Return to Transcripts main page
Smerconish
A Fight He Relishes; Scotus Temporarily Pauses Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act; How could The Kilmar Abrego Garcia Standoff End?; New York Times: Trump Official Sent Letter To Harvard Without Authorization; Trump Administration Intensifies Funding Fight Against Harvard University; The Oklahoma City Bombing 30 Years Later. Aired 9- 10a ET
Aired April 19, 2025 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:33]
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: One step closer to crisis. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. Early this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked deportations by the Trump administration of at least 30 alleged Venezuelan gang members who immigration advocates say were at imminent risk of being removed. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, they dissented. The administration was preparing to again rely on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. That's a wartime statute heretofore rarely invoked that was the basis for President Trump's deportation of more than 130 Venezuelans on March 15.
The action by the Supreme Court, it caps a week in which President Trump has been on the wrong side of three high-profile issues, none of which have seemed to cost him politically. But that might be about to change.
On Tuesday, I tweeted this. Three stories dominate the news. In each Donald Trump wrong on the merits, but benefiting politically. Number one, defunding Harvard. Number two, not facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Number three, reducing the IRS workforce by 40 percent. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Cheers. Applause. USA. USA.
Issue one Harvard. The New York Times is reporting today that an emailed letter from the Trump administration which set off this tectonic battle between one of the country's most prestigious universities and a U.S. President was actually sent in error. How that will impact the current battle, that remains to be seen.
I have no doubt that the university was flat footed initially responding to anti Semitism that followed the Israeli response to the Hamas attack of 10/7. But that's not why the administration froze 2.2 billion in funding or why the IRS is contemplating revoking the university's tax-exempt status. Ordering Harvard to ensure, quote, viewpoint diversity in each department, field, or teaching unit might be a worthy goal if it's directed by the board of trustees. But coming from the federal government, it's a gross overreach of power. And by the way, it's completely at odds with old school conservatism.
And most of what Trump is seeking to impose on Harvard it's got nothing to do with protecting Jewish students. To the contrary, consider Jacob Miller, Harvard class of 2025, former Harvard Hillel president, former editorial chair of the Crimson. He wrote this, "Anyone familiar with campus life knows funding cuts will have little effect on Jews' experience at Harvard besides degrading the quality of research and instruction. Worse, they could set back research significantly and destabilize the academy, one of the institutions in which Jews have historically thrived."
Ditto Yair Rosenberg writing in the Atlantic. Quote, "In reality, Donald Trump and his allies have been using anti Semitism as a pretext to advance a radical agenda that has nothing at all to do with Jews and that most American Jews do not support." So what's the real aim here? The real aim is the further dismantling of those spheres of opposition to this administration.
First it was big law. Second it was the big media, and. And now it's the most elite of academia. So you're thinking that means this is a losing issue politically for the president? Hardly. This is a fight that he relishes. Trump might be vulnerable, waging such a war against a state university. Think Penn State or Michigan State.
But Harvard's a much less sympathetic target, perceived in the heartland as a bastion of both elitism and liberalism. Trump, Wrong on the merits. Right on the politics.
Issue two, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, born in El Salvador, entered the U.S. in 2011 illegally when he was 16 years old. Last month, he was arrested in Baltimore and deported back to El Salvador, where he was at first housed in that notorious terrorism confinement center, the largest prison in Latin America, maximum security, built to hold gang members. He's since been moved to another location, another prison. The administration originally admitted mistakes in his deportation, but now they defend their decision to the Trump White House. Abrego Garcia. He's a dangerous criminal. He had hearings in 2019, found by two judges to be a member of MS-13 gang.
In addition, they now note that he has a history of domestic violence and is suspected as a human trafficker. His deportation, according to this view, in 2025, if anything, long overdue.
[09:05:09]
To his defenders, he's a law-abiding man with deep roots in this country, married to a U.S.-citizen, raising three kids, never been charged with a crime while living here. And the evidence that he's a gang member, they say that's thin no matter which take you believe. It seems pretty clear he was denied due process.
We know in 2019, he argued he was likely to suffer persecution if returned to El Salvador and was granted withholding of removal status, which protected him against deportation to his native land. Yet despite what the courts said then and reaffirmed in 2025, he was wrongly deported to El Salvador. So that means it's a losing issue politically for the president, right?
No. again, this is a fight he relishes. As Harry Enten notes, deportations are popular.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA ANALYST: Back in 2016, just 38 percent of voters wanted the government to try to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Compared to where we are in 2025, 56 percent, the majority. The American people have come a long way on this issue, much closer to Donald Trump. And I think that's a big part of the reason why Americans are increasingly saying the country is on the right track when it comes to immigration policy and why Donald Trump's net approval rating on that issue is in the positive.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SMERCONISH: The Democrats approach to the issue is symbolized by Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen's trip this week to El Salvador to check on Abrego Garcia's health and well-being. They met, and Van Hollen tweeted, I have called his wife Jennifer to pass along his message of love. Meanwhile, while Van Hollen was in El Salvador this week, Patty Morin was invited to the White House.
She's a Marylander. She's a Maryland citizen. Her daughter Rachel was killed by another migrant from El Salvador, a crime for which he was convicted on Monday. Rachel Morin's murder left five children motherless. Check this out.
This is the New York Post from Thursday with coverage of that White House meeting. Patty Morin said that Senator Van Hollen didn't acknowledge, barely acknowledged, her daughter's execution. So was Abrego Garcia denied due process? And will that politically harm the president? Not when Abrego Garcia is sharing a split screen with Patty Morin. President Trump, wrong on the merits, right on the politics.
Issue three, the IRS. This week we learned the administration is seeking to slash personnel. CBS reported that the IRS is planning to cut up to 40 percent of its workforce after Tuesday marked the official end of tax filing season. According to an internal memo, it said that the IRS will send a reduction in force, a RIF notice on a biweekly basis. The RIF plan also states the agency will go from 102,000 employees to its targeted ending figures of 60,000 to 70,000. News of the memo was first reported by the Federal News Network.
There's nothing wrong in principle with downsizing government. No large organization is perfectly run, and a streamlined federal workforce could arguably cost less without any loss in efficiency. But here's the thing. The nation has more than 36 trillion in debt, and a reduction in IRS personnel will mean even fewer audits with audits already in decline.
A New York Times analysis published this week showed that the IRS audit rate has been lower this decade than in most taxpayers lifetimes. The rate for individual taxpayers has decreased by about two-thirds since just 2010. Not surprisingly, lower audit rates mean less government revenue. Arguably, Trump's policies will put the U.S. further in debt. So that means it's a losing issue politically for the president, right? No?
What politician wants to argue for the ability of the IRS to conduct audits? The Biden administration tried to do that. Again, it's a fight he relishes, even though he's struggling to justify continuation of the 2017 tax cuts while trying to extend relief to the working class, many of whom voted for him.
Harvard, Abrego Garcia, the IRS when might the merits and the politics align? Well, each of these issues is now being litigated. And while the court outcomes remain uncertain, one thing is clear. Americans overwhelmingly still value the rule of law. When recently asked if the president should obey court rulings even when he disagrees with them, 82 percent said yes. And that includes 97 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans.
It used to be an article of faith that a U.S. President would obey a court order, like the court order issued this morning by the Supreme Court blocking deportations of certain Venezuelans currently in Texas. But it remains to be seen how the Trump administration is going to respond.
[09:10:11]
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was not removed from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Nevertheless, in the face of legal challenges to his removal, the White House rewrote a New York Times headline yesterday. And then they tweeted it out.
The headline, as originally written in the Times, said this Maryland Senator meets with wrongly deported Maryland man in El Salvador. The White House version, senator meets with deported Ms. 13 illegal alien in El Salvador who's never coming back.
So what's to come? Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of the Berkeley School of Law, frequent guest of mine here. Writing for the L.A. Times this week, Dean Chemerinsky said this. "Until now, I did not appreciate how much our constitutional democracy depends on the good faith of those who govern us to comply with the law, including court orders. Are there sufficient guardrails to protect us when an administration will not comply? Will we continue to be a nation under the rule of law? We shall see.
Wrong in the merits, right on the politics. But for how long? I want to know what you think about one issue that I've raised here today. Go to smerconish.com and answer the Saturday poll question. Given that Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the US Illegally but was deported without due process, should he be brought back to the US to have his case properly heard?
Joining me now, CNN senior legal analyst and former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig, who just published his latest Op-ed in New York magazine under the headline how could the Kilmar Abrego Garcia standoff end? Three scenarios, none of them good. Elie, I'm going to get to that in just a moment, but the breaking news this morning that we woke up to this Supreme Court order react to that and where it is going well.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Michael, 12:55 a.m. on a Saturday, you do not see that often from the U.S. Supreme Court, if ever. And to me, it shows a real level of distrust from the Supreme Court towards the Trump administration. Now here's what happened. 12 days ago, the Supreme Court issued a ruling saying a single district court judge could not block all Alien Enemies Act deportation. So essentially the Supreme Court unfroze those deportations.
However, the Supreme Court also said unanimously that any deportee has to be given a certain amount of due process under a procedure known as habeas and has to be given sufficient advance notice so they can exercise that due process. Now, a group of detainees in Texas went to a court and said, we're worried they're going to deport us without due process. The administration said, we have no such plans. But then those detainees in Texas got notices. Hey, we may now try to deport you.
And so, the lawyers started going to the lower court saying, we need emergency relief. And the Supreme Court did not even wait for the district court, for the court of appeals. They jumped in middle of the night last night and said, hold up. Do not deport these people pending further notice, and worth noting. Michael, that was a 7 to 2 decision. Only Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. The other seven said, hold up. We don't trust you. No deportations until we say otherwise.
SMERCONISH: Okay. Might this finally be the constitutional crisis that many of us have thought was brewing?
HONIG: I don't think this particular case is going to give us the constitutional crisis because the instruction was so clear. I mean, if the administration does deport these folks anyway, absolutely. That would be straight up defiance of a clear, specific order. I don't think the administration would have the gall to try that, but if they did, yeah, we'd be in uncharted territory.
HONIG: Abrego Garcia, you wrote the piece. You lay out a couple of different scenarios. By the way, I'll cut to the chase and say one scenario that you don't think happens is they just bring him back. Is that still your opinion?
HONIG: Yes. I don't think there's any way the administration brings Abrego Garcia back, and then he goes back to his home in Maryland and goes about his life. They've made clear that if he does somehow come back here, they will seek to redeport him, perhaps to a third country.
SMERCONISH: So which. Which of the remaining options does Ellie Honig think is about to play out?
HONIG: Well, so let's start with the one we're in right now, which I call passive-aggressive defiance by the administration. And this is all about the word facilitation. So, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that the Trump administration has a duty to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the country. Not effectuate. And the difference there, Facilitate means essentially, you have to help out, you have to try. Effectuate means you have to get it done. [09:15:08]
The Supreme Court said, well, it's not our business to order the executive branch how to conduct foreign policy, but we need you to facilitate. Now, facilitation is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly, the courts meant you have to make a real good-faith effort. But the Trump administration has taken the most minimalist possible view on facilitation. They've said, we don't have to ask for his return. We don't have to do anything affirmative. All we have to do is make sure there's no domestic obstacles in the way.
Now, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a very conservative judge named Harvey Wilkinson, on Thursday basically rejected that. He said, we need you to do something affirmative. It's an active word. So right now, there's subjectivity and there's fuzziness over facilitation. Clearly, the Trump administration is defying the spirit of the court's order, but not quite the letter.
SMERCONISH: Elie, you're here to talk law, not politics. But step into my world just for a final question. On the merits, you heard me argue that the Trump administration is wrong, that they didn't provide the necessary due process. You've got Senator Van Hollen making the trip to El Salvador. Meanwhile, you've got Rachel Morin's mom, Patty, at the White House. That's the split screen. It's a losing political argument for the White House to be on the side of Abrego Garcia. Don't you agree?
HONIG: Oh, I agree with you on the politics. But here's the thing I think is really important to keep in mind. There's all this debate now about is Abrego Garcia or was or is he a member of MS-13. There's allegations now from DHS that he was involved in human trafficking. Here's the point I want to stress.
It doesn't matter if he is any of those things. If he's not, I don't know. Most of the people who are talking about this don't know. The point is he. He's entitled to due process, and that's really what ties all of these immigration cases together.
SMERCONISH: I agree.
HONIG: When I was a prosecutor, Michael, I charged people who had done really bad things. Real gangsters, real murderers. It did not work that I just got to indict them, go into court, and insist I was right. And the judge said, fine, you're right. Off to prison. There's due process now. This is not the criminal context, this is the immigration context.
So it's a little bit degree on what the due process is.
SMERCONISH: I agree entirely.
HONIG: But there is due process. There has to be. So the whole argument about is he good guy, bad guy is really largely a red herring.
SMERCONISH: Okay. But politically speaking, it's a different analysis that I'm with you. I'm for the rule of law. We're about to see. The rule of law is about to be tested here. But politically speaking, I don't want anybody watching to think, wow, was this a horrible week for Trump because it wasn't. Elie, thank you as always. I wish I had more time.
HONIG: Thanks, Michael.
SMERCONISH: Michael, what are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, formerly known as the whole premise of the question is wrong. He had due process years ago when he was ordered to be deported. Today's poll is flawed, says Neanderthal.
Oh, Leanderthal, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. No, he didn't have due process. He should have had a hearing now at this stage, right? And he wasn't afforded it. That's a no brainer. The administration, the administration acknowledges that there were errors made relative to the deportation. There's not even a factual dispute about that. Now I want to know what you think. Go to my website, notwithstanding that criticism, and answer today's poll question.
I tried to be fair. I tried to give you both sides in how I framed it. I totally tapped out my character limit in doing so. Given that Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally but was deported without due process, should he be brought back to the U.S. to have his case properly heard? Go vote.
Up ahead, the IRS could lose 40 percent of its workforce. So who's getting audited now, and who's going to pay the price? Plus, they say pick your battles. Know when to stand firm and when to let things go. Harvard isn't letting this one go, but is this a battle that Trump wanted to start?
Make sure that you're signing up for the newsletter. When you get to smerconish.com to vote on the poll question, you get the work of great editorial cartoonists like Steve Breen.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:23:24]
SMERCONISH: The IRS may be forced facing, there we go. Let me start it over. The IRS may be facing the largest workforce reduction in its history. Up to 40 percent of its staff could be cut, and that means the agency could shrink from 102,000 employees to as few as 60,000, a staggering drop.
The New York Times reports that audit rates are now lower than at any time since the 1950s, falling across every income bracket, with audits of high income earners dropping the most. And yet it's those high income audits that have the greatest return for taxpayers. According to IRS data, audits of individuals making over $10 million brought in 147,000 per audit, compared to just $4,600 for those earning under $25,000. So the question is, if these cuts go through, how does the IRS catch fraud or even spot inefficiencies? And if it's not auditing all income brackets equally or strategically,
who does that benefit? One economist who studied audits across the income distribution found that every $1 the IRS collects in audits leads to $3 in future compliance. So fewer audits, less revenue. That's the bottom line. And all of this as the deficit continues to grow, and we're already 37 trillion in debt. So who's going to pay the ultimate price for the administration's political slash cost saving strategy?
Joining me now is Brian Camp, Texas Tech University School of Law Professor. Professor, thanks for being here. So I think instinctively Americans, they hear there's going to be staff cuts and fewer audits and they're like hooray, without associating it with the fact that we're $37 trillion in debt. What's the connection between the two?
[09:25:02]
BRYAN CAMP, PROFESSOR AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, I think taxpayers may be a little bit mistaken in thinking that the unpleasant interactions, let's call them -- let's not call them audits. Let's just call them unpleasant interactions, shall we? Because that's how it feels.
But audits are a specific, they're not even, that's not even a term in the code examinations. The Internal Revenue Service actually looks at every single return. Maybe not an audit, but the computers, systems at the service examine every single return. And there's several systems in place to catch errors or to catch potential errors that aren't even audits. So let me just give you one example. It's the return matching program.
So if you're a wage earner like I am, your employer reports payments, your wage payments to the IRS in a W2, as I'm sure many of your viewers know, there's 1099s, there's a whole forest of 1099s that get issued as well. Those are third party information returns. And those returns go into a database. And after everyone has filed their individual tax returns or corporate tax returns, but mostly individuals, we'll talk about that. Then the systems go and they match the individual returns with the reported payments. And if there's a mismatch, and it's a big enough mismatch, well, the computers generate a little love letter and the little love letter goes to the taxpayer and says, hey, you may not have reported all the income you should have reported and you got (inaudible) just to tell us --
SMERCONISH: Okay, so every, It's a good, it's a good point to make that every return gets some level of scrutiny, some get human scrutiny. I want to ask you this intuitively. You might think all income brackets should be evaluated equally with regard to, I'm going to use the word audits, but I guess the Willie Sutton principle applies here, right? That they need to spend their limited resources on where the money is, and that's the higher income earners.
CAMP: Yes. The problem with that is that since if you move everything to computer systems, what tends to happen is the computer systems tend to want to take the easy way out, if you will, which tends to focus on low-income taxpayers. And the national taxpayer advocates Nina Olson, Aaron Collins have done a beautiful job in explaining the problem with the service, in chasing what it seems to be efficient use of resources by using computer algorithms and automatically sending these notices out to low income taxpayers. Because it's a single issue. And the return you get is very small, as you pointed out you get a very low return on those types of examinations, audits or unpleasant interactions.
SMERCONISH: Okay, what's the takeaway? For people who are watching this, what do you most want them to know about staff cuts potentially at the IRS and how it might impact things federal revenues?
CAMP: Well, it's exactly as you said. What's going to happen is you're going to have fewer humans, fewer trained humans able to do the kind of work that is necessary to catch errors. We're not talking just about fraudsters or anything like that, Michael. We just want to talk about errors. You commit errors, attacks goes complex.
And so you need humans with human brains to figure out where the errors are so that taxpayers can correct those in the current year and not fall into the same error in later years. You have to have humans to do that.
BLACKWELL: Professor Brian Camp, thank you for your time. I wish we had more of it. We appreciate your expertise.
CAMP: Rule of law.
SMERCONISH: Thank you, sir. Let's see what everybody is saying on social media on this issue from the world of Twitter. Now,X. Should be 100 percent cut. Why tax productivity, should tax -- so we want to cut the IRS 100 percent. We over consume and underproduce. Cut government spending. Okay.
And then pay for the military with what? And pay for the societal safety net with what? And how are we going to take care of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all the entitlement? I mean, it makes no sense. I simply want to make the point that I'm in this odd position of advocating for the IRS only because I'm so concerned about our inability to meet our debt obligations in the future. And if we cut the IRS and less revenue gets collected, that's what we're going to be doing.
So to come your social media reaction to my opening commentary later. Harvard has an endowment greater than the GDP of nearly 100 countries, is our oldest university, and has educated eight, count them, eight American presidents. Does Trump really want to have this fight or did someone in the administration screw up? Also, I want to remind you, go to my website @smerconish.com answer today's poll question.
Given that Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally but was deported without due process, should he be brought back to the U.S. to have his case properly heard? While you're there, sign up for the newsletter. It's free and it's worthy. You get the work of editorial cartoonists like this from Jack Ohman.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Why not follow me on X, which is where most of this comes from?
Fool. What is the law? You couldn't give a shit. You just want to allow Trump to deport anyone. I have really lost all respect --
Karen -- Karen -- put that camera on me. Karen -- happy Easter, Karen.
[09:35:02]
Get out of your bubble. You've totally --you've totally missed the premise of the opening commentary. And I'm sure you're not alone. Fighting Harvard, deporting a guy who was in the United States illegally and defunding the IRS are all winning issues for Donald Trump, even if he's wrong on the merits. And oh, by the way, he is increasing the water pressure in my shower at the same time.
I'm trying to explain where I have fundamental disagreement with him, but recognize that the things that he is doing are very carefully calibrated, and scoring political points. Perhaps not with you, but with half the country. Here's another social media reaction to today's program.
Amazing to watch the Dems stand for violent illegal immigrants rather than U.S. citizens and taxpayers. We know where the Dems stand against.
OK. First of all, how did that get in there? My God, how did that social media comment actually make it into the -- everything usually is from a totally different perspective. That's the point. By the way, not agreeing with it but that is the perspective that is held by half the country.
Chris Van Hollen going to El Salvador, whether they had Margaritas or not. I know they didn't. I know it was a setup, but at a time when Rachel Morin's mom is at the White House, you know, her daughter having been murdered by a migrant, and she says, Van Hollen didn't even call me.
Who do you think wins that split screen? That's the answer. Still to come -- follow me on X, OK? And then maybe I respond to you next week. Still to come, in a battle with the nation's oldest, richest, and most elite university a fight President Trump -- is it a fight he wants to have? Or was it all a big mistake?
There's new information on that, and we're joined by a Harvard professor who is calling Trump's move a, quote, "hostile takeover." Please make sure that you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Given that Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally but was deported without due process, should he be brought back to the U.S. to have his case properly heard?
Subscribe to the newsletter when you're there. It's free. It's worthy. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons like -- check out what Rob Rogers drew.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:41:27]
SMERCONISH: "The New York Times" is reporting this morning that the letter emailed by the Trump administration to Harvard University with a list of demands, was actually sent by mistake. The email was sent by acting general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services, Sean Keveney.
White House officials say the list of demands was sent prematurely, or was meant to only be circulated among the White House antisemitism task force. The Trump administration froze more than $2.2 billion in federal funding after Harvard publicly rejected the federal government's demands to scrap its DEI programs and share all of its hiring and admissions data.
Trump's team is also pushing back by preparing to revoke the university's nonprofit tax status and the school's ability to enroll foreign students. Harvard researchers bracing for possible layoffs may have to euthanize their research animals due to the lack of federal funds. A public standoff between the White House and America's oldest and richest university, which has a massive $53.2 billion endowment, might be a fight that President Trump wants to have.
Joining me now is Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker. He's the co-president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard. He co- wrote a recent op-ed for the Harvard Crimson with the headline "From CAFH Leadership: Harvard Must Not Submit to a Hostile Takeover."
Professor, nice to have you back on the program. Given "The New York Times" reporting today that this email that set off this chain reaction was sent in error. I'm wondering -- others are wondering, could this all have been avoided?
STEVEN PINKER, JOHNSTONE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY AT HARVARD: It absolutely could have been avoided. Harvard had already been in negotiations with the federal government when this letter dropped. I should add, on the night before Passover on a Friday night with a list of absolutely unhinged demands. Basically, a hostile takeover of Harvard by the Trump administration while negotiations have been going on based on a much milder, earlier letter.
SMERCONISH; In the "Crimson," you co-authored a piece that has this paragraph. I'll put it on the screen and I'll read it aloud.
Take, for instance, the administration's Orwellian demand that the university, quote, "commission an external party which shall satisfy the government, the federal government, as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.
I said in my opening commentary today I find that at odds with traditional conservatism. Expand on that paragraph and why you put it in your piece. PINKER: Exactly. By the way, on the Council on Academic Freedom, we do think that there should be greater viewpoint diversity at Harvard. There's -- the faculty are too concentrated on one part of the political spectrum.
On the other hand, bringing the government in and micromanaging a private university to satisfy their demands for viewpoint diversity, and we have no idea what that is, would indeed go against any conservative principle of limited government. Does it mean that the government can force the medical school to have anti-vaxxers? Can it force the biology department to have creationists? Can it force the history department to have stop the steal of ideologues?
Even if viewpoint diversity is a good thing, and it is, and there should be more of it, but having the government dictate what that means is terrifying.
SMERCONISH: Will you respond to the comment? And I heard it from radio callers on SiriusXM this week who say, let them tap their endowment.
PINKER: Well, the 80 percent of the endowment is earmarked by its donors for specific uses for endowed chairs, for professors, for scholarships for students, for the athletic facilities.
[09:45:09]
So, the donors have stipulated what it can go for. It's not a piggy bank that can be cracked open. Also, the research that the government supports was competitively reviewed from applications. And this is -- it's not like a charity that supports Harvard in general. There are specific research projects. If the funding goes, then those research projects stop.
Now, Harvard could try to dip into its savings to pay for what used to be federally funded research in cancer and child development and so on. But eating its seed corn means that it would disappear. And that could only be sustainable for a short period of time.
SMERCONISH: Is President Trump winning this battle in the court of public opinion? At the outset of the program today I don't -- I don't believe I argued that his motives here are to protect Jewish students.
I do believe the university was flat footed initially in responding to antisemitism. But my thesis is he's using this as a means of fighting academia in the same way that he's fighting big law, and the same way that he's fighting big media. Your thought?
PINKER: Oh, I couldn't agree more. And I'm a Jewish faculty member. And the idea that we should defund cancer research to advance Jewish interest -- I don't think that's so good for the Jews. And as my grandmother would say, (INAUDIBLE), dear. No, thanks.
That's not -- that's not an effective way to combat antisemitism. I think Harvard should have cracked down on some of the more disruptive pro-Palestinian protests. But the idea that Harvard is a bastion of antisemitism is just unhinged. Three out of our last four presidents who served longer than a year were Jewish, and the fourth was married to a Jewish professor. Two out of our last three provosts were Jewish. The head of the corporation that runs Harvard is Jewish. There are plenty of Jewish faculty, Jewish students. Hillel is thriving.
There are antisemitic incidents that should have been cracked down on more decisively. But the idea that this is the way to combat antisemitism just makes no sense at all. And I don't believe --
SMERCONISH: Professor Pinker, nice to have you back. Thank you, sir.
PINKER: Nice to be on. Thank you.
SMERCONISH: Checking in on social media comments. Again, from the world of X, formerly known as Twitter.
If Harvard wants government money, they have to play by the rules.
OK, Christopher, that makes sense. Whose rules? Whose rules are you talking about? And imagine if the roles were reversed here and it weren't, in this instance, a Republican president who was trying to impose his will on how a private institution runs its business, but it were a Democratic president and doing likewise. I assume you'd have a completely reversed position.
I made the point to Professor Pinker, and I said it in my opening commentary, what strikes me about this is that it's totally at odds with the type of conservatism that I grew up with and adhered to. Like, the last thing you want is big brother government trying to dictate policy in a university environment.
Good news. You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Ready? Given that Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally but was deported without due process, should he be brought back to the U.S. to have his case properly heard?
I tried to word it as fairly as I could right down the middle. Be sure to sign up for my newsletter when you're there. Check out what Scott Stantis drew for my subscribers.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:52:49]
SMERCONISH: Before I show you the poll results, I want to take a moment and reflect on a tragedy that shaped our nation, one that happened 30 years ago today, April 19, 1995. A 4,800-pound fertilizer bomb detonated outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It remains the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in American history. Former President Bill Clinton reflected on his solemn role as consoler-in-chief three decades ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I couldn't imagine being anywhere else. It would have been a dereliction of duty not to be there. The nation's eyes were there. The nation's heart was broken there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: And while we remember the images, the rubble, the destruction, it's the human toll that stays with us. One hundred and sixty-eight people lost their lives, including 19 children. Hundreds more were injured.
One of those 168 victims was the father of Sara Sweet. I know Sara Sweet. She shared her story with me years ago. In fact, it was Sara who first inspired me to visit the Oklahoma City Memorial Museum. That was at the 25th anniversary. I recommend highly that everybody make that pilgrimage.
In today's newsletter at Smerconish.com, we published her reflection on this day, a powerful message that feels just as poignant today. Here's part of what she wrote.
On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh pulled up to my dad's office building. He had a truck filled with explosives and a soul filled with hate. He murdered my dad and 167 other innocent people.
Thirty years later, I worry that many in our country have forgotten or don't know what led up to McVeigh's actions in 1995. My engagement with social media began as a fun way to stay in touch with those far away, receive updates on friends' families, and see often with envy, people's fabulous vacation photos.
Recently, however, much of what I see resembles the sentiment that McVeigh devoured. People are cheering those who set fire to Tesla cars. Some are lauding Brian Thompson's murder. Some are excusing those who stormed the U.S. Capitol with violent intentions. Mark Twain said, history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
[09:55:04]
Time to see how you responded to today's poll question at Smerconish.com which asked this. Given that Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally but was deported -- wow. I'm a little distracted by the result, 49,628 voted. Let's call it 90/10, who say bring him back and let his case be properly heard.
Social media reaction. Don't have much time, but let's see what we've got. Give me one at least.
Millions of irregular immigrants allowed into our country over the past four years, Michael. What is your solution if not deportation?
Hey John, I applaud the administration for having sealed porous borders. It was a long time coming, and all those numbers show that they're being very, very successful in stopping migrants from coming into the country who aren't playing by the rules. I'm all for that. Keep that up. But let's honor the rule of law because we can do both. I want to wish everybody a very happy Passover, a very happy Easter. If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for watching. I'll see you next week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)