'S COOL, HE'S IN CONTROL.

>> SAME THING.

>> DON'T TELL THEM THAT.

ANYWAY, THAT'S A REALLY COOL SCENE.

I WANT TO ASK YOU, THOUGH, YOU TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE MOTIF AND THE RELATIONSHIPS.

AND I NOTICED THAT THE FILM IS DEDICATED TO YOUR FATHER-IN-LAW, TO THE MEMORY OF YOUR FATHER-IN-LAW.

IS HE AN INSPIRATION FOR ZAZA?

AND ALSO IS CONFRONTING THIS SORT OF NEAR DEATH BY ZAZA ALL THE TIME, IS IT THE WAY YOU'RE SORT OF EXPLORING DEATH?

>> WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION IS PROBABLY YES.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'M 56, AND THE NUMBER OF FRIENDS WHO'VE DIED IN THE LAST 15 YEARS IS JUST THEY'RE ONE AFTER ANOTHER.

INCLUDING BOTH PARENTS.

SO IT'S ON MY MIND.

>> IT WAS ALSO DEDICATED TO YOUR FATHER-IN-LAW, THE MEMORY OF YOUR FATHER-IN-LAW, WHO ALSO IS DECEASED, OBVIOUSLY.

>> YES, SORRY.

FOR A WHILE MY WIFE'S FATHER, HE --YOU KNOW, THE CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE IS AT LEAST AT THE START OF THE MOVIE, HE'S SOMEONE WHO PRESENTS HIMSELF AS COMPLETELY WITHOUT ETHICS AND HE'S RUTHLESS.

AND MY FATHER-IN-LAW WAS NOT LIKE THAT.

HE WAS GENTLE.

HE WAS WISE.

HE WAS AN ENGINEER AND A BUSINESSMAN.

BUT HE WAS INTIMIDATING.

THE INSTANT YOU LAID EYES ON HIM.

HE WAS A GOOD PERSON TO WALK INTO A RESTAURANT WITH, BECAUSE EVERY --IT CHANGED THE MOOD.

YOU GOT SPECIAL ATTENTION JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE SCARED OF HIM.

AND HIS PERSONALITY SOMEHOW STARTED TO GO MORE AND MORE INTO THIS CHARACTER BECAUSE I LOVED HIM AND I LOOKED UP TO HIM.

AND I ENJOYED HIM FROM THE FIRST TEN SECONDS AFTER I MET HIM.

HE DIED, I GUESS, IT'S ABOUT TWO, TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO.

BUT ANYWAY, HE WAS THIS VERY SPECIAL PERSON.

AND SOMEHOW BY THE END OF IT I THOUGHT THIS MOVIE I HAVE TO DEDICATE IT TO HIM BECAUSE HE'S THE INSPIRATION.

>> YEAH.

LET ME ASK YOU FINALLY, HOW HAVE YOUR ANIMATED MOVIES INFLUENCED YOUR LIVE ACTION FILMS?

WHAT'S THE SORT OF PROCESS?

>> YES, WELL, I, YOU KNOW, I MADE AN ANIMATED ROALD DAHL, FANTASTIC MR. FOX.

AND I'D NEVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THAT BEFORE.

WE MADE IT IN ENGLAND, AND I HAD A WHOLE NEW GROUP OF COLLABORATORS.

AND I SAW THIS PROCESS OF HOW THE MOVIE IS PREPARED.

HOW YOU PREPARE FOR THE ANIMATORS TO DO THEIR WORK.

IT'S QUITE CAREFUL.

AND IT CHANGED MY WAY OF WORKING IN LIVE ACTION TOO BECAUSE I KIND OF SAW HOW I COULD MAKE, I THINK, FEWER MISTAKES.

HOW I COULD BE A LITTLE MORE METICULOUSLY PREPARED FOR A MOVIE SHOOT, WHICH IS A GIANT THING IN A WAY.

AND SO I, YOU KNOW, FOR ME IT MADE IT MORE FUN TO MAKE MOVIES USING SOME OF THOSE TECHNIQUES.

AND IT ALSO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT --I MEAN, THERE ARE SIDE EFFECTS, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF I FULLY, TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.

I THINK IT CHANGED THINGS ABOUT CONTROL IN MY MOVIES MAYBE AS WELL.

BUT ANYWAY, I THINK EVERY TIME --FOR ME EVERY TIME I MAKE A MOVIE I GAIN SOME NEW COLLABORATORS WHO WILL COME WITH ME SOMEWHERE, AND I PICK UP SOME NEW SORT OF METHODS AND TECHNIQUES THAT WE'LL SEE IF WE USE AGAIN.

>> AMAZING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WES ANDERSON, GREAT TO TALK TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MY PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

>> IN SELECT AMERICAN THEATERS TOMORROW AND THEATERS EVERYWHERE ON JUNE 6th.

IT'S ALREADY OUT HERE IN THE UK.

> >> IT'S ONE STEP FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S AGENDA.

A COURT HAS BLOCKED HIS CONTROVERSIAL TARIFFS.

WHILE HIS MASSIVE BUDGET PACKAGE THAT HE'S DUBBED THE BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL HAS PASSED, IT PASSED THE HOUSE LAST WEEK.

BLAKE MOORE, A REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH, WAS A KEY FIGURE IN SHAPING THAT LEGISLATION, AND HE'S JOINING WALTER ISAACSON TO TALK ABOUT HIS PRIORITIES AND THE CRITICS WHO SAY IT FAVORS THE WEALTHY AND EXPANDS THE DEFICIT.

AND A NOTE THAT THE TWO SPOKE JUST BEFORE THE COURT'S DECISION ON TARIFFS AND ALSO JUST BEFORE ELON MUSK'S EXIT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TEND, HE SAYS, TO HIS AILING TESLA COMPANY.

>> THANK YOU AND WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU, GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> CONGRESS JUST PASSED THIS PAST WEEK OR SO A BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL AS TRUMP CALLED IT.

BUT NOW IT'S GETTING A LOT OF CRITICISM AND EVEN ELON MUSK HAS COME OUT AGAINST IT.

SENATOR RON JOHNSON, REPUBLICAN IN THE SENATE, SAYING IT WILL GREATLY INCREASE THE DEFICIT.

IS THAT TRUE, WOULD THIS BILL GREATLY INCREASE THE DEFICIT?

>> THERE IS ONE MAJOR STIPULATION --I'M A MEMBER OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, SO I'VE BEEN VERY BUSY THE LAST SIX MONTHS AND EVEN LONGER THAN THAT.

THE CRITICISM THAT WILL INCREASE THE DEFICIT IS THE FACT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE LARGE DEFICITS.

THIS PARTICULAR BILL IS ACTUALLY DEFICIT NEUTRAL, AND WE REQUIRED THAT FROM THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WITH WHATEVER SORT OF COMPETITIVE TAX RATES THAT WE ALLOW FOR.

THERE'S A COST TO THAT.

BUT WE'VE OFFSET THAT COMPLETELY WITH A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AS WELL AS SPENDING CUTS TO OFFSET THE TWO.

I WISH WE WERE SOLVING OUR DEFICIT PROBLEMS.

THAT'S A LONGER TERM FIX.

THAT HAS TO BE ALMOST A BIPARTISAN APPROACH.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR BILL IS DEFICIT NEUTRAL AND THE WAY THAT IT'S BEEN WRITTEN, TO SAY OTHERWISE ISN'T ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE SPECIFICS OF YOUR ASSUMED GROWTH RATE.

WE THINK THAT THIS ECONOMY WILL DO VERY WELL WITH TAX COMPETITIVE TAX RATES THAT ARE MADE PERMANENT, AND WE WILL SEE SUSTAINED ECONOMIC GROWTH AT AT LEAST THE 2.

5%, 2.

6%.

WE THINK WE'LL EXCEED THAT.

>> THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SAID IT WOULD ADD ABOUT $2 TRILLION.

TELL ME WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEIR CALCULATIONS.

>> SO WE'VE SEEN ACTUALLY FROM 2017 WHEN THE TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT TOOK PLACE THE CBO DIDN'T NECESSARILY WITHIN A DYNAMIC SCORING --IF YOU LOOK AT A DYNAMIC SCORING OPPORTUNITY, YOU SEE ECONOMIC GROWTH SWALLOW ANY PARTICULAR POTENTIAL OF DEFICITS THEY CREATED.

OUR REVENUES HAVE NOT DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY IN ANY WAY SINCE WE DID MAJOR TAX REFORM IN 2017.

THIS BILL, WE WANT TO ACTUALLY MAKE A LOT OF THAT PERMANENT, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN VERY GOOD FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES.

AND ANY NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ASSUME AN ECONOMIC GROWTH FACTOR INTO THIS WHERE WE THINK OVER TIME WE'VE PROVEN THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.

>> ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL IS SOMETHING THAT YOU PUSH, WHICH IS SOMETIMES CALLED THE TRUMP ACCOUNTS BUT IS BASICALLY A CREDIT FOR CHILDREN, BONDS FOR CHILDREN.

TELL ME WHY THAT'S IN THE BILL AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO.

>> YEAH, THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT.

THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN A BIPARTISAN DISCUSSION FOR MANY YEARS.

AND AN ORGANIZATION HAS NAMED THIS --THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED INVEST AMERICA, SO YOU CAN SEE IT ALREADY EXISTING IN A LOT OF SPACES NAMED THAT.

THIS BECAME PART OF THIS BILL BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE INVESTING IN AMERICA'S YOUTH, AND WE WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF COMPOUNDING INTEREST.

ANY BUSINESS SAVVY INDIVIDUAL KNOWS THAT IF YOU INVEST EARLY, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A BETTER YIELD LATER ON.

IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO LIKE A 529 ACCOUNT JUST FOR EDUCATION, BUT WE'RE EXPANDING IT OUT SO THEY CAN USE IT FOR LATER IN THEIR LIFE AS WELL.

IT'S A VERY SIMPLE INVESTMENT INTO EACH CHILD BORN FOR THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, $1,000.

THEY'RE GOING TO GET AN ACCOUNT THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH, LET'S CALL IT THE S&P OR OTHER TYPES OF INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES, AND THEY'RE GOING TO WATCH THAT GROW.

THEY CAN ADD TO IT.

FAMILY MEMBERS CAN ADD TO IT.

COMPANIES ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THIS ACCOUNT YOU HAVE, AND WE'LL SEE IT GROW OVER TIME.

I HAVE REAL CONCERNS WITH, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE NEXT DECADE THE SOCIAL SECURITY HAVING SOME SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH THE TRUST FUND THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

WE WANT THERE TO BE AN INVESTMENT EARLIER IN FOLK'S LIVES TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT LATER WHEN THEY DEFINITELY NEED THAT.

>> AND YOU SAY THIS IS A BIPARTISAN IDEA, THESE BABY BONDS.

I THINK SENATOR CORY BOOKER PUSHED THEM AT ONE POINT, SENATOR JOSH HAWLEY, A REPUBLICAN FROM MISSOURI HAS ALSO BEEN PUSHING IT.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S TRADITIONALLY BEEN PART OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEXICON, DO YOU THINK THERE'S A SHIFT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NOW TO THINGS LIKE THIS?

>> I THINK THIS BEARS OUT THAT THAT'S PROOF OF THE CASE THAT WE'RE THINKING MORE ABOUT THE NEXT GENERATION.

SO I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT.

WE ALWAYS BELIEVE IN, YOU KNOW, INVESTING EARLY AND WATCHING IT GROW OVER TIME.

AND I'M --I LOVE THAT WE HAVE A CATALYST RIGHT NOW.

LOOK, THIS IS, LIKE I MENTIONED, A BIPARTISAN CONCEPT.

GETTING INCLUDED INTO A LARGELY REPUBLICAN RECONCILIATION BILL, I DON'T EXPECT ANY DEMOCRATS TO VOTE FOR THIS BILL JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY WASHINGTON WORKS.

BUT THE FACT THAT WE CAN GET IT ENACTED AND BUILD ON THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT THIS HAS HAD I THINK SHOWS THAT IT HAS A REALLY STRONG FUTURE.

>> THE MAJOR CUTS IN THIS BIG BILL THAT JUST PASSED THE HOUSE, WE'RE IN MEDICAID AND SNAP, YOU KNOW, FOOD STAMPS, FOOD SECURITY.

ARE YOU WORRIED THAT THE BILL LOOKS LIKE AND IN FACT DOES PUT A WHOLE LOT OF THE BURDEN ON THE POOR IN MAKING THESE CUTS?

>> NO, WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH RESPECT TO MEDICAID AND THESE PROGRAMS IS, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T OFTEN GET A CHANCE TO VOTE ON IMPROVING THESE TYPES OF PROGRAMS, RIGHT?

THESE FALL INTO WHAT YOU CALL THE MANDATORY SPENDING BUDGET SIDE.

AND THOSE DON'T HAVE AN ANNUAL BILL THAT YOU VOTE ON THESE EVERY YEAR.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO MAKE SOME REFORMS TO MEDICAID TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A STRONGER PROGRAM.

ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE AMONG THE TRADITIONAL POPULATION, THOSE THAT ARE -- THOSE THAT ARE CHILDREN OF POVERTY, SINGLE MOTHERS, DISABLED FOLKS, ELDERLY FOLKS THAT ARE IN A CERTAIN LOWER INCOME LEVEL.

LIKE THAT'S THE TRADITIONAL POPULATION WE WANT TO PRESERVE.

AND WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS BILL IS SIMPLY SAYING, HEY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEANING UP THE ROLES SO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS A PROGRAM DESIGNED FOR U. S. CITIZENS.

AND SECOND, WE WANT TO ESTABLISH THE EXPECTATION TO HAVE A WORK REQUIREMENT OR VOLUNTEER REQUIREMENT AS A PART OF THIS BENEFIT.

AND YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M HEARING FROM FOLKS IS, HEY, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CONCERNS BECAUSE THERE'S SOME PAPERWORK BURDEN AND THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.

BUT THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN PROBLEM.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE POLICY IDEA TO SAY, HEY, WE NEED FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO WORK LESS THAN 20 HOURS A WEEK, SHOW THEY'RE DOING THAT, AND THEN THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THIS PROGRAM.

WE HOPE THAT VERY, VERY FEW PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR MEDICAID COVERAGE FROM THIS LEGISLATION, AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING IT IN A WAY THAT'S RESPONSIBLE THAT ADD WORK REQUIREMENTS.

THAT AS A CONCEPT HAS BEEN VERY POPULAR, AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PAPERWORK PROCESS IS SUCH THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS OKAY.

BUT IT IS NOT SOME MASSIVE CUT THAT IS GOING IN THIS BILL.

THIS IS A WAY TO STRENGTHEN THE PROGRAM FOR THOSE THAT NEED IT MOST.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID THAT THIS COULD BE IMPROVED IN THE SENATE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS HE'S TALKED ABOUT IS THAT YOU ACTUALLY COULD HELP WITH THE DEFICIT ISSUE BY RAISING TAXES A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE RICH.

THIS IS HIS OWN FORMULATION.

I THINK WHAT HE SAID WAS --THIS IS ON MAY 9th --HE SAID, I WOULD LOVE TO DO IT, FRANKLY.

WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS GIVING UP SOMETHING ON TOP IN ORDER TO MAKE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE INCOME AND LOWER INCOME BRACKET SAVE MORE.

DO YOU THINK ON THINGS LIKE CARRIED INTEREST CREDIT FOR PEOPLE IN PRIVATE EQUITY, THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE ARE TWEAKS THAT CAN BE DONE TO RAISE TAXES MORE ON THE WEALTHY?

>> SO YOU BRING UP CARRIED INTEREST.

THE BIG CONCERN WITH REDUCING OR ADDRESSING CARRIED INTEREST WAS WE MADE CHANGES TO IT IN 2017 I THOUGHT HAVE HAD SURVIVABILITY.

THE MORE YOU DO IT, THE MORE OPPORTUNITY YOU TAKE AWAY FOR INVESTMENT.

IF YOU HAVE LESS INVESTMENT, YOU HAVE LESS ECONOMIC GROWTH.

AND IT GOES DOWN THIS WHOLE ROAD.

I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO HAVE A DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUE OF MINE TELL ME WHAT IS THEIR FAIR SHARE.

THEY ALWAYS SAY, OH, THE WEALTHY RESPECT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE, NO ONE'S BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT TRUMP'S PROPOSAL THAT WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO IT ON CARRIED INTEREST, WHICH HE SAID HE MIGHT BE WILLING TO, OR STEVE BANNON ON HIS PODCAST JUST SAYING THERE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE RAISED.

>> YEAH, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE OPPORTUNITIES, THINGS THAT CAN BE RAISED.

LOOK, WE'VE ACTUALLY GOTTEN CRITICIZED A LOT FROM SOME OF THE WEALTHIER INDIVIDUALS IN OUR ECONOMY BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THIS TAX BILL.

LIKE I SAID, WE PRIORITIZED MIDDLE AND LOWER INCOME AMERICANS ALREADY WITH MOST OF THE PROVISIONS.

YOU CAN CONTINUE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD, BUT I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT IS THEIR FAIR SHARE, LIKE TOP 10% OF EARNERS PAY OVER APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THE ENTIRE TAX BILL?

I MEAN -- >> HOW WOULD YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

>> AT WHAT POINT IS THE FAIR SHARE?

THERE'S ALREADY A SIGNIFICANTLY PROGRESSIVE TAX CODE THAT THE WEALTHY PAY A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF OUR TAXES.

SO YOU CAN ALWAYS INCREASE IT, BUT AT WHAT POINT WILL YOU ACTUALLY DECREASE INVESTMENT AND MORE ECONOMIC GROWTH, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.

>> WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

>> MY ANSWER IS WE FOUND A REALLY GOOD APPROACH TO WHAT WE PASSED OUT OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN KEEP LARGELY THIS IN TACT FOR GOING FORWARD.

>> WHAT IS YOUR FEELING ABOUT MOODY'S DOWNGRADING THE CREDIT RATING AND THE SENSE THAT MAYBE THE DEFICIT COULD BE KEEPING INTEREST RATES HIGH AND HURTING OUR CREDIT RATING?

>> SO WE HAVE ALMOST A $2 TRILLION DEFICIT, AND THAT HAS GROWN SINCE THE EARLY 2000s, OVER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATIONS.

SO THIS BILL IS A DEFICIT-NEUTRAL BILL.

I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO FIND WAYS TO CUT MORE FROM THE DEFICIT.

AND I THINK THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS TRYING TO FIND EVERY AREA POSSIBLE TO FIND CUTS AND POTENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH.

WE CAN CREATE ECONOMIC GROWTH THAT CREATES MORE REVENUE WITH TAX POLICY, BUT YOU CAN ALSO DO IT WITH REGULATORY POLICY AS WELL.

AND YOU'LL ALWAYS SEE THAT FROM A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION.

SO YES, WE DO NEED TO BE CUTTING THE DEFICIT MORE.

LAST CONGRESS WE HAD A DEBT COMMISSION THAT WE PASSED OUT OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.

DEMOCRATS ALMOST --YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A HANDFUL OF VERY BRAVE, SMART, THOUGHTFUL DEMOCRATS WILLING TO SIGN ON TO THAT LEGISLATION.

BUT OVERALL THEY SAID, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS.

THEY CATEGORICALLY REJECTED IT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE.

WHY ARE YOU REJECTING IT NOW?

YOU ALSO SEE OTHER GROUPS THAT OPPOSE IT EVEN FROM THE RIGHT.

LIKE IT BECOMES TOUGH WHEN YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY CUT DEFICITS.

BUT IF WE CONTINUE TO RUN $2 TRILLION DEFICITS YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT, AND AFTER COVID, THAT EXPANDED IT SIGNIFICANTLY.

YES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES WITH OUR BOND RATING.

AND WE NEED TO BE WILLING TO CARVE IT OUT.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL IS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE STRONG ECONOMIC GROWTH.

IF WE DON'T CONTINUE TO HAVE STRONG GDP, THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S REALLY NO CHANCE TO EVER BE ABLE TO CUT AND TRIM OUR DEFICITS.

IF WE DON'T HAVE STRONG ECONOMIC GROWTH.

IF YOU WANT TO JUST GO AND OVERLY TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX AND MAKE A SIGNIFICANT BURDEN ON COMPANIES LIKE WE WERE PRIOR TO 2017, THEN WE'RE ULTIMATELY GOING TO HAVE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CUT OUR DEFICITS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ECONOMIC GROWTH IS A MAJOR FACTOR, IS A PART OF THAT EQUATION, AND IT DOESN'T END WELL.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ELON MUSK HAS CRITICIZED THIS BILL FOR IS THAT IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO TRY TO ENACT SOME OF THE DOGE, THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, CUTS HE TRIED TO MAKE.

I UNDERSTAND ON A BILL LIKE THIS IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO WITH, YOU KNOW, DISCRETIONARY SPENDING THAT EASY.

THERE'S ALL SORTS OF TECHNICALITIES OR DECISIONS, BILL MAY HAVE TO COME DOWN THE PIKE.

BUT ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE THE CUTS THAT WERE DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY OR HAS THAT ALL GONE BY THE WAYSIDE?

>> THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL, THIS RECONCILIATION BILL, THERE'S A LOT OF RULES AND THINGS THAT HAVE TO GO WITHIN A PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

AND A LOT OF THINGS WITHIN THE DISCRETIONARY SIDE, THE DEBT CANNOT QUALIFY FOR IT.

SOCIAL SECURITY CAN'T QUALIFY FOR IT.

THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN DO IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL.

BUT A PACKAGE, WE'RE VERY HOPEFUL THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WILL WORK WITH US ON SENDING US OVER A RESCISSIONS PACKAGE BECAUSE THAT ACTUALLY IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.

YOU DO NOT NEED A 60-VOTE THRESHOLD IN THE SENATE.

I THINK A LOT OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE CHECKED OUT, ANYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT.

EVEN IF IT'S A SMART TYPE OF REDUCTION IN SPENDING.

HOPEFULLY THAT CHANGES OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

MOST OF THIS WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE APPROPRIATIONS WORLD, AND THAT IS WHAT COMES NEXT.

AS SOON AS WE GET THIS BILL DONE, WE HAVE AN APPROPRIATION CYCLE WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN FIND SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

EVEN IF WE DON'T RESCIND THOSE --LIKE PULL THAT MONEY BACK, YOU CAN HOPEFULLY TRANSFER IT TO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

THERE'S A SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WILL HAVE EXTRA MONEY TOWARDS THE FOURTH QUARTER AND THEY'LL USE IT UP JUST BECAUSE --IF YOU STRAIN THAT --NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

THERE'S ALL SORTS OF WAYS TO DO THIS.

I'M HOPEFUL WE WILL SEE A RESCISSIONS PACKAGE COMING UP AS WELL.

>> YOU WERE PART OF A CAUCUS IN CONGRESS CALLED THE DOGE CAUCUS, AND I SAW THAT CONGRESSMAN JARRED MOSCOWITZ, A DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, SAID WE HAVEN'T MET IN MONTHS, IT'S BEEN A COMPLETE FAILURE.

IS IT TRUE YOU HAVEN'T BEEN MEET SOMETHING.

>> WE WERE HOPING THE WHITE HOUSE, THE DOGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE, IT WAS LED BY --THAT TEAM WAS GOING TO BE MORE ENGAGING WITH US.

WE HAVEN'T HAD MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE.

WE MET IN DECEMBER, AND WE HAD A REALLY GOOD CONNECTION A REALLY STRONG OUTLOOK AND POTENTIAL.

THEY GOT BUSY IN THEIR SILO AND WE GOT BUSY DOING THE RECONCILIATION BILL.

THE CAUCUS IS STILL FORMED, THERE ARE STILL OPPORTUNITIES AS IT BECOMES A LEGISLATIVE OPPORTUNITY.

RIGHT NOW THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE, THEY WENT AND DID THEIR SILOED WORK AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AS SOME OF THOSE RESCISSIONS ARE --BECOME A POTENTIAL TO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, ENACT LEGISLATION.

THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE'LL BE DOING.

SO IT'S FAIR CRITICISM BY JARRED.

HE'S A GOOD FRIEND.

AND I REALLY APPRECIATED HIS INVOLVEMENT ON THIS.

AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN, AS IT BECOMES A LEGISLATIVE OPPORTUNITY, DO MORE WORK THERE.

>> YOU'VE BEEN AN ADVOCATE OF A MORE TARGETED APPROACH TO TARIFFS.

GIVE ME YOUR IMPRESSION OF THE TARIFF THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING NOW AND WHETHER THE ON AGAIN, OFF AGAIN --I CAN NEVER, I HAVE TO GET UP IN THE MORNING TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONES ARE ON, WHICH ONES ARE DELAYED.

>> AS DO I.

>> YOU SAY THAT, IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR THE ECONOMY WHEN WE DON'T GET UP IN THE MORNING AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S ON AND OFF ON TARIFFS?

AND IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO DO THAT?

>> SO ABSOLUTELY, I LOVE THIS QUESTION BEING ABLE TO ENGAGE ON THIS.

I'M A MEMBER OF THE TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, AND I RECENTLY SHARED MY THOUGHTS WITH THE AMBASSADOR OVER AT THE USTR.

AND I SAID, LOOK, THINK OF THE GOOD WORK THAT THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID WITH RESPECT TO 301 TARIFFS, LARGELY DIRECTED AT CHINA.

AND THOSE --THAT WORK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THEN EXISTED THROUGH AN ENTIRE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WITHOUT ANY CHANGES.

THAT'S HOW YOU KNOW YOU'VE DONE SMART, GOOD, SOUND, LONG LASTING POLICY.

AND IT WASN'T EVEN CODIFIED IN LEGISLATION.

IT WAS CODIFIED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER.

THAT IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE AND LOOK AT THAT AREA WHERE YOU COULD IMPROVE ON THAT AND DEAL WITH DOMI INIM NIMUS.

THAT'S A LOT OF THE WORK I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

I'M GREAT IF TARIFFS ARE USED TO HELP US GET NONTARIFF BARRIERS OUT OF THE WAY, GET INTO BETTER NEGOTIATIONS WITH SOME OF OUR ALLIES, OUR TRADING PARTNERS ACROSS THE WORLD.

BUT NO, I DON'T LIKE THE TURMOIL AND THE CONSTANT BACK AND FORTH, CONSTANT BACK AND FORTH.

I HOPE THAT'S JUST FOR A MOMENT.

LONG-TERM HIGH TARIFFS AS ECONOMIC POLICY MOVING FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT ON OUR ECONOMY.

THAT WOULD --THAT EVENTUALLY WOULD RAISE PRICES.

BUT WE HAVE BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.

SO WE NEED TO DO SOME OF THIS TYPE OF STUFF.

AND I'M HOPEFUL AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CAN GET TO THE RIGHT SPOT.

AND HOPEFULLY SOONER THAN LATER.

>> CONGRESSMAN BLAKE MOORE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

> >> AND FINALLY TONIGHT, A TRIBUTE TO AN AFRICAN LITERARY GIANT.

NGUGI WA THIONG'O, THE TRAIL BLAZING KENYAN AUTHOR AND ACTIVIST WHO GAVE VOICE TO THE STRUGGLES OF POST COLONIAL AFRICA HAS DIED AT 87.

LIVING IN SELF-IMPOSED EXILE DUE TO FEARS FOR HIS SAFETY, NGUGI WROTE HIS LANDMARK NOVEL DEVIL ON THE CROSS ON PRISON TOILET PAPER WHILE DETAINED FOR A YEAR WITHOUT TRIAL SIMPLY BECAUSE OF A PLAY HE WROTE.

HIS WORKS, INCLUDING WEEP NOT CHILD, INSPIRED GENERATIONS AND CHALLENGED THE LEGACY OF COLONIALISM.

A FEARLESS STORYTELLER WHO'LL BE REMEMBERED FOR HIS UNWAVERING BELIEF IN THE POWER OF WORDS.

AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP EVERY NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.

ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANKS FOR WATCHING AND SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT.