US court blocks Trump’s tariffs. What’s next?
51:53 Share

Hello and welcome to World Today, I'm Zhao Ying. Coming up, a US court has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. So what happens next and how might it reshape his trade strategy?

Russia has proposed a second round of direct talks with Ukraine in Istanbul, already inching closer to a ceasefire. The Trump administration says it will aggressively revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the U.S., but how far will the crackdown go and who will be affected?

A U.S. federal court has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. The Court of International Trade found that the president did not have the authority to use the emergency economic powers legislation that he cited to impose tariffs on nearly every country. The court said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive powers to regulate commerce with other countries.

The Trump administration has lodged an appeal. For more, we are joined by Dr. Zhou Mi, senior research fellow with Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. How significant is this court ruling and what does it mean for the Trump administration's trade policy going forward? I think it's a very important signal that not only the market, but also the legal system organized is trying to

stop some kind of maybe insane actions by Donald Trump. I think it's really an important message we have to understand that the market is trying to see that the violation of this authorization

of the United States president is kind of a very serious impact on the order and they want to stop that. So no matter from the market views or from the judges' views, I think they believe that there may be a lot of unreasonable and not proper way of the United States actions on the tariffs as they believe.

Yes. So does this ruling also indicate growing judicial resistance to the idea of sweeping executive power? And could it set a broader precedent for limiting the presidential power under emergency acts?

I don't think that Donald Trump will accept this judgment so easily. Actually, there are still a lot of fights among the administrations and also the legal system of the United States. And they also, I mean, Donald Trump also won't try to use its assertion as he believes it is proper.

and the right to do that. So before this statement or the judge by this court, Donald Trump and his team has already mentioned that the kind of message will be a kind of very important act to weaken his power in negotiating with other trading partners.

So this may be giving him a little bit confused about what they can do in the coming years, but they still are not so certain as we have to say that the legal requirements of the United States have different stages. So Donald Trump and his team were still trying to use this kind of actions or requirements to try

trying to fight against the judge decisions. And I believe that we'll still need some more time to find out what will happen after this ruling. Yeah, as you said, the Trump administration has already filed an appeal. But what do you think are the chances of this ruling being overturned?

Yeah, it's unlikely to just overturn the whole judgement, but maybe there will be some discussion about whether it is proper

to decide these kind of actions in such a time because the United States has already issued some signals to negotiate with other countries. If you are looking at the laws making authorities, the Congress, the Congress still have a very strong position to support Donald Trump's actions for quite a

quite a lot of congressmen. So there will be still some unsettled problems, whether it is abuse of the authorities or whether it is only just the extension of these ideas. As we can find from the explanation of the ruling,

The judge is trying to say that in the circumstances when IEPA, the authorization act was issued, the people, the congressman at that time didn't expect that

that the president will try to use it to act like this. So in the previous decades, no president has ever done this before. So it is a kind of, you know, not just agree with the intention of making that law. While on the other side, the IEPA is also

trying to decide what kind of thing is an emergence. So they don't believe that such kind of just the deficit issues is an emergence because it has existed there for decades. So there are so many unsettled problems. Maybe they were still trying to discuss about whether it is right to say that right now or about the authorizations, whether it is proper.

Yeah, and we see that global markets including US stock futures and Asian indices reacted positively to the ruling. Why do you think investors are responding in this way? Yeah, I think that is a message that many of the investors hope to have.

in such a long time because the so-called reciprocal tariffs are rarely violating the order of the trade. And the exporters, the importers, they cannot just continue their businesses as before. So they want some people or some kind of authorization to stop these actions by Donald Trump. But such a very important legal ruling is a kind of very important message that the market is really

like to have. So they want this rule to be effective, especially from its trading partners. So I think that it is still true that some of the people who are supporting Donald Trump will still say this is proper of him to do that. But I don't think that's a kind of message that most of this world, like the trading partners, want to have.

So from these actions or the attitude, I think that they really hope this ruling can stop those kind of things that Donald Trump has practiced for over a month. Yeah, but the ruling doesn't impact the tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars, which were imposed under different legal authorities. So how significant are these remaining tariffs compared to the blocked, the so-called Liberation Day tariffs?

Well, it is true that those tariffs are important for many of the trading partners of the United States, especially Canada, Mexico and the EU. So no matter on the steel and aluminum or the autos, I think that 2-3-2 tariffs are really hurting the ways that people are doing business with each other.

because the manufacturing depends on this kind of very important raw materials and the automobiles are playing an important role in the transportation and the consumption structure of the consumers. So I think that these existing tariffs or challenging the tariffs are still there and maybe I'm afraid that Donald Trump is trying to spread the coverage of the 232 tariffs to many other

including the semiconductors or other raw materials, including the copper. So that is still very dangerous for him to use the tariffs to try to block the international trade. I think that is not only for those auctions or trade,

uh in these raw materials but also to uh you know pass on those costs to increase to the following uh supply chains including the manufacturings even the vehicles buildings and some of the airplanes and other even the ships

So these are really fundamental areas of the problems we have to address. And I think that's the way that the world is trying to react accordingly based on this additional cost. How can they react in the proper way? These are really challenging for all of us. Right. So is this decision likely to impact the Trump administration's ongoing trade negotiations with the EU, China or other partners?

Definitely, I'm understanding that all of these trading partners or negotiators will

will wait because they want to know what's the reaction of Donald Trump and whether he will follow the ruling or there will be some other parameters or the changes. So according to the negotiation, I think that a lot of countries or treaty partners are not willing to make some kind of concession towards the United States. So in this regard, I think that is a good opportunity for them to

trying to stop the negotiation or at least to pause it or postpone this negotiation phases for a little bit longer term and in this regard they hope that they can have a better position in making some offering.

Yeah, but if the tariffs are ultimately struck down, what happens then to the billions that are already collected? Like, will businesses get refunds? And how could that affect the economy?

Well, if it's illegal, I think that the United States should pay those money back to the importer and exporters because it is illegal. But I don't think that they do have this money, the spare money to pay back them because the United States is already in a big deficit of the fiscal budget. So they have already used those money to make up

I think these are really challenging for them to make some repayment, but without any kind of ways of recorrecting those bad behaviors, I mean, the other governments and enterprises will feel, you know,

such a bad behavior and mood. They do not want to trust the United States government anymore because they just violate their obligations and try to distort the trade. That is not so good. That is Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow with Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. You're listening to World Today. Stay with us.

This is World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. NATO is considering a new defense spending target of 5% of GDP, with a formal decision expected at a summit at The Hague next month.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said he assumes alliance members will agree to the goal. He had proposed a plan that includes 3.5 percent for core defense and 1.5 percent for broader security-related items. U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded that NATO countries meet the 5 percent threshold or risk losing U.S. protection. Talks are ongoing among member states ahead of the June summit.

For more, we are joined by Professor Shen Dingli from the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University. Dr. Shen, thanks for joining us. Thank you. So what do you think are the primary drivers behind NATO's push for this 5% GDP target? Like, is this primarily due to U.S. pressure or is there genuine alignment among member states?

Well, nominally, it was supposed to increase the defense spending of those NATO members other than the U.S. Americans consider that the European part of the NATO members of them have been spending not enough.

That's not for European collective security. And the incident in Ukraine, according to America, has vindicated this idea that if you spend less, you look weak. That may invite other countries to attack France or even in the future members of NATO. So U.S. want other countries of NATO to spend more.

Yes, that I mean, this this defense spending can be a kind of deterrence. But what would a 5% defense target mean for global peace and security? Is this just about deterrence? Or does it risk fueling a new arms race?

Well, normally, countries would not spend as high as 5% of GDP on their national defense. For instance, Japan merely spent 1%, around 1%. And China spent less than 2%.

This is a normal case because nations have a lot of purpose to spend their money on a variety of issues, like medicine, like food, like environmental protection, technological innovation, in order to lift the quality of life of people. Sometimes during the wartime, a nation may spend more, like Ukraine, currently is spending about 30% of its GDP on defense. Right?

Russia is spending between 6% to 7% of its GDP on defense, which is a lot more than the normal situation, about 2% or 3% that was the level before the Ukraine war. But during normal time, peace time, when NATO countries are not attacked,

America is asking them to increase their defense spending from 1%, 2% to dramatically to about 5%. This is unheard of, which could quite incite some other countries to feel threat from NATO and to generate their increase of defense spending, which eventually would lead to some regional or global arms race.

Yeah, but this proposed split of 3.5% for core defense and 1.5% for broader security-related spending like cybersecurity and infrastructure, this is seen as a way to meet U.S. demands while softening the fiscal impact on member states. Do you think this approach is practical?

Well, 5% is virtually not practical for most of the NATO members. Even today, France is spending less than 2%, and France plans to meet the target of 2% of GDP on defense by this year, 2025.

Therefore, the U.S. has proposed to divide 5% into two parts. The first part is the major part, 3.5%, for the core part of military spending. And the other 1.5% is for more broadly defended security, like what you said, cybersecurity, etc.,

That is a way to persuade NATO members to spend more and also for other members of NATO to speak to their own parliament, their own people. We are not spending 5% in total on defense, only 3.5%. So it's a way to persuade people and the country to follow the U.S.,

Yeah, but many NATO members are already struggling to meet the current 2% GDP target, as you said. Then how realistic or what is the chance for these countries, especially for those with high national debt or economic challenges, to hit 3.5% or even 5%?

Well, about 10 years ago, NATO had a summit to conclude in about 10 years, all NATO members need to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

but the changes have passed. Many of them, I think probably one third of all NATO members have failed to achieve this target. But in the meantime, quite some NATO members have more or less met this target. So this is a target. If you raise a target, some countries may meet, some may not. Without raising the target, members may never meet the target.

So this time, NATO are discussing they may set the next target, which is significantly much higher than 2%. In my view, without the 5%, all members would not meet this new target. Even today, the U.S. is spending less than 4%.

And with this new target, I guess most of the NATO members would still fail this new target probably 10 years later. But probably few will be able to meet.

especially Germany, given its new chancellor has been talking about that they are going to meet the target in a few years to raise their German defense spending to 5%. I'm quite doubtful of the possibility to achieve this objective.

Yeah, and then Spain has reportedly resisted the new target. That's according to Financial Times, I think, and decided its recent commitment to reach 2%. Then what does this indicate about the broader political challenges within NATO?

I think many European members of NATO are a country of so-called democracy. People choose their leader. People have different choices. So a political candidate, national leader, should cater to people's needs.

environmental protection, medical development, and to raise the salary, etc. They do not have enough financial resources to do everything, especially to work significantly on their military spending. Therefore, I think many of these leaders would feel it's a challenge. They cannot meet in raising their defense spending in a few years to double that.

So they are quietly talking about the dissatisfaction. So in the upcoming NATO summit, probably some members would openly disagree. Yeah. And also Kyiv has reportedly asked for Ukraine-related aid to count toward the 5% target. What are the debates under this request?

I think Ukraine has a lot of challenges. Because of the war, their economic scale has much reduced, probably by 30%. And therefore, they already have spent a lot in terms of percentage of GDP on defense.

because they are increasing spending of defense and their GDP is decreasing. Some said their current spending of defense money is more than 10%. So they already met the new target of doing 5% in a few years.

But I think they are worried about America may push them to the more. So they have floating some ideas. So for the defense resource they receive from other NATO members, that may be counted as a part of their overall defense spending. We will see how this will be working.

Yeah. And we know that Donald Trump has repeatedly talked about, you know, exiting NATO. So do you think this this move that this effort towards this five percent target will succeed in keeping the U.S. engaged in NATO?

Trump has threatened to quit NATO, but after he finished his first term, he ended his first term in 2021, the U.S. Congress somehow led by Rubio when he was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the U.S. Senate.

They created a new law. They passed a new law to disallow Americans to quit NATO in the future. And luckily, they have this law. So Trump 2.0 cannot quit NATO. So America has to stay with NATO.

But the Americans are uninterested in supporting Ukraine and probably in supporting other NATO members. Ukraine still is not official member. That makes NATO members worried. So with or without a Trump threat,

European partners in NATO would somehow increase their defense spending, especially UK, France, and Germany would spend more, and they would press other NATO members in Europe to spend more.

So I will see NATO will spend more and Americans seem to be less interested in supporting NATO. So the transatlantic allies is in a certain kind of internal chaos at this time.

Yeah, as you said, European countries are increasingly seeking their autonomy. But do you think this proposal of 5%, even if approved, will be sustainable in the long term, given the economic uncertainties across Europe? Okay, this new target is supposed not to be met in one year, two years, probably in five years, ten years.

Therefore, Trump, if he can survive his second term, he would step down in the year 2029. So when the deadline of the new NATO 5% deadline has not been there.

So in the future, NATO members may not abide by this new guiding principle. And in the future, U.S. presence, no matter Republican or Democrat, may not press NATO to observe this line. I think there will be a lot of maneuvering room for the NATO new target

and the actual situation to implement this target. Okay. Thank you, Professor Shendeng Li from the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University. You're listening to World Today. Stay with us. This is World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. Russia has proposed a new round of direct talks with Ukraine and Istanbul next week with the goal of securing a lasting ceasefire.

Ukraine responded that it was ready for direct talks with Russia but maintained that Moscow needed to provide its peace terms in advance to ensure the encounter yields results.

Kyiv said it had already submitted its version of the memorandum on peace to Russian delegation. Russia and Ukrainian officials met earlier this month in Istanbul for the first time since the war began. The talks resulted in an exchange of 1,000 prisoners of war each, but failed to produce a ceasefire. For more, we are joined by Dr. Cui Hongjian, professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.

So what do you think is driving this renewed push for direct talks? And do you see this as a genuine breakthrough opportunity or more of a symbolic gesture at this stage?

I think firstly, so far, especially for the battlefield situation for both Russia and Ukraine, they do not have so big effort to upgrade this fight. So a little bit, even different degree, I think, for both sides. So I think that's a very, very big

factor behind the driving force for the negotiation. Of course, another important, I think, driving force is a change of policy for United States. And of course, I think the concerns rising from the international community and try to push forward this negotiation and the peaceful solution, I think is a very, very big

driving force. So I think that yes, it's time to talk with each other between Russia and the Ukraine. But so far, because the lack of waiting for both sides to

to get some more compromise with each other. I think that's a very, very main obstacle for the further exchange of ideas. And the UN now will have to wait for longer time for the final solution.

Yes, we know that the first round of talks in Istanbul resulted in a prisoner swap, but no ceasefire. What exactly were the main obstacles then? And do you expect either side to show more flexibility this time around?

I think basically the lack of mutual understanding and the mutual acceptance of each side's goal would be a very, very big obstacle for the no progress on the issue of certifier.

And if we look at the differences between Ukraine and Russia, they do have a different understanding about the meaning of ceasefire. For Ukrainian side,

always it take a ceasefire as a precondition for further negotiation and finally, I mean, the peaceful solution. But for Russia, even it still regard it take some advantage in battlefield. So it's not time for Russia to go to the ceasefire and still it try to transfer some advantage in battlefield.

into the negotiation table. So I think that's a main obstacle for both sides. Germany and Ukraine just agreed to jointly develop long-range missiles. So does this strengthen Ukraine's hand at the negotiating table, or is it more likely to be seen by Moscow as a kind of escalation that may harden its stance?

also you know recently uh german has a germany has its new government and especially uh comparing with a lost government this new government should offer attitude towards russia and even a stronger support to ukraine so i think that's the reason why president zaniski with it is a berlin and try to get some more support from germany especially uh the uh you know taurus

you know missiles from Germany because Always Ukraine try to get some more, you know high-level machine high-level weapons from Western countries

But as we know, as an alternative, the German side didn't provide the missiles, but promised to develop long-range missiles accompanied with Ukraine.

Certainly, I think this situation will be regarded by Moscow as a challenge and also a message of escalation from Western countries. But of course, we can find out from Ukraine and Russia, they don't have the same understanding of what is the situation and the message indeed from the Ukrainian side.

always, it will take this support as a part of its strength to fight with Russia, not only in battlefield and also on negotiation table. And why is Turkey the chosen venue for these talks again? And what kind of leverage or neutrality does Ankara bring? So far, I think Turkey is one of the countries

could be accepted by both sides, I mean, Ukraine and Russia, because not only Turkey has a long time relations with both two countries, and also it has a membership of NATO. So I think it gives them, you know, choice for both two countries, and especially from Russian side.

It tried to continue the talks with Ukraine on the basis of as we know previous Istanbul agreement, so I think it's a very very symbolic for Russian side to accept a turkey as a mediator to help the negotiation but of course, I think that the Ankaras position as a

neutral or as a mediator is limited because once there are some more space for negotiation, it will give us some more space for Ankara. Otherwise, there is no any space for Ankara to help the situation. Okay, thank you, Dr. Cui Hongjian, professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University. You're listening to World Today. Stay with us.

You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhaoying. The trade between China and ASEAN exceeded 900 million US dollars in 2023. That total is greater than the trade volume between China and the US, and more than that of the EU and the US. So how have China-ASEAN relations evolved in the past three decades? And where will those partnerships go in the coming decades?

With more, my colleague Wang Guan earlier sat down with Dr. Cao Kim-Huang, Secretary General of ASEAN. Your Excellency, Dr. Cao, I looked through your major speeches and presentations in the past couple of years regarding China-ASEAN relations. Nearly all of your speeches describing China-ASEAN friendship and fraternity, you used two words, substantive and dynamic. I suppose you put a lot of thought into those two words.

Well, if you look at the actual work that has been carried out in more than three decades, the growth, development and transformation of the relationships, cooperation and partnership have indicated that there is a strong momentum, there's a strong dynamism.

In a speech China-ASEAN Futures Relations Forum, you said there are 64 existing mechanisms between China and ASEAN. The most

among ASEAN and its partners. Is that true? That is the correct number. 64 mechanisms of cooperation between us and China cut across the three pillars of the ASEAN community and the ASEAN connectivity.

very wide range. If you look at overall among the 11 dollar partners, ASEAN-China has the most number of mechanisms. So looking from the outside, there are so many different descriptions and narratives from the West, from our partners across the world on the nature of China-ASEAN cooperation. How would you describe the nature of this relationship? Well, I think we have to look at facts. I think facts speak for themselves.

Number one, there are many levels of cooperation across the different sectors and pillars of the community. And second, the depth of cooperation.

So that's where you can see more engagement, more interactions between both sides. At the end of the day, it's what we do together. I think that's important. President Xi described the China-ASEAN relationship as the most successful and the most dynamic when it comes to cooperation across Asia Pacific. Well, I think it's correct. So we have, say,

In terms of trade volume between both sides, China has been the number one trading partner for ASEAN in the past 15 consecutive years. And likewise, ASEAN has been the top trading partner of China in the past four consecutive years. Trade alone already speaks for itself. It means that we have been trading together very heavily, cutting across all commodities

and in different areas in economic cooperation. Second, look at investment. Of course, investment in China has been number two consistently over so many years. Again, investment is important for ASEAN because it helps create jobs,

for the people. And third, look at of course also the air tourism cooperation. This is part of people-to-people cooperation. So we've seen a lot of Chinese tourists over so many years and at the same time we look at connectivity in terms of air-to-air connectivity, air connectivity in terms of rail connectivity, port-to-port connectivity, people-to-people connectivity, all of this

I think it will demonstrate where the commitment lies between us and China. Talking about the trade volume, last time I checked, in 2023, our trade volume exceeded $911 billion. The trade between the United States and European Union is $906 billion. That is according to the European Commission official data. And the China-US trade, a little over $664 billion, according to Chinese customs.

Why do you think the trade between our two sides, China and ASEAN, is so significant? And what does that say about the complementarity of our two peoples, economies? Well, it's growing. The number is there, but I don't think this number will stay there. We continue to grow. Today, ASEAN has 671 million people.

third ranking after China and India. So it's up there, it's growing. Second of course is that increasingly we are taking advantage of a number of opportunities. Of course proximity, at the same time we have the bilateral FTA as in China FTA that's important for trade, for business community that they take advantage of this opportunity. At the same time we have the regional comprehensive economic partnership

that went into effect last year. And again, this is another level of opportunity

to support trade, ongoing trade between the two sides. I think as a matter of fact, it's about benefits, mutual benefits on both sides. Just give a contour of what it will look like and what sectors will there be additional and new and exciting opportunities for investment and trade with this FTA 3.0? I think it's certainly we'll go into all kinds of areas that were not traditionally there. Of course, hopefully we should be working together more on e-commerce, for example.

That's the kind of area we should be looking at because the digital economy is growing. I'm sure for China or certainly for ASEAN. At the moment, we are working together among our 10-month states to negotiate

the digital economy framework agreement, we expect to conclude this by before the next year. So again, I think digital economy is important. We have to look at all of the new areas, including the green, the blue economy sector, this is also growing. We certainly have to look at

What more can be done, particularly in the agriculture sector? So it's all about mutual interest, how we can work together to take advantage of the competitive advantage that we have between ASEAN and China. The upgrade of the FTA to 3.0 will make it more relevant, future fit for the businesses on both sides.

And that will again help to facilitate trade even more, reduce more trade barriers between both sides and of course modernize the way we do business between us and China. Talking about connectivity, there have been a lot of projects touching lives here in Southeast Asia under the Belt and Road Initiative. For example, the Jakarta-Bandung Railroad, the China-Laos Railway,

Phnom Penh, Sihanoukville, Expressway, so on and so forth. And you said many times that you expect synergies between ASEAN's own program known as the Master Plan of ASEAN Connectivity 2025 and China's BRI. Do you see that happening? Well, it has been happening already. Connectivity is a very important priority for ASEAN. That's why we have the Master Plan of ASEAN Connectivity as the Master Plan of Connectivity. In fact,

2025. Of course we will have a new one soon. The vision 2045? That's right. We'll be part of the ASEAN community vision 2045. Under this 20-year vision, we will have four new strategic plans, one of which will be on the ASEAN connectivity. But coming back to the issue of the real projects, what I consider to be real projects, projects that have high impact on public goods.

the Bendung, Phuong Sam Chee Kha, Bendung Speed Train. Now this is a public good project, will benefit

the people of Indonesia will benefit the people of ASEAN, will benefit the visitors, the tourists that come to Indonesia. The same thing we talk about the expressway in Cambodia from Phnom Penh to Sinoville. The same thing I understand that the speed train has been built in Laos as well. That of course I think now we've been riding on train moving from Vientiane to Luang Prabang for example because there used to be a lot of meetings now.

in Luang Prabang, so we have to take speed train. Usually take about a few hours, but it's very convenient. So I think it's good that we have to do more to connect ASEAN countries together, of course, also connecting ASEAN and China. That is Dr. Kao Kim Horn, Secretary General of ASEAN, speaking with Wang Guan. This is World Today. Stay with us.

You're listening to World Today. I'm Zhao Ying. Beijing has expressed stern opposition after Washington said it would start aggressively revoking visas of Chinese students. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the move under the false pretext of national security seriously harms the rights and interests of China's overseas students and disrupts normal people-to-people exchanges.

The spokesperson also stated that this act betrays America's long-proclaimed "freedom and openness" and will only damage its own international image and credibility. China is the second largest source of international students in the U.S., with over 277,000 studying there in 2024. For more, my colleague Gao Yingshi spoke with Mao Keji, a fellow at the Harvard-Yenching Institute, currently based at Harvard.

So as Trump administration holds a student visa appointment, what's the mood on campus right now among both domestic and international students? And how are daily academic operations being affected? Well, timing is very particular at this time because it's the end of the semester. There will be some graduation ceremony coming up very soon.

There's actually no class and other like a normal operations going on currently because it's almost the end of the semester. So it's really hard to see how it influenced the operation. You know, the campus is empty now, but I think there will be some event

very soon. A lot of people got together to celebrate their graduation ceremony. So at that time, I think there will be something quite a phenomenon. Thousands of people get together, have someone to share their school pride. I think Trump is like the just perfect target for school pride. This confrontation seems to have sent shockwaves through American demographic

elite beyond just Harvard. So are you witnessing a sense of panic or urgent concern among scholars at other prestigious institutions or universities? What impact might this have on like critical research area where we need international collaboration, like climate science or like medical research?

Interestingly, you know, the Ministry of Homeland Security issued the document against Harvard, you know, the very day I was in Princeton in New Jersey. So I happened to talk to some professors and research fellows in Princeton. They all have a

same feeling with us because Harvard is just one target. If Harvard backs off, then there will be other targets. I think the Columbia University has been another target, right? So I think there's a mood or a feeling among other elite research institutes and universities that we have to stand up to Trump administration's pressure. I think as for the impact

On the critical research areas, it's too early to see something substantial. It's still very early in the stage, right? It's just beginning. You have a lawsuit and you don't know how it will turn out. And I don't find a particular sense of panic among all the students and the faculty members in the school, in the campus. China was the target for Trump's trade war, but you don't actually find that kind of panic

among Chinese people, right? Particularly this time. I think we share that kind of thing also in the school campus. Everybody just feel very annoyed by the Trump's attack against Harvard, but they don't feel really panic about that.

I don't know. It's just like they think it's just bluffing. Yeah, it's serious threat, but still people kind of quite confident in the sense that, you know, there's still rules you have to follow. Trump cannot do whatever he wants.

So I think that is the general feeling there. And it's too early to predict. I think people are waiting to see what's going to happen next. Yeah. And as a scholar, how do you view the motivation behind the current federal intervention in universities operation and all this series of kind of investigation? And what do you think that Trump administration

ultimately wants to achieve by pressuring Harvard or halts student visa appointments? I have a feeling for all these demands Department of Homeland Security put on Harvard University, I think they're not that important per se, right? All the demands to turn out the students who participate in the protests and to give all those documents, a lot of student profiles,

I find like okay, you know, for every international students

who wants to go to the US, they have to apply for a student visa, right? Trump is obviously the head of the American government. He has the full list of international students. He has all those people's names and profiles, right? I think it makes very little sense just taking it at face value. I believe there's something deeper than that. We should not take all those Trump's like demand at their face value. That's my feeling.

And there's something I can guess maybe by kind of Trump would like to achieve a sense of superiority over elitist university like Harvard. And Harvard is more like a symbol of the elitism in the US. So by defeating Harvard, Trump can really show off to his followers, since that, you know, look,

Harvard is such a great university, but now I defeated it. You know, it has to listen to what I have to say. So I think that's kind of the feeling there. It's not about those very detailed demands over Harvard. It's more about Trump's personal image in front of his basic followers, like MAGA people.

And elite universities, they have become the primary targets of the Trump administration, as you say, and from banning international student enrollment to redirecting billions in research funding to trade schools. And some critics argue that Harvard's response has been relatively restrained and relying mostly on legal challenges. So do you think this is the most effective strategy for now? Or should Harvard be taking a more aggressive approach?

public stance on the issue? Yeah, I think that's pretty much what we have to do and what we can do, right? If you just go very aggressive publicly, then I think it plays into President Trump's rhythm, right? Trump really loves public dogfights, right? If a prodigious university like Harvard gets into that kind of dogfighting with Trump,

I think it will not come to a very good ending. So I think the current strategy is the proper one to play. I don't really think, you know, we should take more aggressive public stance against Trump. And I think it's pretty effective.

And there are a lot of things going on under the table. So it's not necessarily a really public thing, right? There's things that's happening quite quietly but really effective beneath the surface.

I think those things can be very important, but people don't really pay attention to this. It's like more, it's like you have to read between the lines to get a, get a reason. And looking ahead, how do you see this confrontation evolving? Do you think Trump will declare his victory soon or is going to be a very like prolonged battle? I think.

It's like Trump is applying kind of a similar strategy all across those topics, be it tariff war against China or the current round of like attack against Harvard. It's about pressurizing your target. You have to put a lot of like pressure over whatever was your objective. At first glance, it's really heavy and intensive, but later on, it became kind of like just phased out quite late.

It really depends on how it plays out, really depends on how they interact with each other. So if you look at a tariff war between China and the US, Trump really said something really, really harsh against China at that time, right?

When Trump feels kind of the pain of the retaliation from China, then everything became quiet. You know, everything plays out and they reach kind of new balancing point. Then it's just the end, right? Trump will just play, you know, whatever he says, but, you know, it's just the end. You know, a university like Harvard has a lot of resources with branch of government, a lot of resources.

no legal support from alumni. So all those things will add up into those interactions with Trump administration. So I believe Trump administration will certainly feel the pressure from the Harvard side. Let's see how it will plays out. What are you hearing from your, no matter international students or your international colleagues about their future plans? So are they planning to find somewhere else or they will be staying in Harvard?

I think it's too early to say that because everybody kind of waiting, right? There's a lot of things going on. The situation changes quickly from day to day. I haven't find a lot of people they've rushed to make their decision yet because it's like the summer break, right? They still have some time to do that. And a lot of things they haven't been fully kind of settled yet. I think they will wait until that point. So it's just too early to say.

That is Mao Keji, a fellow at the Harvard Yancheng Institute, currently based at Harvard, speaking with my colleague Gao Yanshi. And that's all the time we have for this edition of World Today. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today. And you can also follow us on X at CGTN Radio. I'm Zhao Ying. Thank you so much for listening. See you next time.

so