Hello and welcome to World Today.
I'm Jiaoying. Coming up, a US court has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs.
So what happens next and how might it reshape his trade strategy?
Russia has proposed a second round of direct talks with Ukraine in Istanbul.
Are we inching closer to a ceasefire?
The Trump administration says it will aggressively revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the U .S. But how far will the crackdowns go and who will be affected?
A U .S. federal court has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs.
The court of international trade found that the president did not have the authority to use the emergency economic powers legislation that is cited to impose tariffs on nearly every country.
The court said the U .S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive powers to regulate commerce with other countries.
The Trump administration has lodged an appeal.
For more, we are joined by Dr. Zhou Mi, senior research fellow with Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
How significant is this court ruling and what does it mean for the Trump administration's trade policy going forward?
I think it's a very important signal that not only the market but also the legal system of United States is trying to stop some kind of maybe in -scene actions by Donald Trump.
I think it's really an important message.
We have to understand that the market is trying to see that the violation of this authorization of the United States president is kind of a very serious impacts on the order.
And they want to stop that.
So no matter from the market views or from the judges views, I think they believe that there may be a lot of unreasonable and not proper way of United States actions on the tariffs as they believe.
Yes, so does this ruling also indicate growing judicial resistance to the idea of sweeping executive power, and could it set a broader precedent for limiting the presidential power under emergency acts?
I don't think that Donald Trump will accept this judgment so easily.
Actually, there are still a lot of fights among the administrations and also the legal system of the United States.
I mean, Donald Trump also wants trying to use its assortation as he believes.
It is proper and right to do that.
So before this statement or the judge by this court, Donald Trump and his team has already mentioned that the kind of message will be kind of a very important act to weaken his power in negotiating with other trading partners.
So, this may be given came our little bit confused about what they can do in the coming years, but they still are not so certain as we have to see that the legal requirements of United States have different stages.
So, Donald Trump and his team, we are still trying to use this kind of actions or requirements to trying to fight against that the charge decisions.
and I believe that we still need some more time to to find out what will happen after this ruling.
Yeah, as you said, the Trump administration has already filed an appeal, but what do you think are the chances of this ruling being overturned?
Yeah, it's unlikely to just overturn the, you know, the whole judgment, but maybe there will be some discussion about whether it is proper to decide these kind of actions in such a time because the United States has already issued some of the signals to negotiate with other countries.
If you are looking at the laws making authorities the Congress, the Congress still have a very strong position to support Donald Trump's actions for quite a lot of congressmen.
So, there will be still some, you know, unsettled problems, whether it is abuse of the authorities or whether it is only just the extension of these ideas.
As we can find from the explanation of the ruling, the judge is trying to see that in the circumstances when IITA, the restoration act was issued, you know, the people, the The president will try to use it to act like this.
So in the previous decades, no president has ever done this before.
So it is kind of not just agree with the intention of making that law, where on the other side, the IEEPA is also trying to decide what kind of thing is an emergence.
So they don't believe that such kind of just the deficit issues is an emergence because It has existed there for decades.
So there are so many unsettled problems. Maybe they were still trying to discuss about whether it is right to see that right now or about the you know, the oscillations, whether it is proper.
Yeah. And we see the global markets, including US stock futures and Asian indices, reacted positively to the ruling.
Why do you think investors are responding in this way?
Yeah, I think that is a message that many of the investors hope to have in such a long time because the so -called reciprocal tariffs are rarely violating the order of the trade.
And the exporters, the importers, they cannot just continue their businesses as before.
So they want some people or some kind of an authorization to stop these actions by Donald Trump.
But you know, such a very important legal ruling is kind of a very important message that markets really like to have. So they want this rule to be effective, especially from its trading partners.
So I think that it is still true that some of the people who are supporting Donald Trump will still see this is proper of him to do that.
But I don't causing a kind of message that most of these world's, like the trading partners want to have. So from these actions or the attitude, I think that they really hope this ruling can stop those kind of things that Donald Trump has practiced for over a month.
Yeah, but the ruling doesn't impact the tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars, which were imposed under different legal authorities.
So how significant are these remaining tariffs compared to the so -called liberation day tariffs?
Well, it is true that, you know, those tariffs are important for many of these trading partners of the United States, especially Canada, Mexico and the EU.
So no matter on the steel and the luminums or the autos, I think those two or three tariffs are really hurting with people doing business.
because the manufacturing depends on these kinds of very important raw materials.
And the automobiles are playing an important role in the transportation and the consumption structure of the consumers.
So I think that these existing tariffs or on challenging the tariffs are still there.
And maybe I'm afraid that Donald Trump is trying to spread the coverage of the 232 tariffs tariffs to many other areas including the semiconductors or other raw materials including the copper.
So that is still very dangerous for him to use the tariffs to trying to block the international trade.
I think that is not only for those auctions or trade in these raw materials, but also to pass on those costs to increase to the following supply chains including the manufacturing even the vehicles, buildings and some of the airplanes and other, even the ships.
So these are really fundamental errors of the problems we have to address.
And I think that's the way that the world is trying to react accordingly based on these additional costs.
How can they react in the proper way?
These are really a challenge for all of us.
Right. So is this decision likely to impact the Trump administration's ongoing trade negotiations with the EU, China or other partners?
Definitely. It means that all of these trading partners or negotiators will wait because they want to know what's the reaction of Donald Trump and whether he will follow the ruling or there will be some other parameters or the changes.
So according to the negotiation, I think that a lot of countries or treaty partners are not willing to make some kind of concession towards United States.
So in this regard I think that is a good opportunity for them to trying to stop the negotiation or at least to pause it or postpone this negotiation phases for a little bit longer term.
and in this regard, they hope that they can have a better position in making some offering.
Yeah, but if the tariffs are ultimately struck down, what happens then to the billions that are already collected?
Will businesses get refunds and how could that affect the economy?
Well, if it's illegal, I think that United States should, you know, pay those money back to the importer and exporters because it is illegal.
But I don't think that they do have this money, the spared money, to pay back them, because United States is already in a big deficit of the fiscal budget.
So they have already used those money to make up other loopholes.
I think this really are challenging for them to make some repayment, but without any kind of, you know, ways of recorrecting those bad behaviours, I mean, the other governments and the prices will feel, you know, such a bad behaviour and mood.
They do not want to trust the United States government anymore because they just violate their obligations and try to distort the trade.
That is not so good.
That is Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
You are listening to World Today.
Stay with us. This is World Today, I am Zhou Yang.
NATO is considering a new defense spending target a 5 percent of GDP, with a formal decision expanded at a summit at the Hague next month.
NATO Secretary -General Mark Rutte said he assumes alliance members will agree to the goal.
He had proposed a plan that includes 3 .5 percent for core defense and 1 .5 percent for broader security -related items. U .S. President Donald Trump has demanded that NATO countries meet the 5 % threshold or risk losing U .S. protection.
Talks are ongoing among member states ahead of the June summit.
For more, we are joined by Professor Shen Dingli from the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University.
Dr. Shen, thanks for joining us.
Thank you. So what do you think are the primary drivers behind NATO's push for this 5 % GDP target?
Like, is this primarily due to U .S. pressure or is there genuine alignment among member states?
Well, nominally it was supposed to increase the defense spending of those NATO members other than the U .S. American considers that the European part of the NATO members have been spending not enough.
That's not a poor European collective security.
And the incident in Ukraine, according to America, has vindicated this idea that if you spend less, you look weak.
That may invite other countries to attack France, or even in the future, members of NATO, so U .S. want other countries in NATO to spend more.
This defense spending can be a kind of deterrence, but what would a 5 % defense target mean for global peace and security?
Is this just about deterrence or does it risk fueling a new arms race?
Well, normally countries would not spend as high as 5 % of GDP on their national defense.
For instance, Japan merely spends 1%, around 1%, and China spends less than 2%.
This is a normal case because nations have a lot of purpose to spend their money on a environmental protection, technological innovation in order to lift the quality of life of people.
Sometime during the war time, nation may spend more like Ukraine, currently spending about 30 percent of GDP on defense.
Russia is spending between six to seven percent of its GDP on defense, which is a lot more There's a normal situation, about 2 or 3 percent, that was the level before the Ukrainian war.
But during normal time, peace time, when NATO countries are not attacked, America is asking them to increase their defense spending from 1 percent, 2 percent to dramatically to about 5 percent.
This is uncurred of, which could incite other countries to feel threat from NATO and to generate their increase of defence spending, which eventually would lead to some regional or global arms race.
This proposed split, of 3 .5 % for core defence and 1 .5 % for broader security -related spending like cybersecurity and infrastructure.
This is seen as a way to meet US demands while softening the fiscal impact.
Do you think this approach is practical?
Well, 5 % is virtually not practical for most of NATO members.
Even today, France is spending less than 2 percent, and France plans to meet the targets of 2 percent of GDP on defense by this year, 2025.
Therefore, the U .S. has proposed to divide 5 percent into two parts.
First part is the major part, 3 .5 percent, for the core part of military spending.
And the other 1 .5 % is for more broadly defend the security, like what you say, the cybersecurity et cetera.
That is a way to persuade NATO members to spend more.
And also for other members of the NATO to speak to their own parliament, their own people.
We are not spending 5 % in total on defense, only 3 .5%.
5 percent. So it's a way to persuade people in our country to follow the U .S. But many NATO members are already struggling to meet the current 2 percent target, as you said.
Then how realistic or what is the chance for these countries, especially for those with high national debt or economic challenges, to hit 3 .5 or even 5 percent?
Well, about ten years ago NATO had a summit to conclude in about ten years all NATO members need to spend 2 % of their GDP on defence, but ten years have passed.
Many of them, I think probably one -third of all NATO members, have failed to achieve this target.
but meantime, part of some NATO members have more or less met this target.
So this is a target.
If you raise a target, some countries may meet, some may not.
Without raising the target, members may never meet the target.
So this time NATO are discussing they may set the next target, which is significantly much higher than two percent.
In my view, without the five percent, all members would not meet this new target.
Even today the U .S. is spending less than four percent.
And with this new target, I guess most of the NATO members would still fail this new target, probably 10 years later.
But probably few would be able to meet.
especially Germany, given its new chancellor, has been talking about that they are going to meet the target in a few years to raise their German defense spending to 5%.
I'm quite doubtful of this possibility to achieve this objective.
Spain has reportedly resisted the new target that's according to Financial Times, I think, and decided this recent commitment to reach 2%, Then what does this indicate about the broader political challenges within NATO?
I think many European members of NATO are a country of so -called democracy.
Their people choose their leader.
People have a different choice.
So political candidates or national leaders should cater to people's need for environmental protection, medical development and to raise the salary, et cetera.
They do not have enough financial resources to do everything, especially to work significantly on their military spending.
Therefore, I think many of these leaders have a challenge.
They cannot meet in raising their defense spending in a few years to double that.
So they are partly talking about this dissatisfaction so in the upcoming NATO Summit, probably some members would openly disagree.
Yeah, and also Kyiv has reportedly asked for Ukraine -related aid to count toward the 5 % target.
What are the debates under this request?
I think Ukraine has a lot of challenges.
Because of the war, their economic scale has much reduced, probably by 30 percent.
And therefore they already have spent a lot in terms of percentage of GDP on defense, because they are increasing spending on defense, and their GDP is decreasing.
Some say their current spending of defense money is more than 10%.
So they already met the new target of doing 5 % in a few years.
But I think they are worried about America may push them to do more.
So they have floating some ideas.
So for the defense resource they received from other NATO members, that may be counted as part of their overload defense spending.
We will see how this would be working.
And we know that Donald Trump has repeatedly talked about exiting NATO.
So do you think this move, this effort towards this 5 % target, will it succeed in keeping the US engaged in NATO?
Trump has threatened to quit NATO, but after he finished his first term in 2021, the US Congress somehow led by Rubio when he was a chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the U .S. Senate.
They created a new law, they passed a new law to disallow Americans to quit NATO in the future, and luckily they have this law.
So Trump 2 .0 cannot quit NATO, so America has to stay with NATO, but America is uninterested in supporting Ukraine, and probably in supporting other NATO members.
Ukraine still is not an official member.
That makes NATO members worried.
So with or without Trump's threat, the European part of NATO would somehow increase their defense spending, especially UK, France, and Germany would spend more.
And they would press other NATO members in Europe spend more.
So I will see NATO will spend more and Americans seem to be less interested in supporting NATO, so the transatlantic allies are in a certain kind of internal chaos at this time.
Yeah, as you said European countries are increasingly seeking their autonomy, but do you think this proposal of 5%, even if approved, will be sustainable in the long term, given the economic uncertainties across Europe.
Okay, this new target is supposed to not be met in 1 year, 2 years, probably in 5 years, 10 years.
Therefore Trump, if he can survive his second term, he would have stepped down in the year So, when the deadline of the new NATO 5 % deadline has not been there, so in the future, NATO members may not abide by this new guiding principle.
And in the future U .S. presence, no matter Republican or Democrat, may not oppress NATO to observe this line.
I think that there will be a lot of maneuvering room for the NATO new target and the actual situation to implement this target.
Thank you, Professor Shending Li from the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University.
You're listening to World Today.
Stay with us. Russia has proposed a new round of direct talks with Ukraine in Istanbul next week, with the goal of securing a lasting ceasefire.
Ukraine responded that it was ready for direct talks with Russia but maintained that Moscow needed to provide its peace terms in advance to ensure the encounter yields results.
Kyiv said it had already submitted its version of the memorandum on peace to Russian delegation.
Russian and Ukrainian officials met earlier this month in Istanbul for the first time since the war began.
The talks resulted in an exchange of 1000 prisoners of war each but failed to produce a ceasefire.
For more, we are joined by Dr. Cui Hongjian, professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
What do you think is driving this renewed push for direct talks?
And do you see this as a genuine breakthrough opportunity or more of a symbolic gesture at this stage?
I think firstly, so far especially for the battlefield situation for both Russia and the Ukraine they do not have a so big effort to you know to you know upgrade this fight.
So a little bit different degree, I think, for both sides.
So I think that's a very, very big factor behind the driving force for the negotiation.
Of course, another important driving force is a change of a policy for the United States.
And of course, I think the concerns rising from international community and try to push forward this negotiation and the peaceful solution, I think is a very, very big driving force.
So I think that, yes, it's time to talk with each other between Russia and Ukraine.
But so far, because of the lack of a way for both sides to get some more compromises with each other, I think that's a very, very main obstacle for the further, I mean, exchange of ideas.
And even now, we have to wait for a longer time for the final solution.
Yes, we know that the first round of talks in Istanbul resulted in a prisoner's swap but no ceasefire.
What exactly were the main obstacles then and do you expect either side to show more flexibility this time around?
I think basically the lack of a mutual understanding and mutual acceptance of the you know each side's goal would be a very very big obstacle for the no progress on the issue of ceasefire.
And if we look at the differences between Ukraine and Russia, you would say they do have a different understanding about the meaning of ceasefire.
For Ukrainian side, always it take ceasefire as a precondition for further negotiation.
And finally, peaceful solution.
But for Russia, even it still regard it take some advantage in battlefield, so it's not time for Russia to, you know, go through the ceasefire and still try to, you know, transfer some advantage in battlefield into the, onto the negotiation table.
So I a main obstacle for both sides.
Germany and Ukraine just agreed to jointly develop long -range missiles so does this strengthen Ukraine's hand at the negotiating table or is it more likely to be seen by Moscow as a kind of escalation that may harden its stance.
As we know, recently Germany has its new government and especially comparing with the last chain of knowledgeable weapons from Western countries.
But as we know, as an alternative, the German side didn't provide the missile but to – promised to develop long range missiles accompanied with Ukraine.
Certainly, I think this situation will be regarded by Moscow as a challenge and also message of explanation from Western countries.
But of course, we can find out from Ukraine and Russia they don't have the same understanding of what is the situation and the message.
And why is Turkey the chosen venue for these talks?
What kind of leverage or neutrality does Ankara bring?
So far, I think Turkey in one of the countries could be accepted by both sides.
I mean, Ukraine and Russia, because not only Turkey has long time relations with both two countries, and also it has the membership of NATO.
So I think it gives them a choice for both two countries.
and especially from the Russian side, it tried to continue the talks with Ukraine on the basis of, as we know, previous Istanbul agreement.
So I think it's very, very symbolic for the Russian side to accept Turkey as mediator to help the negotiation.
But, of course, I think that the Ankara's position as a neutral or as a mediator is limited because once there's some more space for negotiation, it will give us some more space for Ankara.
Otherwise, there's no space for Ankara to help the situation.
Okay, thank you Dr. Cui Hongjian, Professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
You're listening to the world today, stay with us.
You are listening to World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. The trade between China and ASEAN exceeded US $900 million in 2023.
That total is greater than the trade volume between China and the US and more than that of EU and the US.
So how have China -ASEAN relations evolved in the past three decades and where will those partnership go in the coming decades?
With more, my colleague Wang Guo earlier sat down with Dr. Cao Kim Horn, Secretary -General of ASEAN.
Your Excellency, Dr. Cao, I looked through your major speeches and presentations in the past couple of years regarding China -ASEAN relations, nearly all of your speeches describing China -ASEAN friendship and fraternity, you use two words, substantive and dynamic.
I suppose you put a lot of thought into those two words.
Well, if you look at the actual work that has been carried out in more than three decades, the growth, development and transformation of the relationships, cooperation and partnership, have indicated that there is a strong momentum, there is strong optimism and there's a lot substance in the way both sides have been working together over those decades.
So that's why I think these two would capture the essence of the relationship between ASEAN and China.
In a speech, China -ASEAN Futures Relations Forum, you said there are 64 existing mechanisms between China and ASEAN, the most among ASEAN and his partners.
Is that true? there is a correct number 64 mechanisms of cooperation between us in China cut across the three pillars of us in community and the accent connectivity so very wide arranged if you look at overall among the $11 partners us in China has most number of mechanisms so looking from the outside there are so many different descriptions and narratives from the West from our partners across the world on the nature of China -ASEAN cooperation.
How would you describe the nature of this relationship?
Well, I think we have to look at facts.
I think facts speak for themselves.
Number one, there are many levels of cooperations across the different sectors and pillars of the community.
And second, the death of cooperation, so that's where you can see more engagement, more interactions between both sides.
At the end of the day it's what we do together.
I think that's important.
President Xi described the China -ASEAN relationship as the most successful and the most dynamic when it comes to cooperation across Asia Pacific.
Well I think it's correct.
So we have say in terms of trade, in terms of trade volume between both sides, China has been the number one important for ASEAN in the past 15 consecutive years.
And likewise, ASEAN has been the top trading partner of China in the past for consecutive years.
Trade alone already speak for itself.
It means that we have been trading together very heavily, cut across all commodities and different areas in economic cooperation.
Second look at investment.
Of course investment, One, China has been number two consistently over so many years.
Again, investment is important for ASEAN because it have great jobs for the people.
And third, look of course also the air and tourism cooperation.
This is part of people -to -people cooperation.
So we've seen a lot of Chinese tourists over so many years and at the same time, look at connectivity in terms of air -to -air connectivity, air connectivity in terms of real connectivity, want to put connectivity people to put connect all of this I think will demonstrate where the commitment lies between us in China talking about the trade volume last time I checked in 2023 our trade volume exceeded the 911 billion dollars the trade between the United States and European Union is 906 billion dollars that is according to the European Commission official data China and the China -US trade a little
over $664 billion according to Chinese customs. Why do you think the trade between our two sides, China and ASEAN, is so significant?
What does that say about the complementarity of our two peoples, economies?
Well it's growing, the number is there, but I don't think it will stay there, it will Today, ASEAN has 671 million people.
Third ranking after China and India.
So, it's up there. It's growing.
Second, of course, is that increasingly we are taking advantage of a number of opportunities.
Of course, proximity.
At the same time we have the bilateral FTA, ASEAN -China FTA that's important for trade, for the business community that they take advantage of this opportunity.
At the same time, we have the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, that went to effect last year.
And again, this is another level of opportunity to support trade, ongoing trade between the two sides.
I think as a matter of fact, it's about benefits, mutual benefits on both sides.
Just give a contour of what it will look like and what sectors will there be additional new and exciting opportunities for investment and trade with this FTA 3 .0.
I think it's certainly we'll go into all kind of areas that would not traditionally there of course hopefully we'll should be working together more on e -commerce for example that's a kind area we should be looking at because the digital economy is growing I'm sure for China all certainly for ASEAN at the moment we are working to get amongst in my two states tell mom stay to negotiate the digital economy framework agreement, we expect to include this by before the next year.
So again I think digital economy is important.
We have to look at all other new areas including the green, the blue economy sector.
This also growing, we certainly have to look at what more could be done particularly in the agriculture sector.
So it's all about mutual interest, how we can both take advantage of the competitive advantage that we have between Australia and China.
The upgrade of ballot FTA to 3 .0 will make it more relevant should fit for the businesses on both sides.
And that will, again, help to facilitate trade even more, reduce more trade barriers between both sides, and of course modernize the way we do business between Australia and China.
Talking about connectivity, there have been a lot of projects that's touching lives here in Southeast Asia under the Bowdoin Road initiative, for example, the Jakarta Bandung Railroad, the China -Laos Railway, the Phnom Penh, Nsianoukville Expressway, so on and so forth.
You said many times that you expect synergies between ASEAN's own program known as the Master Plan of ASEAN Connectivity 2025 and China's BRI.
Do you see that happening?
Well it has been happening already.
Connectivity is a very important priority for ASEAN.
That's why we have the master plan of ASEAN connectivity and the master plan of connectivity impact 2025.
Of course, we will have a new one soon.
The ASEAN 2045? That's right, we will be part of the ASEAN Community Vision 2045.
under this 20 -year vision we will have four new strategic plans one of which would be on the ASEAN connectivity.
But coming back to the issue of the real projects well considered real projects, projects that have high impact on public goods the Ben Dung example Chikalar Ben Dung speed train, now this is a public good project, will benefit the people of Indonesia will benefit the people of ASEAN, for the visitors, the tourist, coming to Indonesia.
The same thing, we talk about the expressway in Cambodia from Phnom Penh to Cenoville.
The same thing, I understand that the speed train have been built in Laos as well.
That of course as as in now we've been riding on train, moving from Vientiane to Luang Prabangg for example because there used be a lot of meetings now in Luang Prabangg so we have to take speed train.
It usually takes about a few hours but it's very convenient so I think it's good that we have to do more to connect ASEAN countries together but of course also connecting ASEAN and China.
That is Dr. Kao -Kim Hoon, Secretary -General of ASEAN speaking with Wang Guan.
This is World Today.
Stay with us. You're listening to World Today.
I'm Zhao Ying. Beijing has expressed stern opposition after Washington said it would start aggressively revoking visas of Chinese students.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the move under the false pretext of national security seriously harms the rights and interests of China's overseas students and disrupts normal people -to -people exchanges.
The spokesperson also stated that this act portrays America's long -proclaimed freedom and openness and will only damage its own international image and credibility.
China is the second largest source of international students in the US, with over 277 ,000 studying there in 2024.
For more, my colleague, Gao Ying -shih spoke with Mao Kejie, a fellow at the Harvard -Yen Ching Institute, currently based at Harvard. So, as Trump administration holds student visa appointments.
What's the mood on campus right now among both domestic and international students?
And how are daily academic operations being affected?
Well timing is very difficult at this time because it's end of the semester, there will be some graduation ceremony coming up very soon.
There's actually no class and other, like, normal operations going on currently because it's almost end of the semester, so it's really hard to see how it influence the operation.
You know, the campus is empty now, but I think there will be some event very soon.
a lot of people got together to celebrate their graduation ceremony.
So at that time, I think there will be something quite a phenomenon.
Thousands of people get together, have someone to share their school pride.
I think Trump is like the just perfect target for school pride.
This confrontation seems to have sent shockwave through American Demic elite beyond just Harvard. So are you witnessing a sense of panic or urgent concern among scholars at other prestigious institutions or universities.
What impact might this have on critical research area where we need international collaboration, like climate science or like medical research?
Interestingly, the Ministry of Homeland Security issued the document against Harvard the very day I was in Princeton in New Jersey.
So, I happened to talk to some professors and research fellows in Princeton.
They all have the same feeling with us because Harvard is just one target.
Harvard backs off. Then, you know, there will be other targets.
I think that Columbia University has been another target, right?
So I think that there's a mood or a feeling among other elite research institutions and universities that we have to stand up to Trump administration's pressure.
And I think as for the impact on the critical research areas, it's too early to see something substantial.
It's still very early in the stage, right?
It's just beginning.
You have a lawsuit and you don't know how it will turn out.
And I don't find a particular sense of panic among all the students and the faculty members in the school, in the campus.
China was the target for Trump's trade war.
but you don't actually find that kind of panic among Chinese people, right?
Particularly this time.
I think we share that kind of thing also in the school campus.
Everybody just feel very, very annoyed by the Trump's attack against Harvard, but they don't feel really panicked about that.
I don't know. It's just like, they think it's just bluffing.
Yeah, it's serious threat, but still people kind of quite confident in the sense that, you know, there's still rules.
you have to follow.
Trump cannot do whatever he wants.
So I think that is the general feeling there and it's too early to predict it.
I think people are waiting to see what's going to happen next.
And as a scholar, how do you view the motivation behind the current federal intervention and the university's operation and all this series of investigations?
And what do you think that Trump administration ultimately wants to achieve by pressuring Harvard or halt student visa appointments?
I have a feeling for all these demands Department of Human Security put on Harvard University, I think they are not that important to perceive, right?
All the demands to turn out the students who participated in the protests and to give all those documents a lot of student profiles.
I find like, okay, you know for every international students who wants to go to the US, they have to apply for a student visa, right?
Trump is obviously the head of the American government.
He has the full list of international students.
He had all those people's names and profiles, right?
I think it makes very little sense just taking it at a face value.
I believe there's something deeper than that.
We should not take all those trumps like the band at their first value.
That's my feeling. And there's something I can guess, maybe by kind of drunk would like to achieve a sense of superiority over elitist university like Harvard and Harvard is more like a symbol of elitism in the US.
so by defeating Harvard, Trump can really show off to his followers, the sense that look Harvard is such good university but it now defeated it, he'd have to listen to what I have to see.
So, I think that's kind of the feeling there.
It's not about those very detailed demand over Harvard, it's more about Trump's personal image in front of his basic followers, like the MAGA people.
And elite universities, they have become a primary target of Trump administration, as you say, and from banning international student enrollment to redirecting billions in research funding to trade schools.
And some critique argue that Harvard response has been relatively restrained and relying mostly on legal challenges.
So do you think this is the most effective strategy for now or should Howard be taking a more aggressive public stance on the issue?
Yeah, I think that's pretty much what we have to do and what we can do, right?
If you just go very aggressive publicly, then I think it plays into President Trump's rhythm, right?
Trump really loves public dogfights, right?
If a prestigious university like Harvard gets into that kind of dogfighting with Trump, I think it will not come to a very good ending.
So I think the current strategy is the proper one to play.
I don't really think we should take more aggressive public stance against Trump.
And I think this is pretty effective.
And there are a lot of things going on under the table.
So it's not necessarily a really public thing, right?
There's things that's happening quite quietly and but really effective beneath the surface.
I think those things can be very important, but people don't really pay attention to this.
It's like you have to move between the lines to get the result.
And looking ahead, how do you see this confrontation evolving?
Do you think Trump will declare his victory soon, or is it going to be a very prolonged battle?
I think it's like Trump is applying kind of similar strategies, all across those topics, be it tariff war against China or the current round of like a talk against Harvard. It's about pressurizing your target.
You have to put lot of like pressure over whatever who is your objective at first. Glance is really heavy and intensive, but later on it became kind of like just phased out quite late, right?
I'll really depends on how it plays out.
Really depend on how they interact with each other.
So if you look at a tariff war between China and the US, Trump really said something really, really, harsh against China at that time, right?
But when Trump feels kind of the pain of the retaliation for China, then everything became quiet.
You know, everything plays out and they reach a kind of new balancing point, then just to the end, right?
And Trump will just play, you know, whatever he says, but you know, it's just the end.
You know, a university like Harvard has a lot of resources in branch of government, a lot of legal support from alumni, so all those things will add up into those interactions with the Trump administration, so I believe the Trump administration will certainly feel the pressure from the Harvard side.
Let's see how it will plays out.
What are you hearing from your, no matter, international students or your international colleagues about their future plans so are they planning to find somewhere else or they will be staying in harvard. I think it's too early to say that because everybody kind of waiting right, there's a lot of things going on, you know the situation changes quickly from day to day.
I haven't find a lot of people they've you know rushed to make their decision yet because it's like the summer break right, they still have some time to do that and a lot of things they haven't being fully set up yet.
I think they will wait until that point, so it's just too early to say.
Thank you so much for listening, see you next time.
