Shownotes Transcript
Your best hotel in Bethesda has every guest raving. How do you make every hotel like your best hotel? Your best plant in Atlanta employs 4,500 people. How do you get 4,500 people working at peak efficiency? Your best data center in Redmond is optimized every drop of water. How do you make every data center the pinnacle of sustainability? The answer is Ecolab. Ecolab, bringing out the best in your business.
As America's leading business lender, Bank of America is on your corner and in your corner. With $215 billion in business loans and over 3,700 business specialists across the nation, we help businesses thrive so communities prosper. What would you like the power to do? Learn more at bankofamerica.com slash localbusiness. Bank of America, official bank of FIFA Club World Cup 2025. Copyright 2025 Bank of America Corporation. All rights reserved.
Bring in show music, please. Hi, I'm CNBC producer Katie Kramer. Today on Squawk Pod. Markets cheer a softer stance from President Trump on China and Fed Chair Jerome Powell. We feel better today because this is what we would like to hear. But special government employee Elon Musk stumbles as his electric car maker Tesla reports a 20% revenue drop. Is the world's richest man worth his enormous paycheck today?
and promise. "I was there from the beginning. I think you've switched your view to be honest." "No, I always, if you can do it, flaunt it." A new book dives into Musk's potentially damaging hubris, Maximus, author Fez Siddiqui. "The book depicts so many instances of individuals who fiercely, devotedly believed in the promises of Elon and ended up still supporting his goals but disappointed with the man in the end."
And higher education caught in the president's policy crosshairs. Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League on anti-Semitism, politics, and the billions of dollars that go to American universities. I don't want to see life-saving research stopped. I don't want to see people in lab coats, their work ended because of the lunatics on the humanities side. All that today and much more. It's Wednesday, April 23rd. Squawk Pod begins right now.
Stand, Becky, by in three, two, one. Cue, please. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Squawk Box right here on CNBC. We're live from the Nasdaq market site in Times Square. I'm Becky Quick, along with Joe Kernan and Andrew Ross Sorkin. We got some breaking news for you this morning. The European Union hitting Apple and Meta with fines as part of an investigation into tech firms deemed as, quote, gatekeepers.
Under Europe's new Digital Markets Act, Apple's fine is about $570 million. Meta's is going to cost the company about $229 million. The EU also ordering Apple to remove technical and commercial restrictions on app developers' ability to inform users
about cheaper and alternative ways to buy digital products outside the app store. As for Meta and the regulator saying that it is still evaluating whether a new option for Instagram and Facebook users to see less personalized ads complies with a cease and desist order. Apple has said it will appeal that decision. Meta says it will likely appeal. So we're going to keep our eyes on that story of
See, this becomes, to me, an interesting chess piece in this sort of larger dance, right? I'm doing a dance over here. She's trying to get on her chair. My chair collapsed, and then I pulled it up, and now it's stuck too high. Yeah, now it's too high. I can't win. Will it go back down, or will it go all the way? No, that's why I was trying to dance it back down. We'll work on that in the meantime. Yeah.
President Trump saying he has no intention of firing Fed Chair Jay Powell before his term, but for leading the central bank before it ends next year. None whatsoever. Never did. The press runs away with things. Now, I have no intention of firing him. I would like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates. This is a perfect time to lower interest rates.
If he doesn't, is it the end? No, it's not. But it would be good timing. It could have taken place earlier. But no, I have no intention to fire him.
The president has increased his criticism of Chair Powell lately on Monday, calling him Mr. Too Late and a major loser, but he spelled it correctly, L-O-S-E-R, versus most of our viewers that spell it with two O's. When they're talking about who? Yeah, exactly. It could be you, it could be me, it could be Andrew, it could be Trump, it could be... The Wall Street Journal says some of the president's advisors told him that an attempt to fire the Fed chair would result, thanks...
that no flies on that it could result in some pain for the financial markets like yesterday uh... and a legal battle treasury secretary or the day before yesterday as treasury secretary scott benson i was said to be one of the people uh... who spoke with trump but you know it was has it last week who supposedly has a line under the president and doesn't just speak you know i've turned who said that they were investigating ways uh... of doing it so whatever happened you know uh...
I think someone, maybe the lead editorial in the journal said, they're not sure what happened, but we'll take it.
at this point, whether you can learn from this. Same with China. But if you're not talking to China, there are still no talks. There's no talk. This is like all lemmings. Just everyone's like, oh, now he's going to be nice. Tomorrow he won't be nice. Scott Besson told a small group of people it would be nice if everybody had that info at the same time. I mean, I'm not totally shocked that we're not going to
you know, completely decouple from the world's second largest economy. And all along, you know, it's been sort of in the back of people's minds that we, you know, talk tough and try to get something. We may not ever get anything. We should get a, like a comp reel of all the things that he said, just even like the last three weeks. Yeah.
And just play them back to back. And then... Well, the thing is, is we feel better today because this is what we would like to hear, that the markets are going to be allowed to, or the Fed's going to be allowed to operate independently, that we are going to have a calmer conversation with China. But the problem is, is you don't know what damage has been done to the confidence because everybody's on tenterhooks. You don't know what's coming next. But hopefully we can put some of this back in. The last paragraph of the, it's called the...
the down tariff escalator. If Mr. Besant can move markets merely with comments that a trade truce is coming, imagine how the markets would respond if Mr. Trump simply called the whole thing off. Let's call the whole thing off. Simply called the whole tariff. Yeah, and it's a reminder that this is self-inflicted, the volatility that we've seen in the markets. It's self-inflicted. It's whether you believe that there's something that
needed to be done that actually could be done. Not necessarily. Look, I agree that there are areas where we could get better deals. There are ways to get better trade agreements. Capricious. The capricious nature of the... Correct. There are ways to get better trade agreements and he's right. We've gotten ripped off in a lot of ways. We have done it, though, to exchange in exchange for peace around the world and for making sure that we have access to different things. It's been...
a huge part of our global defense. So you've got to think about the trade-offs that come with those, too. But he's right. We have given up on the economic front. I think India, looking at some of the... India, you're talking very quickly about. But here's the thing. Even if he does not go as far as you think,
The toothpaste is out of the tube. You can put a little bit of the toothpaste back in, but you know how there's always that little edge, a little crust on the edge? That's not going back. I don't want that part back. I don't know whether that's a toothpaste that's really the best for cleaning your teeth. I mean, by the end of this year...
We could be at... I don't know where we're going to be. Will our standing, will the dollar continue falling? Will no one invest in the United States anymore? Will no countries trust the United States forever? I'm just saying it's all in the margins. Okay, some of it. It is a margin. And David Solomon made me feel a lot better yesterday. I'm saying it's all in the margins. But the margin is, at some point, in a trillion-dollar economy, the margin is big. I don't know if it happens, but there's a possibility...
that there's actually more positive things than happen than negative after it's all said and done. We'll see. I mean, it feels better to hear what he's saying overnight.
For sure. I don't know what I took some heart in today was that the group in the administration that are pushing for the 40 percent right top rate. There's like three of them and everybody else is like, what are you talking outside advisors? Republican. What are you exactly? How do you think you know, why do you think you got elected and won a majority?
Well, it's interesting because it tells you a little bit about who has influence this time around, who his closest advisors are in the White House versus last time, where it was Gary Cohn and some others who were. Well, the whole, you know, the populace, it's populace versus more classic conservatives. And we'll see who who wins out. I think, you know, not for nothing, but.
Aren't you glad Besson's there? I'm very glad Scott Besson's there. That's what I think. I'm glad Scott's there. And he seems kind of, he's so calm. I understand the market so well. And I think he might be like that when there's chaos around him. And he's like, this is just, and when push comes to shove, I don't know what actually happens.
I want you to. I'm just worried it's going to be so long. I think we're talking about 2020, 2029 or something. 2028. It is not going to make it 100 days. You're not going to make it. That's I was thinking the country's going to be fine. But I mean, I'm back to the counterfactual. Most Trump supporters at this point, even if they're disillusioned,
It would take probably World War III to wish that Kamala Harris had won that election. I think that one of your fans...
And Trump supporters wrote on Twitter yesterday to you that an auto pen would have been better. No, but I don't. So I don't think that's to understand. I don't think that's true. Really? Well, that's a remark about what did you did you like the four years of auto pen? Did you like the 11? Yeah, actually. Actually, the markets did. The economy did. Yes, actually. No one's wages went up.
And you had 11 million illegal aliens come into this country. I know that's okay with you, but you're worried about this one going back. The rule of law was- - I am worried about the rule of law. - Yeah, but not for 11 million.
Not for, they totally ignored the rule of law coming here. Now you're talking about it again. So it's back to whataboutism. So 11 million is fine. When did you talk about the rule of law when the border was open? Constantly. Okay.
At a luncheon hosted by the Economic Club of New York yesterday, I spoke with legendary activist investor Dan Loeb in an hour-long conversation. He had some fascinating comments. He, of course, is the CEO and CIO of Third Point, the hedge fund that he started 30 years ago in 1995, now managing $11.7 billion in assets under management.
On stage, he weighed in on just about everything, including today's market environment and how the sentiment on Wall Street has switched from a sense of optimism at the start of President Trump's term to a feeling of uncertainty in this moment and its potential lasting impact. Here's what he said. He said, I would not underestimate the resilience of the American economy. I think there will be residual concern about some of what he described as the capriciousness
with which some of these issues have been dealt with, and confidence in the rule of law. So he's making some pretty interesting comments there in expectations being met, calling effectively the administration capricious in terms of how they've gone about all of this. He also weighed in on the changes proposed
to delaware law this is interesting given he's an activist shareholder and uh... crucial to write your interesting to him he said there's been an enormous overreach by the delaware judges over who whoever adjudicates these things
determining what is fair or not fair for CEO compensation. That's obviously something he's gone after over all these years. That is out of bounds. I think it is for shareholders to determine. I think it is understandable that public companies would go to a venue that doesn't overstep what should be their duties around securities and corporate law.
Third Point is incorporated, we should mention, in Delaware. The hedge fund has been a beneficiary of the run-up among the MAG7 stocks with big bets on Meta and Amazon. Though, interestingly, Loeb says in the last few months he's shifted away from these investments, exiting his position in Meta and reducing his investment in Amazon. Loeb says he's leaning further into creditors.
Credit, an area he sees in as an important piece now for the future of Third Point. It's about 50 percent, almost 50 percent of the business right now. And he says there's a lot better risk reward. He equates his equity business longer term to what he thinks is going to start to look like Mark Rowan's P.E. business.
At Apollo, he says it will always be part of Third Point's DNA, but he sees massive opportunities in private credit. Of course, Apollo is now effectively a credit operation with a sort of bolted on private equity firm. So I think when you think about Third Point in the future, you could see something that looks a lot more like a credit operation with a little bit of a...
activist equity operation. Was he wholly talking about Elon Musk's compensation? It was in reference to Elon. That's what I mean. I don't know. Are there other examples where the Delaware courts have done
What I thought was just, that was outrageous for Musk. But has it happened with other CEO compensation? No, but there's been other suits that people have felt. But not on CEO compensation. Not on CEO compensation. So he was talking solely about Musk. I was surprised only because, you know, he has effectively attacked companies, typically Delaware companies, over comp and all sorts of other things.
quite successfully by and by the way the delaware court has been an ally of a lot of the activist investors but erica in terms of uh... giving them leverage over boards and so to think that he's actually in favor of companies going for example del texas whereby the way
activist shareholders are not going to have any real leverage. But that, I mean, that was a case where the shareholders, at least in the case of Tesla, were really on Elon's side on that. Right, but I think that Dan's comment was actually a broad, I mean, we were talking about... It was broader, but that's why I was asking whether you have other instances where there... I actually don't know of other instances, but I do think that he has a relatively negative view, or dim view, I should say, of Delaware. Given what Musk
You know, and many times he said, you know, we're supposed to be by Jupiter and Jupiter on Jupiter by now with like a town with a lot of the promises he's made. But when he made that promise to get that compensation, we all said there's no way to make it. And he totally did. So if you're able to do that in the shareholders benefit as well, I think that's. And by the way, when they went back and asked the shareholders, the shareholders voted again. Exactly. So what what are they doing in Delaware?
I don't know. I mean, you know, Mike, I'm with you on that. I was there from the beginning. I think I think you've switched your view. No, I always know. What are you talking about? You don't think I thought he deserved it in the beginning. You thought that you shouldn't get the money. Remember, we thought it was a crazy deal. But I also never thought that I've never I thought it was a crazy amount of money, but I never thought he'd ever hit the metrics. Never switch. If you can get if you can do it. We're going to have a guy on who?
I think soon, talking about almost the downfall of Elon Musk, the hubris and what's happening, it's like you're making a prediction about the future because it hasn't happened yet. Tease will be next.
There is more to come next on Squawk Pod. The Trump administration versus Harvard. The federal government says it's protecting students from anti-Semitism and hate. The Ivy League institution says that has a damaging overreach. The Anti-Defamation League's Jonathan Greenblatt weighs in. If you are a radical, like harassing your own students, I think there's real questions with the tenure system. But it can't be abused, and that's what we're talking about here. Who's to blame for a rise in anti-Semitism?
I'm not saying Harvard's great, but I'm saying judging these people, who's letting these kids into the country? The State Department. Call Marco Rubio. That lively discussion is right after this. Hello, I'm Ben Rizzuto, wealth strategist at Janus Henderson Investors. Is a brighter future possible? At Janus Henderson, we think it is. We've worked to help clients achieve superior financial outcomes and fulfill our purpose of investing in a brighter future together.
We never forget that this means our thinking and our investments are helping to shape millions of futures. At Janice Henderson, we're committed to helping you invest in a brighter future. To learn more, go to JaniceHenderson.com.
How will you shape the future of banking with confidence? Industry consolidation, crypto, the rise of fintechs all create a complex landscape for banks to innovate and grow. EY provides domain-led insights to navigate today's fragmented banking sector. So whether you're tackling regulatory complexities, integrating digital assets, or seizing M&A opportunities, EY sees your business from every angle, working together to deliver outcomes that create strategic value.
EY, shape the future with confidence.
The new Huggies Snug and Dry are luxuriously soft and ultra dry. How soft are we talking? Unbelievably soft. Irresistibly soft. Doesn't your baby deserve a diaper that's oh so gentle on their tushy? Huggies Snug and Dry helps keep them comfy, cozy, and protected. Experience the unexpected softness and up to 100% leak protection. More parents choose the new Huggies Snug and Dry softness versus the leading premium diaper. Huggies, we got you, baby.
This is SquawkPod. I'm Becky. Thank you.
You're watching Squawk Box right here on CNBC. I'm Becky Quick, along with Joe Kernan and Andrew Ross Sorkin. The Anti-Defamation League out with a new report showing a spike in anti-Semitic incidents in 2024. The ADL's data showing that this is the fourth year in a row in which these events have surged, breaking a previous all-time high. Joining us right now, Anti-Defamation League CEO and National Director Jonathan Greenblatt. He was recently named to Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2025.
By the way, does that mean you're really influential in 2024? Yeah, I don't know what it says about what my future prospects are. Let me ask you this. From being a squawk box so much? Yeah, the squawk was in the write-up. Let me ask you this. The data you have that says that anti-Semitism continued to be on the rise in 2024, do you think that there's, was there any shift in terms of if you looked over that 12-month period? Yeah. I'm praying you're going to tell me that the last couple of months of the year, it got better.
Well, look, I think it's certainly fair to say that the data tells us that anti-Semitism is a national emergency. Twenty percent of the incidents we saw last year happened on college campuses, and things were certainly worse on the campuses in the first half of '24 versus the second half. But look, if you're one of the 250-some-odd people who were assaulted,
If you were at one of the institutions, 2,600 some odd institutions and homes, businesses were vandalized. There were more than 6,500 cases of harassment. And behind every one of those statistics is a story. There's a grandmother who gets yelled at, you know, in the grocery store. There's a student who gets their desk vandalized, you know, in a middle school. There's a college student who's prevented from walking across the quad simply because they're a Zionist.
It's all crazy. OK, so now we got to go to the news of the day. OK. Tell me what you think about Harvard. Tell me what you think about the Trump administration's letter to them and the reaction from the university. Look, the reality is there are deep systemic problems, not just at Harvard, but at all of these institutions. And it's rampant in the faculty lounge.
It's apparent, like in the Harvard Yard. You can read it in the Crimson Wall. Do you support what the Trump administration has done and the way they're doing it? I am really glad that the Trump administration is leaning in and holding the perpetrators accountable. Now, the question becomes, how do you do it in a way that is strategic and addresses the systemic issues and not sort of detrimental to the whole enterprise of higher education? That's what we've got to do. And what do you think about that? Right.
Well, you have to make I'm saying you're either for this or you're against it. We can get into the nuances of which parts are. But just I'm trying to understand. Yeah. Like, look, I think it's complicated. But and at ADL, we focus on the nuance, to be frank. But make no mistake, it is a good thing that President Trump is leaning in. It is a good thing that the people who lie on their student visas.
or do egregious contact to Helicambo. Let's note one thing, Andrew, right here and right now. For 18 months, we could not get these university presidents to move effectively enough. That's why I released our report card. Suddenly, when the Trump administration threatened to pull the funds, they all moved. That's the interesting part, because I agree with you on a lot of what you just said. 100%, if you're...
you know, not following the rules of your visa, you shouldn't have a visa. It's a privilege to be here. Of course. I'd like to see change at these universities. I do think that the hiring, the way they go about it, I do think that the idea that you have tenure for forever is part of the problem on these things. Mm-hmm. But I...
I don't want to see scientific funds pulled as they... I don't either. I don't want to see life-saving research stopped. Right. I don't want to see people in lab coats, their work ended because of the lunatics on the humanities side. Can I ask you a question? Go back to whether Harvard ought to realize that
If your entire environment is built around hiring and promoting a certain viewpoint, if you can't be a conservative and be hired there, if you have to be woke and it's just from the ground up, that's all you ever see. Is it? My problem is that the Trump administration might get shot down in court.
They may not be able to do it this way. But it breeds, it's like almost a breeding ground for how this happens. There is no question we need viewpoint diversity on these campuses, in the faculty lounge and in the classroom. When the president says,
We're going to I don't mean the president of Harvard says I'm going to push back. I'm going to fight. And everybody goes, oh, God, thank God Harvard's fighting that fighting so that anti-Semitism can. But can I just I just I just want to put you know what I mean? I don't know. I don't know that they're fighting against. The enemy is in this instance that the overreach of the approach, the way the government has gone about this.
And I'm Jewish. You know my views about this. I'll say it over and over again. We need to eliminate violence. We need to eliminate intimidation. And disruption of school. That's the one, two, and three. So everything else, the idea. If the courts don't stand for it, it's not going to happen. Then it doesn't work. But leaning in, even if you're going to lose. But can I just say something? And I don't think Lena Kahn was affected.
Can I say something? Your operation, your organization is a 501c3, correct? Of course we are. Okay. If I told you that this president didn't like you for whatever reason and said, you know what, screw you. By the way, you took some PPE money, which you did. So you're on the government dole. I am actually taking away your tax exempt status because I think actually you're a political operation. And by the way, I will tell you personally, I think you're a political operation. I think you are.
Should you get should you get a tax deductible status? No, you shouldn't. So now let's get into a whole debate about who should get what. I'm just saying to you that once you go down this road, it is a very, very complicated place. And I think you can do tremendous damage not only to the education system, but to philanthropy, to the way we all operate as a country.
Yep. So there's a lot to unpack in that. So number one, 5-1-C-3 organizations can't engage in partisan political activities. So we're involved in the public. I understand. But you know what? Republicans, Democrats. By the way, and that's what Harvard would say. OK, Harvard say they're not a political operation. Correct. Correct. But guess what? Guess what? The president's decided it is. OK. And what I'm saying is if the president decided that you were a political operation, I would say, by the way, I think you are a political operation just to be honest.
100% totally blunt about what you are. I don't believe that it's a total of both sides all the time. Yep. Changes, however, whatever is going on. My point is, I don't think that you want a president or an administration to be able to decide that you are political or not political because they have a view. It's going to go through the court system. But wait a second. They're not going to be able to decide. Harvard has an obligation to protect the civil rights of their Jewish students. Yeah.
Harvard and Columbia. 100%. Which they failed to do effectively for months and months and months. And Jonathan, you were in favor of the administration pulling funds and threatening with funds. It is a rightfully rare and serious step. And what I want is then to hear the corrective things you need to do. They correct it and then the funds get reinstalled. But can I say, I want...
want you to scream from the rooftops. I do. I think you should. I think politicians should scream from the rooftops. I think donors should pull their money. All of those things. That's the free market. I think once you have the government deciding what is happening, and it's not really the government. In this case, it's an executive order from one person or an administration.
That's when it gets very complicated. But Andrew, it's going to go through the court system. It's not going to be allowed to not go through. Well, we'll see. Well, here's the thing. It will go through the courts, but that will take a long time. It's expensive. It's complicated. It's going to make it very difficult for Harvard to operate the way they have in the past. But it is going to go through the court system. They got $55 billion in their endowment. We're $37 trillion in debt. Why do taxpayers need to fund an institution that's doing such egregious things in other countries?
Look, again, we come back to the government has the right to say, we're going to give you money, but you have certain obligations. Title VI obligates them to protect the Jewish students. But I will just say, Joe, like, life-saving research, like breakthrough innovation, I
Our higher education system is the envy of the world. It is. Economic innovation. It's 30 times what it was, what we fund. And that's fine. But they have $55 billion. What is that for? If they had a shortfall for six months, they can't cover that while they try and get their act together on these other... Look, they ought to be able to cover it for sure. There's no question about that. And then there's other people that say there's other universities that can do research, obviously. I mean, I did research. Some of it's good. Some of it's not so good. Some of it's throwing crap against the wall. It is. And they all get funded.
Some of it's good. But there are great universities. I'm not saying that the government can pick who's going to do it, but Stanford, Caltech. But here's the point. The point is, if you want to have a conversation about taking money away from universities across the board, that makes a lot of sense. They don't need to take it away if they get in line. If they do, they change their evil ways.
Look, but hopefully, I don't know if you think Harvard's not providing the service that they say they're providing. The U.S. government gives a lot of money to SpaceX because hopefully it provides a service to the U.S. government and they don't give as much money to Blue Origin because the product is not as good yet. Okay? So that's what that product is. If you said to me, I'm going to give the money to Harvard or I can give it to a community college,
the reason you give it to harvard is 'cause right now it's providing a better product in terms of the research and development that's hopefully coming out of it that's hopefully helping america and ultimately the taxpayers in the country. Do you think it's okay if they really do allow and actually favor you know applicants
are radically extreme, anti-Semitic. I mean, that seems to be the people that get first. And there are other people that are totally excluded. First of all, you're suggesting somehow the entire university, every single person is anti-Semitic. Have you been there? It's not that's not what we're talking about. I went to school there.
You're also talking about the humanities versus the science. Look, again, I think the reality is there are real questions how the, you know, again, we've seen the Jewish population plummet in these schools. The culture of the university. We need to look at the culture. Something went wrong in the last 50 years. For sure. And again, Becky, you mentioned the tenure issue. Yeah.
Like, if you are a radical, like harassing your own students, I think there's real questions with the tenure system. But it can't be abused, and that's what we're talking about here. We need due process. We need a transparent way that we go about doing this. And then, again, that's what makes sense. Go get hired at Harvard with a Make America Great Again hat. Not happening. There is a problem when you can hide your identity behind a keffiyeh, walk across the quad, but you can't wear a red kind of MAGA hat. You can go in with a T-shirt that says,
Death to the Jews, probably, and get tenure. But you can't go in there and misgender someone. It's messed up. I hope that that's not the case. It is. It is. It is. It is. It is. Lean in. So I still don't know where you stand. So you like this? I like it. I want it to be done the right way. And if it's done the wrong way, it creates a terrible precedent. And all I'm suggesting is that it could be done the right way, and it's being done the wrong way. That's where I lay. What way would you do it to get real action?
To really, to really, because. Oh, I know. You want to know? I think you could pull all of the money on a with a very narrow letter that says you need to show us that you are eliminating anti-Semitism in the context of violence, in the context of intimidation and the context of disruption of school. You're not going into the root cause. That's like treating the. The second you say that you're going to. That's like treating the symptoms of cancer without actually going in it. Well, no, no.
to get to those things, the university is going to have to do all sorts of things. However, the letter goes much farther than that. The letter says that they're going to audit how they're hiring, how they're bringing kids into school. They're going to take that data, by the way. All that information is going to go back to the government. I mean...
There's a whole lot of things. By the way, on the visa thing, just for one second, who do you think should be responsible for visas? It's called the State Department. Yeah. Like, why are we sitting here? I mean, I'm not saying Harvard's great, but I'm saying judging these people, who's letting these kids into the country? The State Department. And the State Department is calling. And they are. They're pulling some of these visas. It's not Rubio. Call Anthony Blinken.
Jonathan, the students at Harvard who were suspended last year and didn't get their degrees, didn't get to graduate because of their activities that were seen as anti-Semitic,
Eventually those degrees were given back. How do you feel about that? It's a problem. So again, if there's no accountability, there's no deterrence. If there's no deterrence, this doesn't stop. That's why Andrew's right. You can be smart and sharp and hold them accountable and get them to change. But if we're too broad brush, all I'm saying is our university system, Harvard, is the envy of the planet. They generate economic prosperity, important scientific breakthroughs. I don't want to gum that up.
And yet, I want the rights of Jewish students to be treated like everybody else. It's just about equal treatment. That should be too much. I agree with you. Amen to that. Watching those three presidents field those questions. Yeah. It was a shameful moment for all of us as Americans. We are way over time. But we want to thank you for the debate and the conversation. I appreciate it. It's an important one.
Coming up on Squawk Pod, the many rises, pauses and everything else of Elon Musk with Washington Post reporter Fez Siddiqui, who's out with a new book on the transformation of the world's richest man. What shatters is essentially the veneer on Elon. You know, Elon was, as I put this, you know, unimpeachable at Tony Stark. I think he just shifted from unimpeachable on the left to unimpeachable on the right.
The new Huggies Snug and Dry are luxuriously soft and ultra dry. How soft are we talking? Unbelievably soft. Irresistibly soft. Doesn't your baby deserve a diaper that's oh so gentle on their tushy? Huggies Snug and Dry helps keep them comfy, cozy, and protected. Experience the unexpected softness and up to 100% leak protection. More parents choose the new Huggies Snug and Dry softness versus the leading premium diaper. Huggies, we got you, baby.
-Bett River Sportsbook is your home for chance in our exclusive Bett Rivers Football Squares, where you could win up to $10,000 in bonus money. Just place a qualifying same-game parlay, and you get a square at no extra cost. It's fun. It's exciting. It's your chance to win up to $10,000 in bonus money.
Welcome back. You're listening to Squawk Pod with Joe, Becky, and Andrew. Here's Joe Kernan.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk says he'll be spending less time with Doge starting next month. Join us now with more on Musk and his leadership. Washington Post technology reporter Fez Siddiqui, whose new book is out this week, Hubris Maximus, The Shattering of Elon Musk.
I like that. It sounds like an ancient Roman fez, but I like gratuitous nastiness, the other famous Roman that we all know. I'll tell you, and you can tell me, hubris is an ancient Greek word, obviously. It usually means that someone's overestimation of their abilities causes them to crash and burn.
Are we in mid crash? Because still the most valuable car company in the world, best-selling model, the Model Y. Is it a work in progress? Are you predicting that that's what happens or you're just highlighting some of the what appears to be arrogance of the man?
So, you know, the excessive pride and ego, sort of the opposite of humility, you know, that leads to these crashes. You'll see in the book there are three distinct periods depicted. Obviously, you know, funding secured, which your viewers are probably very familiar with. Right. There is the COVID period.
there is the purchase of twitter and each of these sort of precedes you know this this crash um and this period of quiet that then leads up to something else um and we end up in a situation much like we're in today um you know where elon
Elon reorients, he retools, and we end up with Doge. We're in another one of those periods. The through lines or the bookends of the book are essentially funding secured to an incident that I believe your colleague Andrew is probably really familiar with where Elon tells off the advertisers. Yeah, that didn't seem to really, in the long run, adversely affect it. My only point is that
If I were to scour the world for the one individual who's entitled to some hubris and arrogance, given his success and what he's done with with Tesla and SpaceX. And I would say he's the one guy that I might not I might look for a different word. And he's actually entitled to a pretty high self-opinion in his and has backed it up.
So I would say this craving for, you know, adulation or this idea that we need to worship at the altar of this kind of individual, as opposed to acknowledge the reality of, you know, they've inspired millions. And what is so wrong with acknowledging the whole reality of
of the person. I would think it would be, you know, there's plenty of material out there. There's even an authorized biography of Musk. So I would say something that your viewers might find surprising is the book depicts so many instances of individuals who fiercely, devotedly believed in the promises of Elon and ended up still supporting his goals but disappointed with the man in the end.
I just haven't. I've seen his successes in terms of of building wealth for individuals. I mean, I think if Ron Barron would hear we're here right now, says I think he'd be rolling his eyes.
So Ron Barron, in the book, you know, I talk about the time when Ron Barron was like, Elon, if something is bothering you, don't tweet. You know, go get an ice cream cone. Those things are just sort of fascinating insights into, you know, what you have to... He's unabashedly bullish on SpaceX and Elon Musk and Tesla and everything. I mean, this doesn't say...
You know, when Elon drops from the poster child for everything the left loves to where liberals are keying each other's cars, I understand what happened to him in terms of the way he's viewed. But I don't think you've got the evidence yet to say that he's going to be a failure. I don't think the book at all predicts that he's going to be a failure. Is he going to crash and burn like Icarus?
What are you saying there? What's the hubris maximus, the downfall? What's it called? The shattering. The shattering. So what shatters is essentially the veneer on Elon. Elon was, as I put this, unimpeachably our Tony Stark.
And I don't I don't think that is, you know, unimpeachable on the left, unimpeachable on the right. He's just got he had the other 50 percent. Now he's got the polls that are taken now in terms of it's just shifted. It's got probably as many people that that idolize him. They're just on the other side of the aisle. I'm not sure that unfortunately for Elon, I don't think that's true.
Not as many. I know how you feel. It's not about my feeling. No, no, I know. I'm just saying, like... I've seen you've had a transformation. No, I have no transformation. My only point is, I think if you do look at polls, for better or worse, about Elon Musk...
And I say it's unfortunate because the truth is that people have polled his popularity and it is fallen. I don't think he cares. And we'll see. He may not, but you just said that it was equal. And I'm just saying that there's a context to the way... No, I'm saying that his popularity has shifted from one side of the aisle to the other. Elon has been... The company... Elon has been polarizing this entire time. I'm sorry to interrupt. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead, Faisal. So Elon has been polarizing this entire time as, you know, again, your network has to be deeply familiar with. I think you have Ross Gerber on frequently. Ross has...
you know, made a transformation in terms of how he views the man. So, you know, we're not... I get it. We're dealing in reality. It's very clear to me who likes Elon and who doesn't anymore. But you can sort around with that bad orange man. This is what you should expect, Fez. Anyway, back to the Washington Post you go. And good luck with the book. Thank you so much. And hello from a fellow Cincinnatian. Really? Which side of town, Fez? Suburbs. Westchester.
See, that's the nice part of town. You know where I'm from. I'm in Pete Rose Land over near Saylor Park in the west side of town. I know. Go Reds. Surprise, surprise. That's where I'm from. Thanks, Fez. See you later. Thank you.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says that the government will phase out all artificial dyes from the U.S. food supply by the end of next year. The FDA will give the food industry about two years to transition from using petroleum-based synthetic dyes to natural alternatives. The chemicals that are used in thousands of products, including candy, breakfast cereals and soda,
Kennedy has claimed that those artificial dyes are responsible for behavioral problems in children. The FDA has not established such a link, but it is monitoring for one, and that is where it could get a little more complicated. Really, what they're doing is starting a process to ban two dyes that most in the industry no longer use. That rulemaking is very important if they want to have the
the leafy teeth, to go along with some of these things. What you're going to see in the meantime is an effort to voluntarily get the food industry to go along with some of these things. And we'll see how successful we are with that. I didn't realize what's dyed. I think it's easy to find things that are not dyed. I'd love to get some of these dyes out. I mean, I think carrots, when they're nice and orange, I don't think that's... Beets? Beets are... They don't look like that. Oh, you mean effectively in the... If you didn't... I think blueberries are not a beautiful blue unless...
I picked them in the wild than they are. Are they? Yeah. There's certain things. I mean, it's not just M&Ms. No, but there are some things in the wild. You're right. They do at times artificially change the color on an apple or something. Would you eat it if it didn't have the pretty color? Yeah, I'd prefer to have it without the pretty color. Now, again, though, this is a voluntary measure at this point. It's a very difficult process to get the rulemaking in, and you have to have science that backs it up.
And the study that's out there today, I think that Dr. Marty McCary from the FDA has been citing, probably will not be enough. They're going to have to do much more work to actually get this to be something that is not going to be anything more than voluntary. Were you around for red dye number two? Do you remember that? I don't remember what it was in. I think it was maraschino cherries and things like that. This had to be 40 years ago. Skittles are supposed to be awful for you. 30 or 40 years ago. Some of the colors that go in. But again, we'll see what happens. It would be nice to get rid of some of these dyes, but we'll see how the industry moves along with that.
And that is SquawkPod for today. Thanks for listening. SquawkBox is hosted by Joe Kernan, Becky Quick, and Andrew Ross Sorkin. Tune in weekday mornings on CNBC at 6 Eastern to get the smartest takes and analysis from our TV show right into your ears. Follow SquawkPod wherever you get your podcasts. That's it. Have a great day, and we'll meet you right back here tomorrow. We are clear. Thanks, guys. ♪♪♪
BetRivers Sportsbook is your home for chance, where you can experience the thrill of betting on the sports you love. BetRivers Sportsbook. Download the app. Take a chance! Must be 21 plus and physically present in Pennsylvania or New Jersey. Void where prohibited. Terms and conditions apply. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.