Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Harvard University Funding Frozen; Hearing Today for Abrego Garcia; Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is Interviewed about Abrego Garcia; Jury Selection in Weinstein Retrial; Lawrence Summers is Interviewed about Harvard Funding being Frozen. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired April 15, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

HENRIK SVENDSEN, OWNER, MY HOME CONTEMPORARY FURNITURE: At that time it was $7,500 that I'll pay in tariffs. Now that container, I will pay $43,500 in tariffs on the container. So, $36,000 more just in tariffs. I have to put that on my prices. At least I would sell it for cost since I'm going out of business. But other businesses, they have to put it on top.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, creating a real question mark of, can you - can you even sell it then is where, obviously, it becomes a huge question when you're pricing yourself right out of the market.

Henrik Svendsen, Alyssa Chambers, thank you both very much.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts now.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, standing up to the president after law firms, businesses and most colleges buckle. Harvard says no to the Trump administration's demands, but it could cost them billions of dollars.

The Supreme Court told the White House to help bring back a wrongly deported man, and the White House seems to be refusing to lift a finger. Today, a federal judge will hear the case.

And we are standing by for the opening bell on Wall Street. The president hints at new exemptions and exceptions for his tariffs after saying no exemptions or exceptions.

Sara is out this morning. I'm John Berman, with Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BOLDUAN: So, this morning, a new reality of sorts on Harvard's campus, funding frozen. It was just yesterday morning that Harvard told the Trump administration a blunt no, rejecting its list of policy demands. Hours later, the Trump administration cut the school off from $2.2 billion in federal funds.

Now, Harvard appears to be the first school to push back on the White House, which has threatened numerous colleges with funding cuts. The administration asking Harvard for a host of policy changes, like ending DE&I programs, banning masks at campus protests, giving full cooperation to immigration officials, similar to demands made to other universities, demands which many of those universities agreed to.

Harvard's president writing in a statement this, in part, "no government, regardless of which party is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which area of study and inquiry they can pursue."

And while officially the Trump moves here are in the name of fighting anti-Semitism on college campuses after the series of high-profile incidents, Harvard's president calls them direct governmental regulation on higher ed.

Here's how a Harvard law professor put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW CRESPO. HARVARD UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: It's a transparent effort to change what is taught, what we - what we say in our classrooms, what we teach our students, to make sure that the only things that are actually said on university campuses are things that the Trump administration wants to hear and wants to be said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: CNN's Kara Scannell here with me now.

What is the latest? Where do things stand?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. I mean a swift response from the federal task force after Harvard said that it would not agree to these demands. So now the question is, what funding has been cut? That's not clear at this point. And what else could potentially fall out from here? Because initially the task force had targeted $9 billion as part of their first move. They cut off funding for $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts.

Now, the government's task force saying that, "Harvard's statement reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges, that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support."

So, the task force here really leaning into this issue of combating antisemitism, but also making demands that seem to go beyond that, including, as you said, cutting off DEI programs. They also have said, as part of their demands, that they want to have essentially a say in the hiring of faculty, the admissions of students, saying that they would conduct an audit to see how those were conducted. And then also, as it relates to foreign students, for - to - for the administration not to admit any who have ever expressed a view that the government feels was hostile to the U.S. So, as the Harvard professor put it, this is akin to, they think, a

federal takeover. I mean how this plays out next, it really remains to be seen. They - the - Harvard's lawyers say they remain open to dialog, but whether or not they head to court, we don't know just yet.

BOLDUAN: Yes, what is the middle ground on this one because you don't see it quite yet. Let's see what happens.

Great to see you, Kara. Thank you so much.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, an immigration showdown. And the big question, what happens if a presidential administration openly defies the courts? Today, Justice Department lawyers are set to face a federal judge in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

[09:05:04]

He is the immigrant who a month ago was scooped up by ICE and put on a plane to El Salvador, where he has been locked inside an infamous mega prison. The problem is he had a legal order protecting him from deportation. The federal judge in the case ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. The Supreme Court backed her up.

Plus, Department of Justice lawyers have acknowledged he was removed from the country in error. That made this moment in the Oval Office all the more extraordinary when the visiting strongman, president of El Salvador, sat right next to President Trump and both he and the administration's top officials said they could not do anything to get him back.

CNN's Alayna Treene is at the White House with the very latest.

Good morning.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Good morning, John.

Yes, today is going to be a big moment regarding this case and what is actually going to happen, that fate of that Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, when Trump attorneys come back before that federal judge who made this initial ruling.

Now, just to be clear, we've really seen the Trump administration moving closer to this line of defense for days now. But I think that scene in the Oval Office yesterday was the clearest sign yet that both the president and his top advisers, but also the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, have no intention of returning Abrego Garcia to the United States.

Now, that comes as the Trump administration has been arguing that the federal judge in this case has overstepped her legal authority on this. And they're also arguing, in some ways, that the Supreme Court, because this reached the Supreme Court, they had a 9-0 ruling that said that the Trump administration must facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States, arguing that they, in some ways, overstepped as well.

Well, we've heard repeatedly now, in recent days, from top Trump administration officials on this, is that the court should not be getting involved or getting in the way of a foreign policy action put forth by President Donald Trump.

But one thing amid all of this that I think is also very important not to lose sight of, John, is what else we heard the president say yesterday, in kind of signaling what could still be to come with broader questions of deportations. One, of course, is that he said he wants to ramp up the number of people that they are sending to these prisons in El Salvador. But not only for undocumented immigrants who allegedly commit some of these violent crimes, but also potentially for violent United States citizens. But something that the president referred to as homegrown criminals.

Listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we always have to obey the laws. But we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking, that are absolute monsters. I'd like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So, as you heard the president say there, he would like to include them in the group of people that he's getting rid of from the United States.

Look, I mean, obviously, really big legal questions of whether or not the president and this administration is even able to do that. Trump said that he is directing his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to look into whether that's something they are legally able to do.

But all of this, I think, just to put the broader and finer point on it, is that essentially we are seeing the Trump administration, in some ways, really take a flexible view of how the courts are making these decisions. They will be back in court today, and this may not be the end of what we hear about what's going to happen to this man from Maryland, Abrego Garcia.

John.

BERMAN: I suspect this is not the end at all.

Alayna Treene, at the White House, thank you very much.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: All right, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, where Abrego Garcia was living when he was arrested by ICE agents last month, has now said he's requested a meeting with the president of El Salvador during his visit in the United States, while he's in Washington. Van Hollen says - says - also said he's prepared to go to El Salvador himself if Abrego Garcia is not returned very soon, writing to the Salvadoran ambassador to the United States, this, in part, "I have met with Mr. Abrego Garcia's wife, mother and brother. And as you can imagine, they are extremely worried about his health, safety and continued illegal confinement, as am I."

And joining us now is Senator Van Hollen.

Senator, thank you for your time. You requested this meeting with President Bukele while he's in D.C. Is a meeting set? Have you heard back?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Kate, it's good to be with you.

I did request it. I've not heard back from the president of El Salvador. And as I said in that letter, if I don't hear from him and Abrego Garcia is not quickly returned, I do intend to go to El Salvador this week to show solidarity with his family. As you indicated, the Trump administration itself has admitted that he was abducted and sent to this prison in error.

[09:10:03]

And he - he should get his due process.

BOLDUAN: Let's - let's - they show no intent of - of doing anything to bring him back anytime soon, that is for sure. If by midweek, I mean this could be tomorrow, nothing happens, you go to El Salvador. Do you have a hope of leaving with him when you come back, or what can you accomplish there?

VAN HOLLEN: Kate, I hope to meet with officials of the government of El Salvador. I don't know if the president is going to be in country at that time. I also hope to visit this notorious prison to see Abrego Garcia, to let him know that his family and friends are very worried about him, as am I. I think that the situation for both the Trump administration and the president of El Salvador is unsustainable because the Supreme Court, as you reported, by 9-0, has said that Trump administration has to facilitate his return. And you have the president of El Salvador saying, well, I don't have the power to release him. Both things are untrue. The president could, of course, facilitate his return. After all, the United States is paying El Salvador money for this prison. And, of course, the president of El Salvador could release him.

So, at some point, I think this becomes unsustainable. People are going to keep calling for his release because the Trump administration itself has admitted he was wrongfully whisked out of the country and we have a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court.

BOLDUAN: This is very important, obviously, to you as he and his family are constituents of yours. But I heard this somewhat debated last night. And what - what do you say to someone - I'm picking a random place, Idaho. Why should we, the collective we, care about this one case?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, we should care about this case because of due process. Every American citizen is due their due process. And people who are in the United States under legal protective status, like Abrego Garcia was, are entitled to due process. So, if the president gets to shred the Constitution and ignore the Supreme Court in this case, it is a very short path to the president ignoring court orders in other cases.

So, every American should care about this.

BOLDUAN: You are also a graduate of Harvard. And another one of our top stories that we've been talking about is the Trump administration just froze $2.2 billion in federal funds to Harvard after the school said no to the demands that they have made on other - other schools and they've agreed to. The administration says that this is part of their trying to fight anti-Semitism, responding to a series of incidents, anti-Semitic incidents, on campuses.

What do you think of this? Do you - will Harvard be OK, do you think, with - without $2.2 billion in federal funds?

VAN HOLLEN: So, Kate, I applaud Harvard's decision not to give in to bullying from the Trump administration. You know, Donald Trump believes in First Amendment rights for himself, but apparently for nobody else. Others, they will punish when there's an exercise of First Amendment rights.

I would also point out, Kate, that yesterday "The Washington Post" just broke a story in the case of Miss Ozturk, right. She was the Fulbright fellow at Tufts. And an internal State Department memo conceded that there was absolutely no basis to claim that she was engaged in anti-Semitic activities. So, what you see the Trump administration doing is trying to use this argument that this - their - these students are violating American foreign policy, that they're engaged in these, you know, acts to undermine U.S. foreign policy, when, in many cases what they've been doing is protesting the actions of the U.S. government and the Netanyahu government, with respect to Gaza.

So, look, you can agree or disagree with the students, but what the whole - what the purpose of the First Amendment is, is that you don't have the government dictating speech, as the Trump administration is trying to do. So, I'm glad Harvard is standing up here.

BOLDUAN: Senator Chris Van Hollen, appreciate your time. Looking forward to hearing if you hear back from the president of El Salvador on your request to meet while he is in Washington.

Thank you.

John.

BERMAN: All right, we are standing by for stock markets to open. You can see futures are flat at this moment. It seems investors aren't quite sure whether there are exemptions and exceptions to these tariffs or not.

[09:15:02]

Standing by for new details there.

This morning, Harvey Weinstein to be retried for alleged sex crimes.

And how does it feel to be number one, really, in like everything. What Paige Bueckers is saying this morning fresh off the WNBA draft.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: Today, jury selection begins in the retrial of Harvey Weinstein, convicted in 2020 of sex crimes and sentenced to 23 years, but that was overturned on appeal. The appeals court deciding that the judge had improperly allowed in certain testimony from women whose accusations were not part of the original criminal charges. The new trial will also now include a new accusation being tried for the first time.

Now, Weinstein has remained in custody in New York since his conviction was overturned, but a lot begins now today.

CNN's Jean Casarez is following this one for us. She's here with me.

And what do you expect with this, Jean?

[09:20:01]

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's supposed to be a four to six week trial. I mean that's a long trial, right?

BOLDUAN: Yes.

CASAREZ: Secondly, there is that new accuser, but there are three charges, three accusers. And the first one we know of, Mimi Haley. She testified at the first trial. Criminal sexual act in the first degree. A very serious felony. He got 20 years for that. That was overturned. She will be testifying.

Another count, third degree rape. Jessica Mann. That is three years. He's actually served that already in prison at this point. That's time served. She will be testifying again.

And then, Kate, that brand new accuser we don't know of. 2006. Criminal sexual act in the first degree. A serious felony again. But there's an issue and it's going to be a big one on cross-examination because when she was interviewed by the prosecutor's office in 2020, again in 2024, she didn't talk about force. That force was used. And that's a pivotal element in that crime.

I find the defense as - I sit in the hearings and I watch them, they're going to be aggressive. I think they have a confidence that they didn't have before because this case was overturned. And the reason it was overturned was that the judge allowed in so many prior bad act witnesses, women that said that Harvey Weinstein assaulted them, but they weren't part of the indictment, but they're used to really show intent of Harvey Weinstein.

Well, the judge ruled, you can see right there, and this is the highest court in New York, that that made it so Harvey Weinstein wasn't innocent until proven guilty. But also another ruling they made, the highest court, was that the judge was going to allow so many things in if Harvey Weinstein testified that he - he couldn't testify. When Harvey Weinstein spoke before the court after his conviction, when he was sentenced, he told the judge, I wanted to testify in this trial.

So, I think we need to watch out for that because the defense is all about, it was consensual. And there were relationships involved with these - with these women. And I think that he may really want to testify in this trial. So, I think that's something to watch out for.

BOLDUAN: Interesting. All right, Jean, let's see. Thank you so much.

Still ahead for us, the funding fight face-off between the White House and Harvard University, where this goes now that the Trump administration just cut billions of dollars in federal funds from that Ivy League institution.

And a fumble on the South Lawn. The vice president - I mean I feel bad for him - accidentally dropping part of the college football championship trophy while celebrating his hometown team.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:27:14]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, the Trump administration has frozen $2 billion in funding for Harvard University after the university refused to comply with demands essentially for audits on all its departments and hirings and admissions. Harvard is now one of the first institutions, whether it be universities, law firms or businesses, to stand up to the president's demands.

With us now is Larry Summers, a professor at Harvard, who was president of Harvard. He was also treasury secretary under President Clinton.

Secretary, thank you so much for being with us.

So, you've been in that chair before running Harvard. What would $2 billion, the absence of it, what does that do to the university?

LAWRENCE SUMMERS, FORMER PRESIDENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Look, it has a profound effect on all kinds of research programs. Probably most pressingly in some ways research on curing diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. But it also affects research on how to prevent recessions, research on the nature of freedom, research on democracy. And, crucially, it affects the ability to provide financial aid for the more than two-thirds of Harvard students who, because of the resources that the university has, are able to not pay full tuition at Harvard College. So, this is a very frontal and punitive, and I might add unlawful,

attack. So, I'm not, at this point, involved in the university's response and management to the situation, but I hope the university's response will be very firm and that the university will do what is necessary to protect its autonomy.

BERMAN: Even with all that is being compromised here at the university, you support their decision to not comply with the government. Why?

SUMMERS: Because I - I believe that one should not comply with a government that is being extra lawful. The statute that the government refers to, having to do with discrimination, has a whole variety of rules in it. And you have to give notice. You have to have hearings.

[09:30:01]

That you have to engage in a process of discussion.