Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Prospects for Peace Talks Over Ukraine; The Kremlin's View on Russia-Ukraine Developments; Will the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Reach Phase 2? Interview With Former Palestinian Authority Official Ghaith al-Omari; Interview With Brookings Institution Fellow Quinta Jurecic; Interview With The CEO Of The Atlantic Nicholas Thompson. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired February 16, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:34]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Bianna Golodryga filling in for Fareed who is off this week.

Today on the program, almost three years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Trump wants to bring the conflict to an end, and he wants to do it on his terms. I'll get the latest from the "Wall Street Journal's" Yaroslav Trofimov. And then ask the Carnegie Endowment's Alexander Gabuev how this is all playing in Moscow.

Then another highly controversial Trump plan, to displace all Gazans, sending them to live in Jordan and Egypt and turn Gaza into a real estate development? I'll talk to a former Palestinian negotiator.

Also, the rule of law in America is a constitutional crisis in the offing, and an unelected official gutting large swaths of the U.S. government. What to make of Elon Musk's unprecedented power?

Well, for three years now, the U.S. has worked to isolate Russia both diplomatically and financially for its war on Ukraine. But now, in a stunning policy shift, we're seeing the Trump administration actively engage Moscow with the aim of ending that war.

CNN reports that President Donald Trump's team is set to meet its Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia in the coming days. It's still unclear whether Ukrainian officials will attend, though the U.S. has stressed that European allies will not be invited.

Joining me is Yaroslav Trofimov, the "Wall Street Journal's" chief foreign affairs correspondent. He is in Munich, Germany, where the leaders had gathered for the annual Munich Security Conference. He's also the author of a fantastic new novel, "No Country for Love," set in 1930s Soviet Ukraine.

Yaroslav, great to see you. We will get to the book in just a moment. But President Trump had campaigned and early on in his administration has long said that he wants to bring this war to an end as soon as possible. No plan has been presented as of yet. And President Zelenskyy confirmed that from his phone call with Donald Trump saying that, quote, "the call was definitely not enough to form a peace plan."

Walk us through at least the early warnings that you've heard of what the White House may be proposing and how that is rattling Ukrainian and European officials.

YAROSLAV TROFIMOV, CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, I mean, there is going to be this meeting in Saudi Arabia in coming days between senior U.S. and Russian officials, which will be really the first opportunity to discuss what are the parameters of a possible deal. And the U.S. has said that everything is on the table except Ukraine's sovereignty. That leaves a lot to be negotiated because Russia frankly, while it may respect the formal sovereignty of Ukraine, has long wanted full political control over Ukraine, and it has sought disarmament of Ukraine in addition to direct occupation of the territories it already controls and others that it claims.

So Europe is not going to be there. Ukraine, according to Zelenskyy, is not taking part in these talks, though he will be visiting Saudi Arabia on a bilateral visit next week as well. So a lot is in the air, but there is certainly a sense of gloom and desperation in the air in Munich because many European officials are afraid that by deciding the fate of Ukraine without them, the U.S. and Russia may also decide the fate of Europe.

Many European leaders are vocal saying that this will not stop at Ukraine. And in parallel to this negotiations in Saudi Arabia, there is also going to be a summit in France on Monday that the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has called to discuss how Europe can respond to this unprecedented security challenge of this new negotiation of Russia and the U.S. about Europe's future.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and President Zelenskyy made sure to tell leaders there in Munich that, per his conversation with Donald Trump, Europe was not mentioned at all in terms of resolving this war. As you mentioned, this last minute conference is now being planned among European leaders. The United States is hoping that they will take the bulk of planning out and paying for Ukraine's defense.

Is there an opportunity you're hearing from Europeans that if the United States may not be a stable ally going forward for Europe, that this may in fact embolden Europe to work together more?

[10:05:03]

Because that is the message President Zelenskyy was trying to send yesterday, even saying that the Europeans needed their own military effectively.

TROFIMOV: Well, there is certainly an understanding. There is certainly a lot of talk about this. One official here told me, you know, we have had 10 years of wakeup calls. The next wakeup call could be an air raid siren but -- for Europe. But the question is capacity. And the question is also a political cohesion. You know, the biggest country in Europe, Germany, is in the middle of an election campaign, will not have a government for the next few months.

France has a minority government and a lot of the military investments that had to be made over the last several years haven't been made. So really, it's time for dramatic action for Europe. If, as some officials here say, you know, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu and Europe does not want to end up on the menu.

GOLODRYGA: I want to get to the tensions unfolding now between the United States and Germany in particular in just a moment. But sticking with the change in policy between President Biden, who has long said that no decisions about Ukraine will be made without Ukraine, to where Donald Trump is viewing this situation, and when asked if Ukraine is an equal partner here in these talks, he said he didn't know how to answer that question.

So why is a meeting potentially between President Trump and Vladimir Putin so alarming for President Zelenskyy?

TROFIMOV: Well, we don't know yet when and whether this meeting will be held, but it's clear that many officials in the U.S. administration believe in spheres of influence between and the rights of great powers to control their neighborhoods. You know, we have seen U.S. officials talk about Monroe Doctrine 2.0 for the Americans, for example, for the Americas, for example. And, you know, there is a fear for Ukraine.

You know, this mantra that nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine is no longer a policy of the United States. It is the policy of European countries, however.

GOLODRYGA: And it was stunning also to see the sharp rebuke from Vice President Vance against European leaders, in particular German leaders. What he said not upholding democracy, freedom of speech and not supporting far-right parties in the country, even meeting with AfD leaders ahead of the election upcoming. And German chancellor calling that election meddling. That could be a whole other segment that we discussed.

But I do want to ask you, Yaroslav, about your book, "No Love for Country." You were born in Kyiv. It is a fictional book based in large part on your grandmother's life story between the 1930s and 1950s when Ukraine was in the midst of one of the deadliest periods in modern history.

When I hear Vladimir Putin say things like ending this war is not just about a ceasefire, but needing to address, quote, "the root causes of conflict," it brings me to what you touched on in this book, going back so many decades ago, where there was this twisted sense that still lives in Vladimir Putin's head about the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and the Soviet Union. Talk to us about that and your grandmother's story line here.

TROFIMOV: Well, I think it's so much -- you know, the root cause of this war is that Vladimir Putin believes that Ukraine is Russia, and Ukraine is not entitled to its own identity, its own language, and its own history, above all. And, you know, in this book, I'm trying to tell through the story of my grandmother the story of Ukraine, which is really, really not well known outside of Ukraine.

You know, it was the deadliest place on earth in the middle of 20th century, between the artificial famine orchestrated by Moscow and then the holocaust and the war. And this famine is denied by Russia. You know, it killed millions and millions of Ukrainians. But the very first thing that happens when Russian troops occupy Ukrainian town, they demolish the monument to the victims of this famine. And so this clash of narratives is really, really important to understand why this war is going on and why, you know, territorial concessions are not necessarily end it because the Ukrainians are fighting so bravely and are sacrificing so much right now because everyone carries in their genes this memory.

We all descend from people who survived this terrible period. And Ukrainians know that, you know, if they allow Russia to take over Ukraine again, the very same atrocities of the past will be repeated because many Russian officials are very open about their genocidal plans.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. A beautiful tribute to your grandmother. I know you spent a lot of time trying to get old records from your grandmother's life as well.

Yaroslav Trofimov, thank you so much for the time.

Well, up next on GPS, how is all of this playing out in Moscow? We'll find out when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:14:19]

GOLODRYGA: President Donald Trump and his foreign policy team continue to upend American foreign policy in Europe, signaling a clear shift away from U.S. allies and seemingly closer to Russia. In his speech at the Munich Security Conference yesterday, President Zelenskyy warned of the danger of a Trump-Putin friendship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Next, Putin will try to get the U.S. president standing on Red Square on ay 9th this year, not as a respected leader, but as a prop in his own performance. We don't need that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: So how is all of this playing out in Moscow? Joining me now from Munich is Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

[10:15:04]

Sasha, good to see you as always. I would imagine this was a celebratory mood that Russia was in this week. And the Kremlin, seeing everything that transpired from last week, the prisoner swap, the phone call between President Trump and President Putin, the fact that President Trump said that he trusts Vladimir Putin, wants to bring this war to an end. The vice president of the United States getting into spats with European leaders.

The Defense Secretary putting concessions out on the table before awkwardly walking them back. Tell us how this has been viewed in the Kremlin.

ALEXANDER GABUEV, DIRECTOR, CARNEGIE RUSSIA EURASIA CENTER: Great to see you, Bianna. Well, it's indeed like Easter, Hanukkah, Christmas, birthday of Vladimir Putin. And everything is happening on one day. So whatever champagne is not chilled is brought to the fridge, and other bottles are uncorked.

It's too early to celebrate, but just the sheer optics of everything, what's transpiring is definitely beneficial for the Kremlin because on one hand, you have a U-turn in the U.S. foreign policy. Isolate Russia, make Putin a pariah leader, help to get him -- get the arrest warrant of International Court of Justice and all of that.

And on the other hand, you see fracturing in Trans-Atlantic support network for Ukraine. And the signal that all of this Trump's sending to Kyiv and his friends that Ukraine and the United States are not one team and team Trump is playing its own game. It's definitely something beneficial even if the talks don't result in the outcome that Vladimir Putin wants for now.

GOLODRYGA: Well, speaking of talks, you heard my conversation with Yaroslav there and the idea of an upcoming meeting and summit potentially soon between President Trump and President Putin. It's something that President Zelenskyy has warned against without him in a meeting with him first.

How soon do you think we can see a summit between these two men?

GABUEV: We need to be cautious in our estimates, but I would not be surprised if we see the summit by the end of this month.

GOLODRYGA: Oh, wow. And is this because of what you're hearing from sources?

GABUEV: I think that they are pretty optimistic. Well, there are some details to be hammered out, but the Russian approach is not top down. It's not the kind of traditional way that the American foreign policy works, that all of the details before the leaders meet will need to be hammered out and agreed. And then the leaders only give the blessing and discuss the remaining outstanding issues.

This time around, the Russians really want an unscripted meeting along the very broad lines that have been agreed, and that, it seems to them, is something that President Trump wants, too.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and it seems that every single time President Trump speaks with Vladimir Putin, he echoes his old talking points, this time around that he thinks that the Russia should go back into the G- 8, that it is somehow President Biden's fault about bringing up NATO membership for Ukraine that started this war.

When it comes to security guarantees for Ukraine, what is left, what is feasible when you take away troops in the country and when you take away the possibility of NATO membership?

GABUEV: I think that Ukraine has something that is pretty credible and serious, and that Russia sees as a mortal threat to its desire to dominate Ukraine and subjugate this country to become its subject. And this is a network of bilateral agreements that was orchestrated by President Biden and his team and President Zelenskyy and NATO leadership that provides Ukraine with assistance packages to create credible deterrent force inside Ukraine, better trained force, armed to teeth with a lot of capabilities that can strike deep inside Russia that would serve as a deterrent. And that's exactly what Russia wants to dismantle as well.

GOLODRYGA: Which makes it all the more curious that it seems that Europe has been completely left out of this negotiation process, especially if the United States is saying that the bulk of the process and the way it should be on the Europeans at hand.

We heard from President Zelenskyy say that according to his own intelligence, he does expect to see some Russian training exercises in Belarus in the coming months, and that he views this as a false flag sort of opportunity for Russia to potentially attack a NATO ally. You are dubious about this intelligence, and I'm just wondering, do these types of threats and warnings actually work against President Zelenskyy in Ukraine among Europeans?

[10:20:07]

GABUEV: We don't see serious confirmations about this. And usually Western intelligence come up first. And they have been really doing a very good throughout this campaign in bringing out the information to the public light. Since they are silent and Ukrainian own intelligence agencies like the military intelligence or the service for national security are silent, I remain somewhat skeptical, but we'll see.

I think the partial problem here is that President Zelenskyy has his finger on an issue. Russia is preparing to mobilize many more people. And if the discussions with Trump collapse or lead to result that would make Vladimir Putin happy, Russia's plan b is war, and Russia believes that Ukraine doesn't have that much time because of its manpower problems.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Which is why President Zelenskyy said that their army would have to double in size if they're not admitted into NATO soon.

Sasha Gabuev, always good to see you. Thanks so much.

Up next on GPS, President Trump met with the king of Jordan this week as the region continues to reckon with Trump's proposal to take over Gaza and resettle Palestinians elsewhere. I'll talk to a former Palestinian official who says Trump's comments may lead to a solution for Gaza. We'll explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:54]

GOLODRYGA: Well, President Trump's proposal to take over Gaza and resettle Palestinians elsewhere has sent shockwaves through the Middle East. The king of Jordan has rejected Trump's plan, but met with him this week and attempted to maintain good relations. He looked on as Trump promoted his plan.

Now, Egypt has also rejected Trump's idea and says it is crafting its own plan for the reconstruction and governance of Gaza that allows Palestinians to remain there.

I want to bring in Ghaith al-Omari, senior fellow at the Washington Institute. He held various positions in the Palestinian Authority, including as an adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team from 1999 to 2001.

Ghaith, thank you so much for taking the time today.

GHAITH AL-OMARI, FORMER PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY OFFICIAL: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: First, let's begin with the Israel-Hamas war, because you'll recall President Trump had said that if all hostages were not released, all of them, not just the three that had been part of this phase of the deal, that all hell will break loose. And that caused a lot of concern this week. Ultimately, we did see the deal go forward yesterday with the release of three hostages, including one American citizen, and then the return of Palestinian prisoners as well.

But now we have Secretary of State Rubio in Israel meeting with the prime minister today. And they appear in lockstep in saying that both Hamas must be eliminated and the U.S. once again saying that they will provide 2,000 pound bombs to Israel that had been previously frozen by the Biden administration. The prime minister, echoing Trump's language by threatening that Israel will, quote, "open the gates of hell" if all of the hostages are not returned.

Will this type of added pressure from both Israel and the United States together on Hamas help or hurt further in continuing this specific peace deal and hostage release?

AL-OMARI: I'm afraid that it will actually hurt rather than help. And it will hurt actually from two different angles. One is, you know, Hamas not only, because of the threats but because of the president's idea of taking over Gaza, will find it very, very hard to accept a ceasefire that is predetermined to end both in Hamas's elimination and in the population of Gaza. But it's also creating pressure on the Israeli side.

And Israel, Netanyahu right now the prime minister, has to on the one hand he cannot look and seem, you know, less tough than Trump. But on the other hand, there is tremendous pressure among the Israeli public. I believe around 70 percent of Israelis want the whole ceasefire deal to be concluded, so that all of the hostages were returned. So both Netanyahu and Hamas right now find themselves in a very, very different and much more complicated situation than they did before the president's remarks.

GOLODRYGA: Well, let's talk about the other controversial remarks from the president. And that is doubling down on his idea of the U.S. having control over Gaza, resettling Palestinians to live in Jordan and Egypt, the far-right member of the Israeli government, the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said over the weekend that this process should actually start within a matter of weeks. This, of course, as you know, is not only impractical, it's illegal under international law. But President Trump reiterated that sitting right next to the king of Jordan earlier last week.

What did you make of how King Abdullah handled this?

AL-OMARI: First of all, in terms of King Abdullah, I think he handled it very well. I know for a fact the Jordanians were going into the meeting very concerned, very concerned both about Gaza and bilateral Jordanian-American relations. I think in the end of the day it went well for Jordan. It went well for Jordan because the king understood that you have to be proactive. So he presented this idea of accepting 2006 Gazan children for treatment in Jordan.

This gave the president a win without compromising Jordan's basic positions. But it only bought time. And right now the main challenge is what do you do with this time?

GOLODRYGA: So what do you say to those who argue like Marco Rubio did today in Israel, doubling down on the president's idea, saying, quote, "The same tired ideas cannot be repeated as in the past?" And if you look, the Egyptians, while they may have postponed a meeting between President Trump and President Sisi, you heard that they are trying to put an idea together, a plan together, for the day after that would leave Palestinians in Gaza.

What do you make of those who say, when Trump makes these kind of threats outside of the box thinking more action actually gets done?

AL-OMARI: I, actually, tend to agree with that. I mean, definitely, as you said earlier, this plan is neither legal nor moral nor practical. However, it did highlight one thing, which is the fact of that there is a vacuum in terms of serious practical ideas. Until now, over the last 15, 16 months of the war we heard a lot of slogans, but no practical ideas.

Now, I think Arab countries believe and feel there is a fire lit under them. And so, we're starting to see very, very robust and very intensive Arab diplomacy. There's going to be a meeting on the 20th in Saudi Arabia by five or six Arab leaders to discuss these ideas. Then a week after that, we're going to have an Arab League summit.

And the whole idea here is to come up with a practical, real alternative to what the president is saying to reconstruct Gaza, but at the same time to keep Gazans at home. It's not simple, though, because it's not only a simple matter of just reconstruction. There are very, very complicated political and security questions that they have to answer.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and it's a question of who will govern Gaza at the end of the day. The prime minister of Israel has said it's not going to be the Palestinian authority.

Quickly in the final few seconds, what is Saudi's role in all of this? The president wants normalization and a defense deal between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, normalization between Israel and Saudi. And they are firm in saying that there should be no displacement of Palestinians outside of Gaza.

AL-OMARI: The Saudi role is going to be central. And we see it by the fact that Saudi is convening everyone, et cetera. The president does want a normalization between Israel and Saudi to, you know, cap up his Abraham Accords. This gives the Saudis a lot of leverage. And the Saudis have been very, very clear they do not want that.

Again, however, they have to come up with something practical. And by the way, the Saudis and other Arab countries also don't want to see Hamas governing Gaza. How do you manage this is going to be the biggest challenge that they have.

GOLODRYGA: No doubt. Ghaith al-Omari, thank you so much. We appreciate it.

AL-OMARI: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Up next on GPS, is America headed towards a constitutional crisis? I'll ask a legal expert when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:37:07]

GOLODRYGA: In less than a month, President Trump has attempted to freeze all federal grants and loans, ordered the termination of birthright citizenship, taken a sledgehammer to the regulatory state, fired federal workers without a mind to their legal protections, and all but dismantled USAID.

Some of these actions have been blocked, at least temporarily, by the courts. But will they continue to be? And if they are, will Trump defy court orders? That would be a constitutional crisis.

Joining me now to discuss all of this is Quinta Jurecic, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a senior editor at Lawfare. Quinta, it is good to see you.

So, we should note that President Trump, in his first term, never actually defied a court order. He publicly disparaged and personally attacked judges, but he didn't defy their rulings. Why are you concerned that that may not be the case during his second term?

QUINTA JURECIC, FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: As you say, Trump really abided by the authority of the court during his first term. He would complain. He would post on Twitter about so-called judges, but he never tried to outright ignore a court order. This time, though, I think we're seeing a lot of rhetoric that is deeply concerning around this issue.

We have seen Vice President J.D. Vance, for example, tweet something that doesn't outright say, but certainly hints that the administration, if it decides that the judiciary is intruding on what Vance referred to as the executive's legitimate power, might simply go its own way and decide to completely set aside an order of the court. That would really move us into new territory, not only legally, not only for this administration, but really in the course of American democracy as a whole.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And what's shocking about J.D. Vance's post, the vice president's post, is that he should know better. He is a Yale Law School graduate. But then we saw others in support of what he said, Senator Tom Cotton, some conservative law professors. And that's really setting the stage for what some believe may be a point of ignoring a judge's order because they would like to say in their minds, a judge is illegitimate, that they should be disbarred, or that they have political bias. Is that a concern that you have?

JURECIC: It certainly seems like, as you say, there is a kind of community of people in the Republican Party on the right, on the far right, that are kind of talking themselves into this position. And that, I think, is very concerning because that community didn't exist in the same way in the first Trump administration. And so, we don't really have a sense of how this might play out.

I think the thing that, you know, viewers should keep in mind is that, so far, we haven't actually seen this happen. There has been a lot of, you know, incendiary rhetoric, but we haven't seen the administration outright go in front of a court and say, we're not going to do what you say.

[10:40:09]

Instead, we've seen the administration do, you know, in an unusually aggressive fashion, admittedly, but mostly what executive branches are supposed to do in the sense of if they don't like a court order going before the court and saying, you know, hey, can you please change this, trim this down in some way? We'd like to comply with this, but we have some changes that we suggest that you might make.

And so, so far, that is what we have seen. I think it would be a different level of crisis if this kind of group were to push forward and try to make the Justice Department outright say, we are not going to comply.

GOLODRYGA: I do want to bring up a post from the "Wall Street Journal" editorial board this week that has been pretty outspoken in calling out some of the president's executive orders. But on this issue, in particular, here's what they said.

Trump's actions are aggressive, but they aren't an executive coup. Writing that Mr. Trump's domestic-policy decisions so far strike us as falling into three categories. Most rest on strong legal ground. Some are legally debatable -- in still others Mr. Trump appears to be breaking current law deliberately to tee up cases that will then go to the Supreme Court to restore what he considers to be constitutional norms. None of these is a constitutional crisis.

What do you make of that argument?

JURECIC: I think it depends on how you define a constitutional crisis. I would argue that we are in one. The administration may not have outright disobeyed the judiciary, but it seems to be moving itself in that direction. And there's another branch of government whose constitutional duties it is riding roughshod over, and that's Congress.

I think it's important to understand that when the administration decides not to send out millions, billions, trillions of dollars of funding that has been appropriated by Congress, that is a direct attack on Congress' constitutional power of the purse, which is the main power that it has under our constitutional structure.

And so, if you define a crisis as a branch of government not abiding by its constitutional responsibilities, I think, we are absolutely seeing that right now in the relationship between the executive and Congress, though it hasn't yet quite come to a head in the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.

GOLODRYGA: Quinta, before I let you go, I do have to ask you about the stunning developments this week here in New York City, where the U.S. acting attorney in Manhattan resigned after the number two at the DOJ commanded her to dismiss the corruption charges against Mayor Adams. Subsequently, five more prosecutors resigned after she did. Is this a sign of a crisis, in your view, or a sign that the institutions themselves are holding?

JURECIC: In some ways it's both, but it's certainly a sign of a crisis. You wouldn't expect to see a string of resignations. You know, twice as many people resigned here as did in the Saturday night massacre during Watergate. That is really sending out a signal that something is terribly wrong here.

And the letter sent by the former acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York really says quite clearly, if you read it, I'm being asked to do something that I think is wrong, and that is not within my authority.

And I think that, you know, it's worth taking this very, very seriously. It may not hit the headlines because of how many crazy things are happening right now, but it's deeply concerning in terms of what's happening within the Justice Department.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And this, we should note, U.S. attorney is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. She's part of the federalist society. She clerked for Justice Scalia, a really big story unfolding here in New York state. Thank you so much, Quinta. I appreciate the time.

Well, Elon Musk is reshaping the federal government like no private citizen has before, gutting agencies and changing the way the government works. What to make of this? I will ask the CEO of "The Atlantic" when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:48:58]

GOLODRYGA: The world's richest man has, in the past month, become one of the most powerful government figures in Washington, if not the world. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk is attempting to shut down vast swaths of the American government. In his own words, he wants to, quote, "delete entire agencies." He's already essentially doing that with USAID.

On Tuesday, he held court with the press in the Oval Office alongside his son, X, and oh, yes, the president, too. So, what to make of all of this? Joining me now is Nick Thompson, CEO of "The Atlantic." Nick, it's always good to see you.

So, before we get to the Elon of it all, I do want to ask you about something that we saw this week on Friday in Munich. At the Munich Security Conference, we saw Vice President Vance deliver a speech before European leaders and really admonish the European leaders in this room for what he viewed as losing its democratic values, especially as it relates to freedom of speech.

And I'm wondering, as the CEO of a large U.S. media company, if you found that a bit hypocritical this week especially when we saw the president ban an AP reporter from an Oval Office event because AP would not call the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America.

[10:50:12]

NICHOLAS THOMPSON, CEO, THE ATLANTIC: Yes. I think there is extreme hypocrisy there. It is absolutely true, the president and the vice president, have changed the balance in some ways. The way conversation works in America and on social media platforms. We've seen this with Elon Musk, where the balance has shifted from trust and safety to what they call free speech, which is more openness, less trust and safety. There is a tradeoff.

But at the same time, the First Amendment has a number of provisions, including freedom of the press. And what we've seen from this administration has been a real push on that. Threatening news organizations, threatening specific reporters who do not go along with the linguistic preferences of the United States government, threatening journalism shield laws. So, there has been a lot of pressure on one of the most important principles of the First Amendment, which is freedom of the press.

GOLODRYGA: And the concern and the consequence is what if this continues?

THOMPSON: Well, American democracy. We are a very special country. And we are a very special country -- one reason for that is because we have a free press that can write whatever it wants without fear or favor. That is one of the key linchpins of democracy, because if the government does something wrong, the press is there to say, you know, they did something wrong, and then the people can understand.

It's kind of how the system works. It's one of the magical things that the founding fathers set up. If you get rid of that, and if you push on that and you say, wait, hold on. If you write something critical, the United States government, there will be consequences. If you don't agree with what we say, there will be consequences. We might take away your broadcast license. We might do something worse.

If that happens, civil discourse weakens. American public has less light on what is going on in the government. There are really important consequences to how this magical country functions if we don't have real freedom of the press.

GOLODRYGA: And a lot has been written by your own publication about what Elon Musk has been doing this past month, really essentially, in a way, unilaterally holding carte blanche over the U.S. government with his DOGE operation.

THOMPSON: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: The Department of Government Efficiency, I think many people had essentially thought that was going to be sort of a blue- ribbon commission type of organization that is more symbolic, good on the campaign trail, not really effective once the president is in office. That hasn't been the case.

THOMPSON: No, it has not.

GOLODRYGA: You've known Elon Musk and covered him for quite a while.

THOMPSON: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: What do you think is motivating him here?

THOMPSON: I think that a lot of it is genuine motivation. He really does think the government will be better if it is smaller, if it is shrunk, if there are fewer referees on the field, as he said.

In fact, you know, the most telling thing I think that he said in the past two weeks was in his speech in Dubai, where he actually is calm and controlled, is very different from the Elon that you see on Twitter. And he said, what we're trying to do is we feel like there are too many referees on the field. It's like a sporting event where the players can't pass to each other because the referees keep getting in the way.

And one way to look at that is sort of the generous way, which is to say, oh, you know, government really there are a lot of referees on the field. The other is, wait a second. You look a little deeper.

I think what he's saying is that he likes being the only referee, right? He likes anybody who might make a different call, a linesman who might differ from him, a civil service agent who might disagree with what he thinks the right thing is. He wants to sideline them all. And so, I think what Musk kind of wants is he wants to be the referee of the world, the referee of the government, the referee of the new A.I. systems that we are building. That is his objective. So, I thought that very small moment was quite telling for all of this drama and all of this exchange that he's bringing.

GOLODRYGA: And what he's bringing is really unprecedented in the speed at which it is happening here of the U.S. government.

THOMPSON: It's astonishing, right? I mean, you look, Republican Congress has said, we're going to do this. We're going to change USAID. They've been saying it for years. They have been completely unable to do it, right?

There are lots of obstacles and checks and balances, and Musk has come in through brute force now being checked by the courts, but has come in and changed a lot very rapidly. I mean, that is one of his superpowers, as we saw at Twitter or one of his supervillain powers, according to his critics. He comes in and he dramatically changes things very fast.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, we just talked about the courts in the segment prior to this and concerned that we could be possibly heading to a constitutional crisis if at some point the administration doesn't follow orders from judges.

A group of Democratic state attorney generals have sued Elon Musk and his DOGE department, accusing musk of, quote, "seemingly limitless and unchecked power" over the federal government's affairs in violation of the Constitution. What is his approach in the past been to courts and their rulings?

THOMPSON: He -- well, he is he loves to use the courts. He is, you know, very aggressive in suing his critics and, you know, using the courts against his critics. He generally, though, if you have an order, he will do his best to fight back against it.

[10:55:00]

He will hire the best lawyers and he will try to defeat it. Sometimes he will fight the regulators who are trying to push orders on him. But I don't think there has ever been a moment where he has had quite as much power, and where if he defied a court order, there could be quite the same consequences.

And given the speed, velocity and ferocity at what he's now -- in which he's now acting, we can't be sure of anything that's going to happen.

GOLODRYGA: How long do you think this relationship last between the two of them, the president and Elon Musk?

THOMPSON: You've seen some pressure. You've seen some friction. I think it's going to last for -- let's just say this, a lot more will happen before the relationship ruptures.

GOLODRYGA: The president seems to be happy with what he's doing thus far. Nick Thompson, thank you so much.

THOMPSON: Thank you so much, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: That is it for today. Thank you all for being a part of FAREED ZAKARIA GPS this week. Fareed will be back next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)