Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Trump Freezes $2.2B In Funds After Harvard Reject Demands; Hamas: Lost Contact With Militants Holding U.S. Hostage; Soon: Hearing On Man Mistakenly Deported To El Salvador; Trump Looks To Give U.S. Automakers Tariff Break; Sudan's RSF Claims Control Of Major Darfur Camp; Meta Accused Of "Anticompetitive Conduct" To Build Companies. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired April 15, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:37]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Hello. A warm welcome to our viewers everywhere. I'm Max Foster. This is CNN NEWSROOM.

From the courts to immigration to college campuses, the Trump administration is stepping up its push to bend traditional institutions in the U.S. to its will and expand the use of presidential power in the process. President Trump now engaging in a face off with Harvard University. The administration freezing more than $2 billion in funding for Harvard after the school rejected demands from federal officials to make policy changes on things like admissions and curriculum.

A short time ago, the White House press secretary was asked about the move.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has been quite clear they must follow federal law. He also wants to see Harvard apologize, and Harvard should apologize for the egregious antisemitism that took place on their college campus against Jewish American students.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Let's go straight to the White House and CNN's Kevin Liptak.

And Harvard are refusing to sign this letter that was sent to them, refusing to apologize and really testing the Trump administration.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, very much pushing back in a way that other institutions of higher learning have not done up until this point, as the Trump administration really kind of wages this war on what they claim are hotbeds of liberalism and antisemitism on American campuses in the United States, but which these institutions say is putting into real doubt their bounds of academic freedom and really sort of digging in for this clash.

In a lot of ways, Harvard is the best positioned of these universities to do that. It's very wealthy. It has a $5 billion or $50 billion endowment. So, it can, in a lot of ways, afford to push back on the Trump administration in ways that other colleges and universities are not able to.

But what you've seen is a real galvanizing of higher institution, as the Trump administration sends out this kind of lengthy list of demands. You know, originally, the rationale behind all of this, according to the president, according to his aides, was trying to combat what they claim was antisemitism on campuses following the October 7th attacks in Israel. But their demands have gone well beyond. That includes reforming DEI programs, reforming leadership positions at these universities, applying mask bans, you know, post- COVID mask bans at these places, reforming discipline policies and what they call ensuring viewpoint diversity, which I think kind of underscores what exactly they're trying to do here.

They believe and their supporters believe, I should say, that places like Harvard and other Ivy League schools are hostile to conservatives, and they don't believe that the federal government should be funding that kind of thing. Of course, the grants that come from the federal government to places like Harvard are largely for research, you know, scientific research, medical research, that kind of thing. And it's not precisely clear how freezing the $2.2 billion that the administration has now put on hold to Harvard will affect those programs going forward. They're still sort of ascertaining how exactly those researchers will be affected.

But bottom line, you know, Harvard, its just its name alone is synonymous with, you know, American academic excellence. It's synonymous with prestige. And I think in a lot of ways, this is an attempt by the Trump administration to put its stamps on some of the country's most well-known institutions, whether it's in academia or whether it's in the arts. When it comes to the Kennedy Center, you see the president trying to influence law firms as well.

The question going forward is how much these institutions will push back. The expectation among people in academia here in the United States is that Harvard will likely go to court to get this funding unblocked, Max.

FOSTER: Okay, Kevin, thank you for joining us from the White House.

Now, the armed wing of Hamas says its lost contact with the militants holding the last living American hostage in Gaza. It says Israels military bombed the location where Edan Alexander, a dual U.S. Israeli citizen, was being held. CNN can't independently confirm that claim. Alexander has been at the center of negotiations aimed at a new ceasefire and hostage agreement. Hamas is now studying Israel's first proposal since the war resumed last month.

[15:05:06]

Let's go straight to Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv.

Obviously, getting the hostages out is the priority for Israel here. But if Hamas can't get hold of the hostages, what happens? JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, and it's not

just not getting a hold of them. I mean, the suggestion that Hamas is making here when they say that they lost contact with these militants following an Israeli bombardment of their location, is that they may be dead and that Edan Alexander may be dead. We obviously cannot independently verify this claim that's being made by Hamas. And Hamas's al Qassam Brigade is still saying that they are still trying to reach these militants.

What else is important to know here is that Hamas and specifically the al-Qassam brigades, have in the past lied about the fate of at least one Israeli hostage, and that was Daniella Gilboa, because back in November, they released a photo of her body and claimed that she had been killed in an Israeli bombardment. She was released during this latest cease fire agreement earlier this year, and she then said through her family that she had been forced to stage her own death.

So just a big note of caution here on these claims that Hamas is making. But if indeed their claims are true, that would be enormous for the future of these ceasefire and hostage negotiations for a few reasons. First of all, Edan Alexander is an Israeli soldier, but he is also the last remaining living American hostage still being held in Gaza.

The bodies of four other American hostages are still in Gaza, but because of his status as the last remaining living American hostage, he has been central to pretty much every single proposal that has been put on the table, and certainly it seems that it has provided some extra motivation for the American officials, including President Trump, who have been involved in trying to push these parties towards yet another agreement here.

And all of this comes at a very sensitive time, as we are learning that Hamas has been reviewing a proposal that Israel has put forward for the release of ten Israeli hostages in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and a 45-day truce. The first of those hostages who would be released, according to a Hamas official who briefed us on the details of this proposal, would indeed be Edan Alexander. And so, all of that, of course, would be thrown into uncertainty. If anything changed regarding his fate.

Now, as far as we understand it, the Israeli government has said that they believe that there are 24 of these 59 Israeli hostages still held in Gaza who are alive. But, of course, we know that there has also been a premium placed on getting the bodies of deceased hostages back. This latest proposal would actually see for the release of the bodies of 16 deceased Israeli hostages.

Hamas, though, has made clear it will not disarm, which is something that Israel has been pushing for in this proposal. And so while we certainly are seeing some momentum in these negotiations, once again, some optimism from officials that I've spoken to who are briefed on these negotiations, it's also very clear that gaps remain. And there certainly is not any kind of imminent deal that we expect to come together in the coming days.

FOSTER: Okay, Jeremy. Thank you.

Now, both President Trump and El Salvador's president have made it crystal clear. A wrongfully deported man won't be returned to the U.S. This despite a court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador's mega prison in the coming hours, the case will once again be before a federal judge, where his lawyers will argue the Trump administration is misreading the Supreme Courts order to facilitate his return.

For more on this, I want to bring in CNN's Paula Reid, and there are lots of experts saying this could actually trigger a constitutional crisis because of the way the -- the executive is coming up against the judiciary, which is there to hold it to account.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I think there are certainly other examples where the administration may be overtly defying a court order, but here I think its far more nuanced than simply defying a court order and certainly falls far short of a constitutional crisis, because remember the original order from the lower court judge said the administration needed to facilitate and effectuate this mans return and gave a deadline of Monday, April 7th. When the Supreme Court looked at that, they said, yeah, you need to facilitate his return. But when it comes to effectuating it, they said, you need to go back down to this judge. He needs to clarify what exactly that means.

And when doing so, he needs to be deferential to the executive branch, because we're talking about foreign affairs. The Supreme Court also gave no deadline for any of this to happen. So, this is an intentionally ambiguous opinion from the Supreme Court that the administration is now exploiting, right?

[15:10:06]

They are playing at the edges of what this means, but they are not defying it because the Supreme Court did not say, you must return this man. Yes. They're saying you had to facilitate it. But if you go back to what they were actually looking at, there were three parts to that lower judge's order, and they only really upheld one of them.

Now, again, there's nothing legally preventing them from returning this man politically. They clearly feel that this is something that that they won't pay a price for leaving him in El Salvador. And certainly, there is a goal here for them to deter other people from coming here the same way.

FOSTER: So in terms of what we hear today, how definitive might it be? Presumably it would have to end up back at the Supreme Court to be really tested.

REID: Exactly. To be definitive, it would likely have to go back to the Supreme Court, assuming that give us something less ambiguous than what we got last week. But this will be likely a tense hearing, because the judge has been frustrated with the Justice Department not being more forthcoming about details in terms of what they've done to bring this man back to the U.S. yesterday they filed the government filed its status report that's required to do pretty late and ended by basically referencing that oval office meeting, even offering the judge a YouTube link to see what the president of El Salvador did.

It's a little flippant in tone, not as deferential as maybe one would normally be towards a federal judge. And clearly this man Abrego Garcia, his lawyers, Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers are frustrated with the Justice Department. They believe they should be doing more.

So, I expect that this hearing, it won't likely give us any sort of resolution, but it will likely be pretty dramatic and possibly set us once again back on a path to the Supreme Court.

FOSTER: Okay, Paula, it's going to be fascinating either way. Thank you so much for that.

Now, U.S. immigration officials have detained another Columbia University student who took part in pro-Palestinian protests. And this student was just steps away from the final process of becoming a U.S. citizen. Mohsen Mahdawi was taken away in handcuffs after showing up for an interview at an immigration office in Vermont. Born in the West Bank, he's been a legal U.S. permanent resident for a decade but could now face deportation. Mahdawi's lawyers say his arrest is an unconstitutional attempt to silence those who speak out against atrocities in Gaza.

Now, if trade talks fail, the EU is ready to hit the U.S. with retaliatory tariffs, toilet paper, make up and tobacco are just some of the American goods being targeted in an extensive list that includes more than 400 products. This comes as President Trump considers a short-term tariff exemption for auto companies. Right now, the 25 percent tariffs on all cars shipped to the U.S. are expected to raise the cost of buying a car by thousands of dollars, the White House press secretary says Mr. Trump is actively considering at least 15 trade deals meanwhile.

Paula Newton joins us from Ottawa, Canada, one of the countries hoping for a trade deal, I'm sure.

But where do you see, you know where we are in this process of what many people have called a global trade war?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, look, the auto industry for the United States has really been an Achilles heel when it comes to Trump's tariff plan. And the reason is that for years now, the supply chain structure has included both Canada and Mexico. And, Max, that goes for the U.S. auto makers, but also the Asian and European automakers that have invested and continue to invest in the United States.

And for that reason, Donald Trump says that he's looking at some exemptions. We do not have any details. I want to be clear here, but it seems that the approach that is going to happen going forward in the next few months and likely years will be a piecemeal approach to every single solitary manufacturer and every single solitary country.

This will mean there will be a lot more friction in trade, Max, and it will lead to higher prices. There is no doubt. For now, he has had a steady stream. That is the president of people from the industry in the United States, but also politicians, including, you'll remember Gretchen Whitmer, who's the governor of Michigan, who held the folders up to her head because she didn't want to be seen in the oval office.

But part of that, and I know from speaking to industry insiders, was about automobiles and how vulnerable the state of Michigan is. A swing state is to these tariffs right now. How long will the reprieve be? How long it will take? We do not know.

But I can tell you, Max, even here in Canada today, the Canadian government backing away from some reciprocal tariffs on American automobiles going into Canada because it too has been vulnerable to the lobbying from industry insiders who say, look, this is just going to cost too much.

I will also say, Max, already the effects being felt here in Canada. Two car assembly plants have had temporary shutdowns and there have been hundreds of layoffs.

FOSTER: Well, that's the, you know, the lasting legacy, isn't it?

[15:15:03]

So, you know, you close down an assembly line. At what point do you restart it when there's so much uncertainty, you don't know whether or not you're going to have to close it down again. And that's going to be the uncertainty, which is very difficult for the industry, but it's also going to push prices up.

NEWTON: Absolutely, as I just called it friction. And whether you're talking about a little bit of a tariff or just the reimagining of where your supply chain is, where your auto parts are made, when they are imported, when they are not, that alone costs money. And on some cars, not all cars, but on some cars. Max, as you know, the margins are very, very thin.

And remember, Max, that's just one industry. If we then go to things like steel and aluminum, which is an issue for Europe as well. Look, there is friction there and there is no other supply at this point. Even U.S. steel makers are increasing the cost of steel right now because they can. And that will be handed down to consumers.

Look, again, think about it this way, Max. This will be piecemeal. Each country, each industry going into the Oval Office -- Oval Office and asking for their own deal. And at the end of the day, that will not mean that consumers are getting the best price. It will just be getting the best price at that point in time given the politics of the day.

FOSTER: Okay, Paula, thank you.

Now we are only a couple of hours away from Joe Biden returning to the stage, the former U.S. president set to deliver a keynote address at the annual meeting of disability advocates in Chicago. He's expected to talk about protecting Social Security, as many Democrats gear up for a national day of action against possible cuts. This moment will mark Mr. Biden's first public speech since leaving office three months ago.

Thanks, but no thanks. The Trump administrations harsh stances on education, immigration, tariffs have some travelers going elsewhere. We'll look at the fallout after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:09]

FOSTER: Now, Donald Trump has hailed the falling number of border crossings in the U.S. in March. But its not just immigrants who are avoiding trips to America since the president retook office. It's all kinds of travelers, international visitors to the United States were down 12 percent in March compared to last year. That's according to U.S. government figures. They exclude Mexico and Canada. There are some big falls in specific European countries, in particular, where travelers are worried about Mr. Trump's rhetoric on immigration and tariffs.

Visitor numbers from Denmark, down 34 percent, for example, Germany, Spain and the UK are also down by double digits. My next guest calls the chilling effect that Mr. Trump's policies will have on people looking to work or travel or go to school in the U.S. substantial.

Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, joins us now. Ian, on social media the other day, I was asked by a European, should I travel to America? I mean, it's pretty extraordinary that were even asking that question. But I just wondered how you would answer it right now.

IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: Yeah, sure. I mean, look, I have plenty of friends from Europe, from Japan, from all over the world that are still coming to the U.S. but the fact is, if you go on Reddit right now, I mean, there travel boards are lit up with all of these stories about people that are having a hard time here. The examples of the questions that are being asked, looking into the cell phones and history. It looks intrusive.

Of course, the green card holders that have been deported without due process. I mean, these are not stories that you're used to hearing from the United States. Youd expect it from an authoritarian regime, or at least a hybrid regime like a Turkey, for example.

And yes, it makes fewer people willing to take that tourist trip. It makes people reconsider whether this is their first choice for university. And do I really need to go there for business right now?

So many different types of fights that the Americans are picking, both with their friends and their adversaries at the same time that you have all these headlines on the trade war, and that's going to have a knock on effect on travel. Sure.

FOSTER: What does that mean to the U.S.?

BREMMER: In the near term, it doesn't mean much. The U.S. economy has been so outperforming all the other advanced democracies since the pandemic. I mean, Europe in particular, the average European is not as wealthy as the average U.S. citizen from the U.S. in Mississippi, which is the poorest American state.

So, the lack of growth, the lack of entrepreneurialism, the tough regulations, the Europeans are way behind the United States. And so, the reality of the U.S. as the largest economy with significant growth. the reserve currency means that there's a lot of pain that the Americans can feel. There's a lot of self-harm the Americans can impose before it starts to really matter.

But long term, the impact is going to be great, right? And the decisions that are being made by the White House right now aren't about ten years from now. They're about, you know, we want wins today. And that -- that, of course, is the danger.

FOSTER: You mentioned universities. One of the, you know, greatest universities in the world, Harvard is obviously one that many foreigners would choose to go to and do choose to go to. So they're going to see some impact from this, as well as everything that's going on with the Trump administration withdrawing or suspending the funds going there.

Do you think that case is interesting because it tests the limits of government power, in effect, because it's one of the, you know, really big institutions that we've all heard of refusing to agree with the Trump administration and comply?

BREMMER: I don't think that's why it's interesting, but it is interesting, right? I mean, testing the limits of government power is much more relevant to the El Salvadoran case where the Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. has to facilitate the return of someone that was improperly deported. And Trump is directly flouting that decision. That's about the limits of U.S. power.

This the Harvard case is interesting because it is the strongest institution that has told Trump, to go scratch that. No, we've got a $60 billion endowment, the largest of any public or private university in the United States. And we're just going to say no.

[16:25:00]

And if that means that Trump is going to take away private public funding of 2 billion a year, so be it.

And so, this is a powerful institution that is deciding to stand up to Trump when other universities, when law firms, when individuals, when media companies are choosing not to. Harvard is providing, if you will an example for a lot of less powerful institutions that maybe there is a way to say no to this American president.

FOSTER: Where do all these debates end up? Will they all end up in the Supreme Court? Because it feels like they will, because that's the ultimate test between which is more powerful the judiciary or the executive? And it does feel as if the executive is trying to push the limits of that as high as possible. BREMMER: Again, the Supreme Court is critically important, and they

will choose which cases they want to hear, and they will -- they will -- they will opine on them in limited ways to try to avoid having the ultimate fight. That could lead to the breaking of the republic.

But I think that the Harvard case is going to play out, the Harvard fight, it's going to play out like the China fight, right? I mean, Trump says I'm going to impose all of these tariffs on countries all over the world. And a whole bunch of countries say they want deals because they're weak and they're -- and they're small. And the Chinese say, actually, no, I'm going to hit you right back in the face and, oh, you're going to go harder.

Okay, how about this, Boeing? How about this? You know, and then Apple is saying, well, you know, if you're going to keep imposing these tariffs, like we're not going to have any money. So, it is -- it is looking at how the Chinese are responding. The Europes are responding. It's looking at how the Harvards are responding.

It's not about the Supreme Court. Trump has made very clear he doesn't care as much about rule of law as he cares about the law of the jungle, but the powerful do whatever they will and the weak suffer what they must. And he is now starting to be hit back, both on the global stage and on the domestic stage, by some institutions that have power and that is ultimately going to be the test, the constraints on the executive in the U.S., more than I suspect to the Supreme Court.

FOSTER: Fascinating.

Ian Bremmer, as ever, thank you for joining us with your analysis.

BREMMER: Good to see you again.

FOSTER: Now, battle lines have been drawn in elite American university, then pushing back on demands made by President Trump, a look at what could come next in that particular showdown.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:31:01]

FOSTER: More detail on that escalating feud then between President Trump and Harvard University. The Trump administration freezing $2.2 billion in federal funding after the school refused to meet its demands to make a number of policy changes.

Here's CNNs senior White House producer Betsy Klein.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE PRODUCER: Well, Max, this is clearly a fight that the Trump administration thinks is a winning political issue. The administration announced Monday that it would be freezing $2.2 billion in multiyear grants for Harvard University, taking aim at the elite institution and its diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as well as its ban on masks at campus protests and its hiring practices. An overall effort to reduce the power held by faculty and administrators, but framing it as an effort to curb antisemitism on college campuses. Amid a number of incidents in response to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt making clear in today's White House press briefing that the Trump administration isn't backing down and calling on Harvard to apologize.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: More than $2 billion out the door to Harvard when they have a more than $50 billion endowment. Why are the American taxpayers subsidizing a university that has billions of dollars in the bank already? And we certainly should not be funding a place where such grave antisemitism exists.

KLEIN: Now, Leavitt went on to cast doubt on the purpose and future of the university's federal funding, noting that Harvard has an endowment of more than $50 billion as she questioned the use of taxpayer dollars. The president also raised the possibility of eliminating Harvard's tax-exempt status, and to tax it as a political entity.

Leavitt, referring questions on that Tuesday to the IRS -- Max.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Okay. Now, the former Harvard president, Larry Summers, says the Trump administration is acting like a country without a democracy. He told CNN that Harvard is right to resist.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT: 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. This is an attempt to impose the kind of regulation on Harvard that is imposed by government on universities, in countries that we don't think of as democracies, countries that don't have free speech, protections.

And so, one obviously should follow the law, but that does not mean obeying government edicts when those edicts are themselves extra lawful. Thats why we have courts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Larry Summers.

Israels prime minister, making a rare visit to Gaza today, vowing Hamas will suffer more and more blows. With the cameras rolling, Benjamin Netanyahu toured operations in northern Gaza with Israels defense minister, but he avoided scenes like this one in the south. Gaza's health ministry says an Israeli strike hit tents, housing displaced families in the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis. It says children are amongst the casualties. For so many Palestinians in Gaza, there's simply nowhere safe to go.

Compounding the misery, Israel has blocked all aid for the past six weeks and counting.

Let's bring in veteran Palestinian politician Mustafa Barghouti. He's the president of the Palestinian National Initiative and a member of the Palestinian parliament in Ramallah.

Thank you so much for joining us.

I mean, what are you hearing about the situation on the ground there?

[15:35:00]

MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI, MEMBER, PALESTINIAN PARLIAMENT: It's absolutely horrible. For 44 days. Israel is not allowing a single piece of bread. Any fuel, no water, no clean water. And they are not allowing any medications to get to Gaza.

And the people in Gaza are starving. We started to see starvation there because of this terrible siege, which is also combined with the continuous bombardment. Up until now, 51,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza because of Israeli bombardment, including 18,000 children.

And it goes on. People are deprived from basic resources. People are suffering not only from bombardment but also from biological warfare, because when Israel does not allow people to have clean water and sufficient food, diseases are spreading, including 112,000 cases of infectious hepatitis. So far, vaccines are not allowed into Gaza, which makes us as doctors, as medical people, very worried about the outbreak of poliomyelitis, tetanus, diphtheria and other diseases. It's a total disaster what's happening.

FOSTER: Biological warfare is something obviously the Israelis would deny. This is a byproduct of, you know, the situation on the ground. And they can't control everything there. But you're saying that, you know, because the aid isn't getting in.

Obviously, everyone's suffering there. But I did want to ask you, you know, you're a politician. There is talk of another cease fire deal, but issues about whether or not all the hostages can be handed over. Some question whether the hostages are.

What hopes do you have of a ceasefire deal? I mean, that is obviously the best outcome here for -- the best immediate outcome, at least.

BARGHOUTI: Unfortunately, the only country that can make a ceasefire deal work and happen is the United States of America, is the administration of President Trump. They did it before. They -- they were the ones who forced Netanyahu to accept a temporary ceasefire before. And now, if they want, they can force it again.

What -- what is possible is that Israel can get all its captives immediately in exchange of releasing some of the Palestinian prisoners. Nobody talks about, by the way, about the 15,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

So, an exchange of prisoners can happen and an end of this war. Netanyahu doesn't want to end the war. He wants the captives back, but he wants to continue the war for two reasons, in my opinion.

The first reason is that he really doesn't care about the Israeli captives. And now his continuous bombardment of Gaza would kill them. As a matter of fact, there are worries now that Edan Alexander who -- who holds also an American citizenship, could have been killed because of Israeli bombardment.

And second, Netanyahu's real goal is the ethnic cleansing of the people of Gaza. He just doesn't want to stop the war because his real goal has been from the very first day of this war, is the total ethnic cleansing of the people of Gaza, which is nothing but a war crime in international law.

FOSTER: Well, in terms of the ethnic cleansing obviously, they would deny that. In terms of getting the hostages out, he's always said that that is his top priority. Hamas is becoming increasingly unpopular in Gaza, isn't it? And that's a very complicated issue as well for moving forward in this process, because you need a body representing the people of Gaza, and at the moment, it is Hamas.

BARGHOUTI: Hamas is ready to leave the government. Hamas told us and told Palestinian different parties in our negotiations in Beijing that they are ready to leave the government. They don't want to be in any future government.

And we could have a national consensus government, mainly consisting of independents who are accepted by everybody. That is a possibility. But unfortunately, Israel is against that. Israel says they don't want any Palestinian practically to rule Gaza.

So, what do they want? The continuation of occupation of Gaza. That will not lead to a solution. The end of the war is easy and possible. If they accept an exchange of prisoners and stopping the war.

We don't need this war to continue. It is horrible, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, by the way, we are more than 45,000 Palestinians have already been displaced from their homes, which were destroyed in refugee camps in Jenin and Tulkarem. We need peace, not the continuation of this war.

FOSTER: Mustafa Barghouti in Ramallah, thank you for joining us today.

BARGHOUTI: Thanks.

FOSTER: Two years of war in Sudan -- Sudan have not only driven millions of people from their homes, its also put unknown numbers of them at risk of famine.

[15:40:09]

On this grim anniversary, Sudan's paramilitary Rapid Support Forces claim they've seized control of a huge camp for displaced people. The U.N. says the assault left hundreds dead, including humanitarian workers.

CNN's Salma Abdelaziz has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): You are looking at images of a famine-stricken camp where families forced out of their home by war were attacked by a militia accused of genocide. This video, verified and geolocated by CNN, shows the Rapid Support Forces known as the RSF, attacking the sprawling Zamzam camp in the Darfur region of Sudan, forcing thousands of hungry and desperate people to flee for their lives.

This is what we know right now. The RSF raided the camp, killed dozens of people, set fire to tents and marketplaces, deliberately targeted health clinics, and killed at least nine medical workers, according to Relief International, an aid agency. This satellite imagery shows that the RSF carried out a scorched earth policy across an area of 165 football fields.

The RSF, which is seen here celebrating, has denied targeting civilians. Now Darfur, the region where this took place, is the epicenter of a genocide that was reignited when a civil war broke out between the RSF and the Sudanese army. That war is now entering its third year, and it has triggered what the un calls the world's greatest humanitarian crisis.

Once again, those with a Black or African tribal identity are being systematically hunted and killed by Arab militias like the RSF, in what has been determined to be a genocide by the U.S. State Department. And there is no end in sight to this conflict. Millions of people are unseen, battered, bruised, bombed and besieged, denied medical care and basic services, while the warring factions only exacerbate the suffering.

Salma Abdelaziz, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: We'll be back after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:45:29]

FOSTER: President Donald Trump continues to test the extent of power in the executive branch of the U.S. government. That's raising questions over how to fight back against some of the recent policies. As we mentioned earlier, Harvard University refusing to comply with the administration's request to change policy. The Trump administration is also battling with the U.S. federal courts and even the Supreme Court in recent deportation cases.

Then, the battle of the tariffs. China is pushing back on the increase in U.S. tariffs. In fact, Chinese President Xi is now taking diplomatic trips to strengthen global trade with his country. Joining us now from Washington. CNN's Stephen Collinson.

It's interesting, isn't it, because normally, I guess you'd be reporting on how the Democrats will be holding the administration to account or the courts. But in many ways, Ian Bremmer was suggesting earlier, it is big, powerful institutions like the E.U. and Harvard that are holding this executive to account.

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah. And I think China, as you mentioned, could end up being the most critical one. And the institution or country that the Trump administration may have underestimated more than all the others. What we're seeing, Max, you're right, is across education in the courts with immigration policy. Trump is attacking institutions that constrain his power or expose the extent of his attempts to push his power past its limits.

And, you know, the presidency is very powerful in itself. We haven't had a modern president who believes that he is exempt from the curbs on his power as much as Donald Trump does. And the question, therefore, is -- will the institutions stand up?

Congress is the primary institution in curtailing a president that's run by Republicans. They've got no interest in doing it. If you look at the universities, we've seen a number of universities that have caved to Trump's pressure, his threats to withdraw federal funding. Columbia University, for example.

So, I think the stance taken by Harvard, the oldest, most prestigious university in the United States, is an important one because it sends a message that the president's power is not absolute, and it could end up being a rallying point. But what we have in the United States right now is clashes between the president and multiple institutions. And it's a really interesting societal moment.

FOSTER: Where does this ultimately leave? You know, the way America is set up, which is this parallel power between Congress, the judiciary and the executive? Because it seems as though he's absolutely testing that.

COLLINSON: Certainly is. And in recent years, or I would say recent decades, really, since presidents started to try and claw back power after congress reasserted itself after the Watergate scandal in the 1970s with Richard Nixon. Weve seen the presidency become more powerful. And for various reasons, Congress become less powerful.

But of all the presidents I've covered, going back to Bill Clinton, there was a sense among all of them that -- the office of the presidency was very powerful, and it was therefore incumbent upon them to act very carefully, and most of them did, with some exceptions, didn't step over the line. Trump has none of that self-control. He believes that the presidency is all powerful. That is the dominant strain in his character as well.

Last year, the Supreme Court gave him a very favorable ruling arising out of one of his criminal cases, which offered a sitting president a great deal of immunity against criminal prosecution for official acts that he did in office. So that even further Trump sense that the presidency, United States is almost an imperial office, which cannot be checked, which, as you're implying, basically is anathema to what the Constitution says. And that constitution was written in reaction to opposition to imperial power, the British king.

So this is a moment, I think, if you look at some of the documents around the beginning of the founding of the United States and the Constitution, the founders were very acutely aware that even the system they designed could be vulnerable to a kingly persona who believes he had all power.

[15:50:08]

And they tried to, you know, develop these institutions around him to check that power. But they understood the vulnerability. And we're seeing that being written large in the last three months.

FOSTER: I mean, extraordinary. And, you know, you're really showing how profound all of this is.

Stephen, thank you so much.

COLLINSON: Cheers.

Now, Mark Zuckerberg in the hot seat. The social media CEO is in court defending his company, Meta. We'll take a look at the accusations and a possible presidential intervention as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Day two in court for Mark Zuckerberg and his company Meta. The U.S. government accuses Meta of building a social media monopoly. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The antitrust lawsuit is being brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

However, there is a possibility of President Donald Trump intervening in some way.

Joining us from New York is CNN's Clare Duffy, which would be interesting because its Trump's people who are actually sort of calling this case.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Yeah, it is interesting. And, you know, meta has made a number of efforts in recent months to get closer to President Trump, but for now, he has not said anything publicly about whether he will or won't intervene.

And in the meantime, Mark Zuckerberg is on the stand trying to defend two of his company's most important acquisitions, Instagram and WhatsApp, against these claims from the FTC that Meta acquired those platforms to quash nascent competition. And so much of the questioning that we've heard from the FTC's lawyer of Zuckerberg yesterday and today focuses on his thinking and his internal communications ahead of those acquisitions. Instagram was acquired in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. And there was one really interesting email that the FTC's lawyer presented in court. It is from 2014, sorry, 2012, from Mark Zuckerberg to then COO Sheryl Sandberg discussing Meta's technology teams. He said they are executing well technically, but their results this year are only okay. So far, Messenger isn't beating WhatsApp. Instagram was growing so much faster than us that we had to buy them for $1 billion.

That's not exactly killing it. And you can see how this kind of information could play into the FTC's argument here, that Meta was really concerned about outside competition to Facebook.

We also learned recently, really interesting in court that Meta actually considered and Zuckerberg himself considered potentially spinning off Instagram as early as 2018 because he was concerned that future antitrust enforcement could force the company to spin off those other platforms anyway.

So interesting revelations from court today.

Now, the FTC lawyer has just handed off to Meta's counsel, who will now cross-examine Zuckerberg. And we should get a better sense of how Meta's argument is shaping up, which is essentially that Meta can't be a monopoly because it has plenty of other competition from platforms like YouTube and TikTok.

So, we will continue watching, and we'll report back on what we hear from that.

FOSTER: Yeah, it's fascinating detail. It's all in the detail, isn't it?

Clare Duffy, thank you so much.

And thank you for joining me here on CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Max Foster.

Richard's up next with "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS".