Roundup: Trump Vs. The Fed; Harvard Fights Back

This message comes from the Nature Conservancy, working together to create a future with a livable climate, healthy communities, and thriving nature. Explore ways to act during Earth Month and every month at nature.org slash NPR.
Hi, this is Liz, and I'm enjoying the sounds of morning on my back patio in Lake Chapala, Mexico. This podcast was recorded at 1234 p.m.
Eastern time on Friday, April 14th, 2025. Things may have changed by the time you hear it, but I'll be enjoying the sunrise over Mount Garcia.
Enjoy the show. Oh my gosh, it's amazing this instantly, like, lowered my blood pressure.
That was so nice. That is zen.
I love the rooster. Excellent touch.
Sounds like quite the escape. Yeah, seriously.
Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast.
I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics.
I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover the White House.
And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And it's time for our weekly news roundup.
There was a lot of big economic news this week from the White House. Let's start with President Trump's ongoing push for tariffs.
Danielle, we've talked a lot about tariffs these last few weeks. And even in just those few weeks, things have changed a lot.
Yeah. So the latest started just after our last Friday news roundup went out.
So last Friday, Customs and Border Protection released a list of products that are now being excluded from tariffs on overseas goods. And it turned out it was a lot of electronic stuff.
It was semiconductors, laptops and cell phones, among some other more technical things. And this was a real surprise because a lot of those electronic things that are excluded now come from China.
And China is where the U.S. has really, really high tariffs of 145% and then some on some goods.
So this was a really big deal. But then the White House came out and clarified those goods that are listed as exempt, they're still subject to a 20 percent tariff that we've imposed on Chinese goods.
And that's not nothing. 20 percent is still quite a bit, even if it's not over 100, which is just off the map.
Then within the next day or two, White House officials came out and said, look, this doesn't get those Chinese goods off the hook. We are still going to start the process of putting tariffs on semiconductors again from all these overseas markets, as well as pharmaceuticals and critical minerals.
So it was a lot of whiplash. No one quite knew what to make of it at first.
Yeah. Can you tell me what the White House's rationale is for changing this again? Sure.
So last weekend, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick went on ABC's This Week. He said this is not like a permanent sort of exemption.
He added that Trump was, quote, just clarifying that these are not available to be negotiated away by countries. These are things that are national security that we need to be made in America.
So what Lutnik and Trump seem to have been saying, and the wording that I've seen used is that they're moving these tariffs from one bucket to another. The idea being that semiconductors, as well as those other things like critical minerals and pharmaceuticals, are about national security.
And this is the process that they have set into motion this week. Trade and economic officials are starting an investigation to look at what kind of capacity does the U.S.
have for producing those things? And is the U.S. lack of capacity, insofar as there is one, a national security threat? So that is what the White House is saying.
But that said, this was all super confusing for anybody watching it. Yeah.
And, you know, I think that what it means is higher prices in the short term, which is what the Fed chairman Jerome Powell said is highly likely this week. Of course, that irritated President Trump.
He's been irritated with Powell because he's somebody who acts, he says, too slowly because he acts with due diligence on this stuff. And his job is to create certainty, right? And the last thing that Trump is doing is creating certainty.
And I think that's why he was upset, according to a lot of reports, internally with Lutnik, because it essentially stepped on the message of saying that these are only temporary and they'll be washed away. And that's why Trump went on social media immediately after that, essentially to say that nothing is temporary.
We're just moving this to these different buckets because he wants to be able to use these tariffs as leverage. And that's the big thing here where he wants to try to negotiate with other countries.
But what it's done has created a ton of volatility in the stock market. Things are up and down.
Businesses don't know what to expect. And again, prices likely to go higher.
The very thing that Trump was arguably elected to do was to bring prices down. Tariffs are now just a waiting game.
Trump has said, look, I'm talking with all these world leaders, so you're going to hear about deals soon. Okay, but you're going to hear about deals soon.
Once again, is uncertainty. There is nothing definitive about that.
That uncertainty has stock markets really jumpy. And this is all real stuff, right? It means for businesses, small businesses, big businesses, where do I get my stuff from to make the things that need to be made that I want to sell to people, whether you're somebody who's a pottery maker in North Carolina, or you're a major auto supplier, you know, in Canada, trying to supply big companies in the United States.
So yeah, just a ton of uncertainty at a time when, you know, like Powell said, this is going to potentially create this tension between what the Fed's job is, which is to do one of two things, keep inflation down, keep unemployment down. And those are often at odds with each other.
And if both are going in the wrong direction, you don't know what you're supposed to be able to pull on. So Powell says it's going to do nothing right now.
Well, I do want to talk a little bit more about Powell. On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump said that, quote, Powell's termination cannot come fast enough.
Domenico, I think it's worth talking about the fact that Trump appointed Powell to run the Fed in his first term, and the Fed is supposed to be apolitical by design. I mean, can Trump just up and fire Powell if he wants to? Like, what are the sort of mechanisms available to him here to deal with Powell if he wants to? Well, Trump is likely to test this at the Supreme Court.
There was a 1935 Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey's Executor versus U.S. that basically allows Congress to require presidents to show cause for firing someone, not just fire them because you don't like them, but because there's malfeasance, corruption, taking bribes, things like that.
That's not generally the spirit of what we're thinking about when we're thinking about what Trump wants, which is control. So I think a lot of this is going to come to a head.
We're going to see in the next few months. What I would add to that is that Supreme Court case that Humphreys Executor won from the 1930s, the current Supreme Court, at least some of the conservatives on it who do have the majority, have shown that they have some appetite to chip away at that in terms of getting rid of some high-ranking people and independent agencies.
So should this make it to the Supreme Court, existing precedent does seem to be on Powell's side here, but who knows exactly how the Supreme Court would rule. One other thing that I think is really important to get at here, and that's easy to skate right by, is that Trump this week accused Jerome Powell of playing politics.
Now, Federal Reserve chairs work very, very hard to remain apolitical, and the Fed is set up to be independent. And Powell has said just in recent weeks when asked by reporters about some of Trump's comments about him, he said, as a matter of course, I do not respond to comments made by elected officials.
The idea of the Fed is to sit there and tweak the dials of monetary policy. That's it.
And some regulation as well. So that is a really big thing to accuse a Fed chair of.
Okay, Danielle, feel free to grab

a coffee or something, but don't go too far away as we'll see you again for Can't Let It Go.

When we come back, a look at the Trump administration's fight with some colleges

and universities. This message comes from NPR sponsor UC San Diego.
At UC San Diego,

research isn't just about asking big questions. It's about saving lives and fueling innovation,

like predicting storms from space, teaching T-cells to attack cancer, and eliminating cybersecurity threats with AI.

As one of America's leading research universities, they're putting big ideas to work in new and novel ways.

At UC San Diego, research moves the world forward. Learn more at ucsd.edu slash research.
Support for NPR and the following message come from Rosetta Stone, the perfect app to achieve your language learning goals no matter how busy your schedule gets. It's designed to maximize study time with immersive 10-minute lessons and audio practice for your commute.
Plus, tailor your learning plan for specific objectives like travel. Get Rosetta Stone's lifetime membership for 50% off and unlimited access to 25 language courses.
Learn more at rosettastone.com slash NPR. This message comes from Warby Parker.
Prescription eyewear Alyssa Nadwarni is here. She covers education.
Hey, Alyssa. Hi.
So you're here because the Trump administration has stepped up its attacks, this time on higher ed. A number of universities have had federal grants and contracts put on hold.
Today we're going to to focus, though, on Harvard, which has had upwards of $2.2 billion frozen. Alyssa, first, why is the government holding this money back? So this all kind of stems from a civil rights investigation from the Ed Department looking into anti-Semitism.
So basically, a number of colleges the administration said

had failed to protect Jewish students on campus. Harvard is among them.
And so in this back and forth, they sent Harvard a list of demands in order to get their federal money reinstated. And some of those demands included overseeing academic departments, giving students and faculty less power, reporting international students to federal agencies if they violated campus conduct.
And this week, Harvard basically said, no, we're not going to meet those demands. And in response, then the government canceled this $2.2 billion in federal funding.
Yeah. And what was that money supposed to be used for? Well, these are federal research grants and they're multi-year.
So they're usually for longer term studies. Some of the money went to things like studying ALS, studying new vaccines for tuberculosis, mostly in the health and science department.
So Harvard Medical School said that this is going to lead to them having to cut jobs and lay people off. And this week, President Trump suggested that Harvard might lose its tax-exempt status over all this.
Domenico, what do you make of that? Well, I think Trump has shown that he's willing to use the IRS against his enemies, be able to target them to say that we want to stop you from having this tax-exempt status. And doing that is something that ironically the Trump administration and conservatives have accused Democrats of doing to target conservatives more than they did Democratic groups.
And they said that that would be a terrible thing to do and no one one should ever do it. And here we are on the other side of it, with it explicitly being done.
Yeah. So far, what have we heard from Harvard about this? How have they responded to the cuts? So there is a lawsuit in the works.
Harvard faculty, along with the Association of University Professors, sued the federal government over this kind of back and forth of withholding funding.

And Harvard has really doubled down in its response. If you go to the Harvard landing page on their website, they list what all of the research funding goes to.
They post the letter from their president and their lawyers are kind of readying for what this ultimately is going to mean for them. Yeah.
And Domenico, what's really interesting here is that Harvard has decided to fight back when other universities, Columbia, for example, have decided not to. I mean, I know there's some obvious financial calculus that's being done here, but it seems like there's some political calculus too.
Well, I think that, you know, Harvard obviously is one of the biggest names in higher education in the world, not just in the United States. So I think that there is a degree to which the faculty and staff at Harvard believe that they have to plant a flag and be able to fight back and be able to give some cover to other universities.
And look what's happened when it comes to some of these law firms as well. I mean the Trump administration has gone after some of these law firms.
Some of the law firms have made deals with the Trump administration, and then the Trump administration has asked for more. So I think that Harvard wants to be able to say, we can't continue to go down this road.
And I think that's also interesting. You know, when Alyssa talks about the kinds of research that's done mostly in health and science, you know, this can come across as feeling like blackmail from the Trump administration because these grants are not given because a university aligns completely with a presidency by the Trump administration saying, hey, we give you this X amount of dollars.
We don't like your quote unquote DEI policies. And therefore, we're going to hold these other things that have absolutely nothing to do with any of that over you to be able to get you to do what we want you to do to change, to basically socially engineer how higher education is run.
And Domenico, like I've talked to a number of institutions that had grants canceled from the Department of Defense, NASA. I mean, these are grants that also do research on semiconductors and cybersecurity and defense with China.
I mean, so it's all kind of related to much larger ideas for the nation. Yeah.
And do you actually think, Alyssa, that Harvard providing this kind of cover for other universities might mean that there might be more universities taking the Harvard route versus the Columbia route? Yeah, I think absolutely. A lot of colleges were telling me they were waiting for someone to do it.
And if someone was going to do it, it was going to be Harvard with their $50 billion endowment. And I think, yes, Harvard absolutely showed other colleges what is possible and where the red lines can be.
I also want to talk about some reporting that the administration wants to end funding for Head Start.

First, what's this program and what's their reasoning for wanting to end funding there? So Head Start is early childhood care and preschool for low-income families. So it's funded by Health and Human Services.
I have done a lot of reporting in Head Start classrooms. And essentially, this federally funded program allows parents to work so they have a place for their children to go.
The administration wants to cut the funding. And in the document reported by the Washington Post, they said that they didn't want to be in the business of mandating curriculum.
And so some of this is tied to a lot of what we've seen in their approach to K-12. And even with some of the stuff with Harvard, kind of wanting the federal government to get out of the business of dictating curriculum.
And then on the flip side, of course, you have their demands at Harvard to oversee their academic program. So it's a little bit of both and.
Well, before we go, I want to get a sense from y'all about what you will be watching moving forward as these funding fights with universities and an education program sort of continue. Yeah.
What are you looking out for? Well, I'm certainly watching what Domenico just talked about with that tax exempt status. And then also I'm watching two lawsuits to see if the courts are going to weigh in on whether or not this is legal.
I talked to a lot of legal experts who said, yeah, this, as Domenico called it, blackmail, like that's actually not following federal law. So we'll see.
Yeah, I think, you know, moving to the Supreme Court is a huge piece of everything that I think that we're watching here as we near what some people think is a constitutional crisis. And if the Trump administration defies the Supreme Court, then I think we're at a point where most people would say we are at a constitutional crisis.
Yeah. Okay.
Well, Alyssa, thank you so much for your reporting. You bet.
Always happy to be with you guys. When we come back, can't let it go.
This message comes from Bombas. Nearly 30% of marathoners end their race blistered.
Bombas running socks are strategically cushioned to help say bye to blisters. Run to bombas.com slash NPR and use code NPR for 20% off your first purchase.
This message comes from CarMax. CarMax knows that finding the right car is all about exploring your options, like the option to shop your way on your schedule.
At CarMax, you can browse, compare, and pre-qualify online, then finish up at the store, or simply start on the lot. The choice is yours, because at CarMax, you're in the driver's seat.
Start the search for your next car today, at CarMax, the way car buying should be. This message comes from Bombas.
Socks, underwear, and t-shirts are the top three requested clothing items by people experiencing homelessness. Bombas makes all three and donates one item for every item purchased.
Go to bombas.com slash NPR and use code NPR for 20% off. This message comes from EasyCater, committed to helping organizations order and manage food for all their business needs.
With online ordering from favorite restaurants, employee meal programs, and tools to see and control food spend at EasyCater.com. And we're back.
And so is Danielle. Hello again.
Hey there. All right.
It's time for Can't Let It Go. That's the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week that we just can't stop thinking about, politics or otherwise.
Danielle, why don't we start with you? What can't you let go of this week? OK, so if you missed it, Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin rocket took a space flight on Monday with an all-female crew of six. It included pop star Katy Perry, journalist Gayle King, Bezos's fian, also a journalist, Lauren Sanchez, a couple

of scientists slash activists.

And I just think this was a mad lib of celebrities and space and internet weirdness.

It was everything.

First off, the flight was only 11 minutes, which was shorter than I was expecting, but

okay.

I think this stunt was built in a lab to annoy me, and it was successful at least in that way. Oh, it was built in a lab to delight me.
You're ruining Ashley's Friday. I'm rolling.
Just listen up. No, there are these memes of Gayle King, a journalist, looking just less than enthusiastic about the whole affair.
There's videos of Jeff Bezos kind of face planting as he runs to meet his fiancee, Lauren Sanchez, after they land. It was my soap opera for the week.
Can't let it go. Thank you for letting me go on for a while.
Ashley's ready to let it go. All right, yes.
Ashley, what can't you let go of? So what I can't let go of this week is this weekend is actually a very big weekend for fans of the 2005 Pride and Prejudice movie featuring Keira Knightley. We definitely went from lowbrow to highbrow.
Yeah. Well, it's like 20 years since that movie first came out.
And so they're re-releasing it into theaters. And I am so excited.
I'm watching it on Saturday. This is the movie that, no joke, I have watched more than any other movie in my life.
Even when I was a kid and I was like mainlining Disney movies a lot, still in my adult life, I have not watched a movie more than I have this particular movie. I mean, it's pretty popular, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice.
I don't remember it. I think I saw it at some point, read the books, like, you know, but it's not my thing.
But, you know, I understand why. Oh, Jane Austen's not your thing? I mean, you know, I don't dislike it.
I need to rewatch it. I watched it years and years ago, but now I was a Succession super fan.
So I need to rewatch it so I can get the Matthew McFadden whiplash of Mr. Darcy and Tom Womskans.
Yeah. Well, I will say for lovers of this movie, it is like, I wouldn't even say a cult classic, but there's like a community of folks who are super obsessed with this movie.
So they will have viewings of this movie at the estate where they film Mr. Darcy's house, I believe.
So there's a whole subculture of people who are obsessed with this movie. I'm a member of that subcultureulture.
So what is the, what is the core obsession? It's a perfect movie. If you watch it a hundred times, I'll tell you this, it becomes cozier every time.
I don't know if you want to start that experiment. It's a big deal for me.
I'm very excited. Um, all right, Domenico onto you.
What can't you let go of this week? The masters was last weekend and, and this is less about golf. Cause I'm not a huge fan, but I did watch part of it.
It was interesting watching Rory McIlroy win the Masters after having missed it several times. But what I was more obsessed with and what I couldn't let go of was Ken Griffey Jr.
being there as a credentialed photographer. And if you're not aware of who Ken Griffey Jr.
is, he is a Hall of Fame baseball player who hit 630 home runs.

And he was a credentialed professional photographer. And not only that, he wound up getting the shot of the Masters that went viral of Rory McIlroy on the green, head down.
And that was Ken Griffey Jr.'s shot. It's amazing.
The kid. Incredible.
It's like a second act. Totally.
And I went down the rabbit hole a little bit of like where, what other things he's done. And he did, he's done a lot of MLB games.
He's done NBA games. And he said he started doing this because he would go to his kids' games and people were trying to talk to him all the time.
And his daughter was getting really annoyed with him looking over in the stands and seeing him not paying attention to the game. And what he noticed was that nobody messes with the camera guy.
So he picked up a camera and he just started shooting his kids games. And now he's really gotten very good at it.
And apparently this is a hobby others have picked up as well. And it's really fascinating.
They're good shots and it was a nice,

feel-good second act story.

I love that.

That's great.

Okay, well, that's all for today.

Our executive producer

is Mithoni Maturi.

Casey Murrell edits the podcast.

Our producers are Bria Suggs

and Kelly Wessinger.

Special thanks to Krishna Dev Kalamer.

I'm Ashley Lopez.

I cover politics.

I'm Danielle Kurtz-Lathen.

I cover the White House.

And I'm Domenico Montanaro,

senior political editor

and correspondent. And thank you foromenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent.

And thank you for listening to slash NPR and use code NPR for 20% off your first purchase. This message comes from apartments.com.
Struggling to find the right tenant? Feeling like your rental property isn't getting the limelight? When you list on apartments.com, millions of renters can see it. If you have a studio, a house, or any size in between, your rental listing will get the spotlight it deserves.
And once you match with a tenant, you'll have the tools to create a lease agreement online. Ready to make your rental listing a star? Go to Apartments.com, the place to list a place.
This message comes from CarMax. Buying a car is a big decision, a decision you should feel absolutely confident about.
And when you shop with CarMax, you will. Because CarMax offers a 10-day money-back guarantee, so you can feel confident that you made the right choice for you.
If you're not completely satisfied with your decision, simply bring it back within 10 days for a full refund.

Always shop with confidence at CarMax, the way car buying should be.

See CarMax.com for details.