Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Trump's Trop to a Transforming Middle East; Trump Announces Syria Sanctions Relief; Interview with Retired General Stanley McChrystal. Interview With Retired U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal; Interview With Media Mogul Barry Diller. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired May 18, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:42]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you live from New York.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Today on the program, we'll look at President Trump's first major overseas trip to the Middle East. It was filled with pageantry, a diplomatic surprise, and what the president claims to be trillions of dollars of deals.

And retired General Stanley McChrystal, one of America's most highly decorated warfighters, says character is the most important trait of great leaders and that Donald Trump is lacking in that department. He'll explain.

Finally, the amazing business story of Barry Diller. He's had wild success running three completely different businesses. I'll ask him how he did it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: But first, here's "My Take." President Trump's instinct for disruption and tendency to shoot from the hip has caused chaos, opposition and abrupt reversals. But this week, Trump reminded us that sometimes his willingness to take risks and think outside the box can shake up tired old ways.

In Saudi Arabia, he surprised everyone by meeting with Syria's new leader, a former jihadi, and announcing that he would remove all U.S. sanctions on the country. He has also suggested repeatedly that his administration is willing to make a new nuclear deal with Iran. If so, he could bring a new level of peace and stability to the Middle East.

Trump's newfound interest in an Iran deal is ironic, verging on bizarre. After all, he was the one who pulled the U.S. out of the original Iran nuclear deal, even though most serious observers, including U.S. intelligence agencies, believe that Iran had been adhering to the terms of the deal. This is one more example of Donald Trump creating a problem, reversing himself, and then proudly announcing to the world that he has brilliantly reset the situation.

But whatever the past events have transpired that could make for a better deal today than before, the two fundamental shifts that are most relevant here are Iran's weakness and Saudi Arabia's strength. Iran is in worse shape than it has been in a generation. Decades of chronic mismanagement of the economy, exacerbated by sanctions, massive corruption and a brutal dictatorship have caused deep public dissatisfaction with the Islamic regime.

Add to that last year's stunningly successful Israeli assaults on Hezbollah and Iran's own air defenses, plus Tehran's closest Arab ally, Syria's Bashar al-Assad's government collapsed, and the primary opposition forces, whom Iranian backed militias had been fighting for years, became the new government. But this all together, and Iran is at its weakest point since Saddam Hussein invaded the fledgling Islamic republic in 1980.

Second, Saudi Arabia has been growing in strength, and its foreign policy has been transformed over the last few years. It has negotiated a truce with the Houthis, improved relations with Qatar and developed better ties with countries like Lebanon and Iraq. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has realized that to achieve his primary dream, the modernization of Saudi Arabia, he needs stability in the region.

The most remarkable sign of this has been the growing rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with officials of the two countries meeting with some regularity. Saudi officials now explicitly support a new Iran nuclear deal. The obstacle to the deal is what it has always been. Bibi Netanyahu. But increasingly his obstinacy does not find support from Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states.

Why? Perhaps they are less wary of Iran because of its weakened state, perhaps because Netanyahu's ferocious war in Gaza has made it harder for them to back anything he advocates. And perhaps because they realize that such a deal is, in fact, the best way to contain the dangers of nuclear proliferation in the region.

[10:05:05]

Additionally, one of the compromises being mooted, a regional consortium that would enrich uranium could be a helpful model that would pave the way for Saudi Arabia's own plan to have a civilian nuclear program. The challenge for Trump is that his administration is divided on this issue between two camps, realists and neoconservatives. The former seemed to include Trump himself and Steve Witkoff, the chief negotiator.

On the other side are various Iran hawks, most prominently Marco Rubio, along with a bevy of congressional Republicans. The two sides still seem to be battling, which explains why the administration seems to change its tone and emphasis every few days.

The main Iran hawk, of course, is Bibi Netanyahu, who warns that Iran will get a bomb soon unless it is bombed. But it's worth keeping in mind that Netanyahu has been predicting that Iran is months away from getting a nuclear bomb for at least 13 years. Actually, he wrote a book in which he claimed Iran was on a relentless path to a nuclear bomb in 1995. He's asserted that Iran is a messianic, apocalyptic cult and therefore negotiating with them would be pointless.

The more prosaic reality is that Iran is run by a bunch of brutish mullahs and corrupt generals who have spent their energies amassing fortunes in this world, not preparing for the next one. They've found it more advantageous to stay months away from a nuclear weapon, rather than to cross that line. They want sanctions relief, not an end of days conflagration.

There is a deal to be made with such men, not to become friends, but to serve a common interest of defusing the dangers of nuclear arms races and bringing stability to a Middle East that has been scarred by generations of war and terror. Donald Trump is uniquely positioned to override Netanyahu's objections, cut through the usual Washington battle lines, and grab this opportunity.

Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link to my "Washington Post" column this week. And let's get started.

One more note on President Trump's trip, he departed the Middle East early Friday afternoon, local time on Air Force One, by the way, not the Qatari 747. Mere hours later, Israel announced a major new military operation in Gaza and the territory's health minister reports that at least 300 people have already been killed.

I want to bring in today's panel. Richard Haass is the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Randa Slim is a nonresident fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Welcome, both.

Richard, let me start by asking you about something that didn't get enough attention. I thought, which was President Trump's remarkable sort of Trump doctrine in his speech. It was a few lines, but, he basically said, you know, the United States has made this horrible mistake of intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries. We don't want to do that. We want to just let you do what you want.

He says that, of course, to a bunch of absolute monarchies in the Gulf, while in Europe, the administration's policy has been constant, ceaseless, interfering. They tell the Germans what parties they should ally with, you know, even forming domestic coalitions. They tell Britain, of all places, how to honor free speech. The country that one could argue invented the protections on free speech.

So what is going on? What is this? What is the distinction between noninterference in the Gulf and massive interference in Europe?

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, let's take it in two bites, Fareed. First of all, I agree with you. I actually think one of the most interesting, if not the most interesting part of the trip was the detailing, the articulation of Donald Trump's approach to the world. One is that the principal business of American foreign policy is to promote business. That itself is different. And then, second of all, it was we're not

going to focus on what you guys do internally. You can run your countries and societies any way you want. I mean, think about it. In 20 years we have gone from the messianic foreign policy of George W. Bush to this total laissez faire, we're not going to judge you policy of Donald Trump. Quite an extraordinary shift. But you're also right. There's a double standard here. There's hypocrisy. It's hands off for the monarchs and all that. But it's hands on, so to speak, with the countries of Europe.

[10:10:02]

So essentially they aren't -- the administration is interfering in European politics. We saw JD Vance's speech in Europe. We see the support from Elon Musk and others for the AfD in Germany. And again, so there's a complete double standard. This administration also obviously likes the reform movement in Britain. But look, it's not the first administration to have double standards. And I think in some ways it reflects its approach domestically.

Think about it. The Harvard Universities and the rest, that's how they see Europe. They see it as a woke, overregulated, somewhat anti- American arena. Well, again, it's very much how they're approaching institutions inside the United States.

ZAKARIA: Randa, what do you make of the flurry of deals and the, you know, is that the major prize or was there something left on the table?

RANDA SLIM, NON-RESIDENT FELLOW, JOHNS HOPSKINS SAIS: I think this was a win for both sides. I mean, as Richard said, this is a president that looks at trade and business deals as the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. And it's an approach that goes well or works well with Arab Gulf leaders. And so both of them, Trump got what he wanted, coming back, burnishing his reputation of being the ultimate dealmaker and bringing investments to the United States.

And the Gulf leaders got what they wanted in terms of positioning themselves in this global revolution, going forward in A.I. and future technologies as part of their efforts, ongoing efforts to diversify their economy away from oil and to localize these technologies. And this knowhow in their countries. They also got -- now also they got, they are interested in getting influence and access on files that matter to them domestically.

The U.S. trade and tariffs policy impacting global economy will affect their own development, economic development projects. A military escalation between the U.S. and Iran will affect regional stability, will also affect their economic development project. And they also are interested in getting to a Gaza deal. Some of them are not that of a high priority to them, but it's a high priority to their publics.

Now, how many of these deals will become reality? You know, if past is prologue, not many of them. Some of them have a shelf life of 10 years. Some of them are old deals that have been prepackaged, and some of them are MOUs. But both sides got what they needed from this trip. ZAKARIA: Richard, what do you make of the fact that one country was

not part of this trip, Israel? Do you buy the argument that there is now a growing rift between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu?

HAASS: I would call it more distancing. America first is not Israel or Bibi first. There's a whole pattern of decisions. The dealing directly with Hamas and the Houthis, the Iran nuclear approach that you articulated in your take. The outreach to Syria. This is an administration that has essentially given Israel a free hand up to now in the West Bank and Gaza, but everywhere else, Donald Trump has essentially done what he wants to do. Again, it's America first.

And, Fareed, to me, the interesting question is whether at some point, this willingness to distance from Israel translates into a willingness to put pressure on Israel over Gaza and the West Bank, particularly because the president talked about it on this trip. He still wants to see a normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

You know, and I know the price of that normalization is Israel changing its policy, coming up with a, if you will, a serious day after policy for the West Bank, rather than continued war and occupation. So I think that's an interesting space to watch, whether the distancing from Israel turns out over time into a willingness to pressure on Israel.

One last point. You know, with Donald Trump there, Donald Trump doesn't have to worry about Donald Trump, almost like Richard Nixon going to China. Israel can't do an end run around this administration. That's why I think it's such an important thing to watch.

ZAKARIA: Really interesting. Stay with us. When we come back, I'm going to ask my guests whether it was right to reach out to a former al Qaeda fighter, the now president of Syria, and embrace him, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:19:03]

ZAKARIA: We are back with Richard Haass and Randa Slim.

Randa, I want to ask you about the Syria sanctions relief that President Trump announced. He did it in a very Trumpian fashion. He just announced it and said it was a favor, basically, to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

I do think it was a good idea to give this guy a chance. And, you know, it shows you the advantage of Trump's disruption. This would have taken years of committee meetings if it had been done the normal way. But, A, do you think it's a good idea? And B, can it actually happen? As with many of the things Donald Trump does, can the president simply deliver sanctions relief that way when these were, I think, congressionally enacted sanctions?

SLIM: I think it's a good idea. I mean, there is a fait accompli now in Syria, which is President -- Mr. Sharaa is the interim president of Syria, and he is in the process of consolidating control over all Syrian territory.

[10:20:05]

And so the Biden administration started engaging with him and his group right after the fall of Bashar al-Assad last December. And the Trump administration has been continuing along the same path, except that they have, you know, put some conditions on sanctions relief. The decision by Mr. Trump disrupted that timetable. I think we were heading toward some kind of sanctions relief, but that was disrupted. It has been accelerated in a way.

Now, how much of that sanction relief can happen in the short term, as you well pointed out, some of them are -- have been imposed by Congress, like the Caesar Act, like in 2019. And before that, the Syria Accountability Act in 2003. And those would require congressional approval to be lifted. And then some are -- can be lifted by executive action, executive orders.

But also in addition to our own legal process and, you know, what's going to happen inside this legal process, also, international financial institutions will have a say in how effective these, and how fast and how effective these sanctions relief can be implemented. And so it's going to take some time. Mr. Sharaa needs quick economic relief. The economy is in tatters. 60 percent of the of the GDP has shrunk since 2011.

He has -- half of the country's infrastructure has been totally destroyed. And some of this work needs, you know, economic reforms and actions internally. But he cannot rebuild without assistance from outside, especially regionals, and without assistance from international financial institutions.

ZAKARIA: Richard, what do you make of, you know, what is the insight into Donald Trump when he was asked about this guy, his first reaction is attractive guy, tough. I bet Justin Trudeau is wondering why he's not regarded by Donald Trump as attractive. This bearded former jihadi is regarded as attractive. What is going on?

HAASS: You know, it's so interesting. Normally, you know, Fareed, I've worked for a number of presidents and normally policy kind of works its way up through an administration. This is clearly the most top down administration we've seen. So he's done this, I think he's intrigued. He likes -- Trump likes to bring people around, whether it's former political enemies at home or foreign leaders. Again, he doesn't much care about what goes on inside other countries.

I thought this was interesting in some ways as something for the Saudis. Look, the last thing the region needs is another failed state. So I see on one hand the strategic rationale for this. It does send a signal to the Israelis. I was just surprised by the lack of conditionality. For example, how they deal with the Kurds. Second of all, that there's no support for terrorism. That said, we're mainly talking about waiving sanctions.

You can put them back in if these guys disappoint. So I think there's a degree of conditionality here. And it's just basically Trump's way of not, he's just not conventional. He's not a traditional person. And as you said at the outset, that can get him in the United States in trouble at times. On the other hand, it's a great way to short circuit the bureaucracy and try something new and different. We'll see.

ZAKARIA: Fifteen seconds. I just want one quick. The Qatari jet. He describes it as like a gimme in a pot. You're a great golfer. Does that strike you as the right analogy?

HAASS: No. It'd be closer to standing on the tee and say, will you agree that this counts as a hole in one for me before you hit it? A gimme is two feet. It's something very small and little. A 747 worth $400 billion is not in my definition of a gimme.

ZAKARIA: Richard Haass, Randa Slim, pleasure to have you both on.

Next on GPS, the decorated war hero Stanley McChrystal tells us why America's troubles can be traced to one factor, the declining importance of good character. That's up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:28:39]

ZAKARIA: My next guest wants to start a national conversation on an issue that he believes is plaguing America today. The erosion of character.

General Stanley McChrystal is a retired four-star general of the U.S. Army and a former commander of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. He also led the military's premier special forces at the height of the global war on terror. McChrystal has a new book called "On Character: Choices That Define a Life."

Stan McChrystal, welcome back.

GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL (RET.), U.S. ARMY: It's great to see you, Fareed. Thanks for having me.

ZAKARIA: You've written a book about character. You endorsed Kamala Harris. One has to draw from that conclusion that you thought Donald Trump was deficient in character. Explain why.

MCCHRYSTAL: Yes. First, I'd say that I've concluded that my character is the most important thing about me. It's the essence of who I am. And I think that's true of everyone. And I think it's the essence of leaders. And so when I think about any leader, whether it's a CEO of a company or a leader of a school or president of the United States, to me the most important aspect is character, because we'll never be able to predict what crises emerge.

You know, the unexpected. But we will know whether we can trust that person and their judgment. In the last election, I looked as closely as I could, and we had two people who were relatively known entities. One had been vice president. One had been president. And I made the decision that character was the number one criteria for me. I actually didn't agree with the politics or the policies completely of either side much more in the center. But I judged that Vice President Harris had better character that I thought I could trust more.

ZAKARIA: Explain that to people who support President Trump. And I think a lot of them would say, look, we get it. He's not a perfect person. He's imperfect. He's -- you know, there are a lot of flaws there. But he is a warrior for our cause. And, you know, if he breaks a lot of stuff and speaks foul ways, that's OK. But for you, character is deeper than that, right?

MCCHRYSTAL: It is. And I would not say someone is wrong for supporting President Trump. I can understand because on many of the issues he hits things that are important to people. And so that resonates.

What I would caution is when things get most difficult in periods of combat that I had in my years in the service or in other parts of my life, you sort of lay bare what's inside a person. And when I look at President Trump's track record, I find that there is less character than I am comfortable in someone as a president of the United States.

I actually think that in those very difficult moments of crisis, I can have much less confidence in the way he will react than I could in the case of Vice President Harris or potentially someone else.

ZAKARIA: When you see countries like Canada, Denmark, that have contributed and fought in almost every American war, and you see Washington essentially kind of picking fights with them --

MCCHRYSTAL: Yes.

ZAKARIA: -- do you think it erodes the trust that you need to work for the next war when they need -- you know, will they be on board?

MCCHRYSTAL: Yes. I've never seen a friend or an ally get better because we criticize them publicly. And if I think how I react when someone criticizes me or the United States publicly, I resent it.

I stood on the battlefield with Canadian soldiers, buried them, met families of Canadian fallen. And I think it's wrong of us not to treat them with the respect that they deserve anyway, but they've also earned through common sacrifice with us. So, I just think it's not a smart move, and I don't think it's morally the right move either.

ZAKARIA: You talk in your book about how you worry that looking squarely at the issue of character and talking about it and talking about how you may have leaders at the top who lack that character has been something in your experience a lot of people at the higher echelons of society, military leaders, business leaders don't want to talk about because they worry it will get them into trouble. What's your message to them?

MCCHRYSTAL: Yes. My message to everyone is, we've let character erode. We have normalized some behavior that has always occurred to some extent. But now we watch a politician look into a camera or look into people's faces and say something they know is untrue. And they know we know it's untrue.

But we have this strange agreement that we pretend it's OK because they're politicians. And then we see celebrities who act in a way that we'd never want our children or anybody to act, but we still buy their products, invest. We like them on social media.

And so, what we've allowed is the traditional norms of how people should behave, how we should treat each other to become much weaker than they used to be. Now the retort is, there's always been people who do things, corruption and philandering and whatever we don't want. But the norms have been stronger than they are now. They have eroded more. And I would argue that its critical for us to stop and start thinking about it.

So, I think that's the big challenge in front of us. And that's why I've talked about the need for a national conversation on character. I think we should just put it out there and some people will be embarrassed to participate in it, and that's probably good because hopefully it will shape them. But particularly our young people, I think they would take that up with an idea we can make a better future than the one we see right now.

ZAKARIA: Stanley McChrystal, always a pleasure. Thank you.

MCCHRYSTAL: Fareed, my honor. Thank you so much.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, from the mailroom to the C-suite, media mogul Barry Diller has found great success in multiple businesses. How did he do it? I'll ask him when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:39:37]

ZAKARIA: Barry Diller has had a legendary career. Eight years as chairman and chief executive of Fox, including creating the Fox television network. Ten years running Paramount Pictures and the past 30 years at internet giant IAC. In those years, he helped to make "Grease" a hit, brought "The Simpsons" to life.

[10:40:02]

And if you've ever used Expedia or Match.com, well, those were part of his empire. In his new memoir, "Who Knew," Diller pulls back the curtain on it all. Welcome, Barry.

BARRY DILLER, CHAIRMAN AND SENIOR EXECUTIVE, IAC AND EXPEDIA GROUP: Nice to be here.

ZAKARIA: So, I want to take you through your career because it's --

DILLER: It's too long.

ZAKARIA: To me it's extraordinary.

DILLER: Much too long. ZAKARIA: So, when you take over Paramount --

DILLER: Yes.

ZAKARIA: -- you're how old?

DILLER: Thirty-two.

ZAKARIA: You're 32 years old. Paramount is the worst performing of the major studios. You turned it into the best performing studio. Let me read the hits. "Saturday Night Fever," "Grease," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Terms of Endearment," "Ordinary People," "Airplane," "Star Trek," "Flashdance."

DILLER: But you haven't named "Won Ton Ton, the Dog Who Saved Hollywood."

ZAKARIA: There were flops as well.

DILLER: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: How did you -- what did you do?

DILLER: Well, when I came in, I was the first person to come into the movie business from television because, you know, people in the movie business look very much down on television. It was the inferior medium. And so, I was -- I was lucky because I was enormously discounted. And they left me alone because they assumed I'd failed very quickly.

So, I got to actually approach the business with ideas that I took from the organization of developing shows, which is what we did in television, to developing scripts and material, which I thought was a better process than packages that had big name stars and things. And that took me a while to get right. And they left me alone to do it. And then finally, when we did get it right, it kind of exploded and it held for the next seven or eight years.

ZAKARIA: So, then what leads to starting Fox, the fourth network?

DILLER: Well, I had always -- I wanted to do this while I was at Paramount, but we didn't have the funds. And what we had done is we said, you know, the three networks all look and sound alike now. They've lost their personalities. So, can we be an alternative network to those three big networks?

And we -- it took us a little while, but then we found our vein with a show called "Married with Children" which was about as different a show as television had ever seen. It was -- it was edgy. It was -- it was young and it was kind of anti-establishment. And that established the network.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED O'NEILL AS AL BUNDY: I'm married with children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: And then you did "The Simpsons."

DILLER: And then we did "The Simpsons," and then we did "Cops," and then we did all this kind of alternative shows.

ZAKARIA: So, then you leave Fox. Everyone thinks you're going to start your own studio or something.

DILLER: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

ZAKARIA: You go into the internet. Why?

DILLER: Because I got very lucky. My life's been only about serendipitous moments of luck and circumstance. And I -- in 1992, three years before the internet started to be used by folk -- normal folk, I came upon QVC, this home shopping channel, where I saw screens being used for the first time for something other than passive programing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a big cookie jar.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DILLER: I saw them as being interactive. I'd never seen a screen being used that way. And that was an epiphany. And I thought, my God, that really -- I don't know how, that is going to change everything.

So, two or three years later, along comes the internet, and I have some understanding in my fingertips about what that is. So, I just had this huge head start, totally brought by the serendipitous moment of discovering screens could be used for something other than telling stories.

ZAKARIA: But you bet your whole career on it.

DILLER: Oh, yes. Yes, yes, yes. Well, why not?

ZAKARIA: So, you know, I think there's a lot of luck in business. But I think doing it three times in three different kinds of mediums there's something else going -- what do you think you have that has allowed you to succeed?

DILLER: Curiosity more than anything. And certainly willfulness. I don't think you can do anything -- certainly you can't start anything unless you're enormously willful, because everything usually is against you. So, you've got to be able to power through that. But mostly I think it's being curious.

ZAKARIA: So, when you look at the future now --

DILLER: Yes.

ZAKARIA: -- look into your crystal ball and tell me what is -- what is the future of television?

DILLER: I don 't want -- I don't want to --

ZAKARIA: Is CNN going to exist?

DILLER: CNN if unless -- I mean, unless idiots truly come to operate it, of course, it will exist. It is -- I think it -- it's absolutely the only institutional news brand worldwide that I think actually has a future because it is video. It just needs now to figure out a digital kind of footprint for the video.

But I mean, all the bimbo noise about artificial intelligence, we really are living. Right now, we're living in a moment that is just on the precipice of enormous change. Absolutely, unpredictable change.

[10:45:01]

And we're living in it, and it's going to unfold in the next five to 10 years. When, other than industrial revolution which didn't have that tight a time frame, this I think is the tightest time frame for the most enormous change that I think probably -- I mean, big -- two big statement ever. So, we're living in it right now.

ZAKARIA: You talk a lot about luck and the lesson you take from it I know is be grateful.

DILLER: Oh, my God, every day. How could you not?

ZAKARIA: Barry Diller, pleasure to have you on.

DILLER: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, why is Donald Trump, who suspended all refugee admissions earlier this year, making one exception, white South Africans? I'll explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:32]

ZAKARIA: And now for the last look. This week at the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum, Donald Trump laid out in eloquent terms his foreign policy doctrine, "Far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins. It is God's job to sit in judgment. My job to defend America and to promote the fundamental interests of stability, prosperity, and peace."

Except, of course, when President Trump and Vice President Vance choose to criticize countries like Britain and Germany for their internal politics. But no country has been subject to as much criticism as South Africa.

Trump recently posted, South Africa is confiscating land and treating certain classes of people very badly. A massive human rights violation, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The U.S. won't stand for it, we will act.

The president then signed an executive order halting all foreign aid to South Africa, and said he would prioritize granting refugee status to white Afrikaners, the ethnic minority who ruled apartheid South Africa and enjoyed its spoils. This week, 59 white Afrikaners arrived in America as refugees.

As Robin Wright noted in the "New Yorker," they are the only exception to another Trump executive order suspending refugee admissions. In other words, Afghans who fear for their lives because they worked for the American military will be turned back, but not Afrikaners.

Trump claims that the South African government is seizing farmland owned by white South Africans, many of them of the Afrikaners community, who are descended from the 17th century European settlers. He also claims that there is, quote, "large scale killing," unquote, of white farmers in the country.

Trump has raised this issue since 2018, after the plight of white South Africans got attention in right-wing social media. Posts about white genocide proliferated on YouTube and Facebook. Accounts post graphic photos of what they say are white farmers beaten and bloodied after attacks. Elon Musk, himself South African-born, has also claimed that there is widespread killing of white farmers in the country.

So, let's start with Trump's accusation that the South African government is seizing land. In January, South Africa's president Cyril Ramaphosa signed a new law, the Expropriation Act, meant to address a colonial legacy that started in 1913. That year, the Natives Land Act reserved 87 percent of all arable land for white people and corralled the black majority into the 13 percent that remained.

Today, white people make up seven percent of South Africa's population, and according to a 2017 government land audit, hold 72 percent of its privately owned farmland. Black people make up about 80 percent of the population and hold four percent of privately owned farmland.

South Africa's new land reform law resembles eminent domain law elsewhere. It allows the government to take hold of land for the public interest. In exceptional cases and after judicial review, owners can be denied compensation. But in fact, Max du Preez, himself an Afrikaner, wrote in "The Guardian" earlier this year that not one square inch of land has been confiscated from white owners.

As for large scale killing of white farmers, violent crime is widespread in South Africa. According to a union made up of mostly Afrikaner farmers, there were 32 farm murders last year. That is a tiny proportion of the more than 26,000 homicides in the country that same year.

South Africa's rampant crime is a grim failure of the government, but the government is failing all its citizens, not just white farmers. In fact, by almost every measure, white South Africans are doing markedly better than black South Africans. The black unemployment rate for the first quarter of this year was 37 percent. The white unemployment rate was roughly 7 percent. In 2015, 64 percent of black South Africans lived on less than $55.00 a month.

[10:55:04]

Just one percent of white South Africans did. What we're seeing is that South Africa's post-apartheid governments have failed on many fronts. As inequality deepens, crime spreads and corruption festers, it's easy to whip up racial animus. But there is no evidence that the government is confiscating white farms without due process, nor of any government complicity in murders of white South Africans.

Ironically, once you know the facts about South Africa, it looks like Donald Trump is doing exactly what he has scathingly criticized past presidents for doing. Imposing his own prejudices and politics onto a distant country with its own complicated past and dispensing justice as he sees fit.

Thank you for being part of my program this week, and I will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)