Podcast Summary: The Commentary Magazine Podcast – "So Where Are the Great Negotiations?"

Release Date: April 15, 2025

In the April 15, 2025 episode of The Commentary Magazine Podcast titled "So Where Are the Great Negotiations?", host John Podhoretz engages in a robust discussion with executive editor Abe Greenwald, senior editor Seth Mandel, and social commentary columnist Christine Rosen. The episode delves into a spectrum of pressing political and legal issues, ranging from controversial immigration cases to high-stakes international negotiations and the federal government's intricate relationship with higher education institutions.

1. Controversial El Salvadoran Immigration Case

The episode opens with a heated analysis of an El Salvadoran immigrant currently detained in an El Salvadoran prison. This case has sparked significant controversy in the United States, involving legal battles over asylum claims and the executive branch's handling of deportations.

Key Points:

• The immigrant arrived in the U.S. illegally in 2012 and sought asylum in 2019, citing a "reasonable fear" of persecution if returned to El Salvador.
• An immigration court judge, under the auspices of the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, initially granted asylum based on these fears.
• The Trump administration has since reversed this decision without a formal proceeding, arguing that the individual no longer poses a threat and facilitating his deportation back to El Salvador.

Notable Quotes:

• John Podhoretz highlights the legal ambiguity: “The Supreme Court said [...] the administration had to facilitate his return” ([00:51]).
• Seth Mandel critiques the administration's approach: “This is bad. It is not good for the rule of law” ([09:17]).

Discussion Highlights:

• The team criticizes the executive branch for undermining the judiciary by altering asylum decisions without proper legal processes.
• Christine Rosen emphasizes the hypocrisy in President Trump’s stance, noting his administration's contradictory actions: “He was elected to restore the process [...] but now [...] playing linguistic games with the courts” ([16:19]).
• Abe Greenwald echoes concerns about the erosion of procedural integrity: “It's transgress or it's violative of proper procedure [...] It's getting very ugly” ([09:58]).

2. Foreign Policy Negotiations: Iran, Russia-Ukraine, and Gaza Hostages

The conversation transitions to three major foreign policy negotiations involving Iran, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the situation with hostages in Gaza.

Iran Negotiations:

• The Trump administration's approach to Iran echoes the Obama-era JCPOA but with significant deviations.
• Abe Greenwald notes a shift in language from "nuclear program" to "nuclear weapon," indicating a more stringent stance: “Now we're saying no weapon. No weapon” ([30:17]).
• Seth Mandel criticizes the administration for conceding too much by accepting terms that still allow Iran some nuclear capabilities: “They could get them to pretend to accept it, which I'm beginning to think would be just fine for him” ([35:54]).

Russia-Ukraine Conflict:

• John Podhoretz expresses frustration with President Trump's handling of the Ukraine war, particularly his blame-shifting onto Ukrainian President Zelensky: “He blamed Zelensky” ([36:20]).
• Christine Rosen questions the strategic clarity of Trump's foreign policy, emphasizing the lack of a coherent end goal: “What is the end goal here? America wins. Well, what does winning look like?” ([41:03]).

Gaza Hostages:

• The administration's negotiations regarding hostages in Gaza are fraught with tension, as highlighted by Seth Mandel: “Well, this is a real world. Welcome to the NFL” ([20:24]).
• Abe Greenwald underscores Putin’s strategic positioning, exacerbated by the U.S. administration’s intermittent support to Ukraine: “You've got the American president sitting constantly blaming Ukraine and the US for this war” ([42:26]).

Notable Quotes:

• John Podhoretz on Trump's negotiation skills: “If you said ... he’s a great negotiator, so that means he doesn’t want him out, or he’s not such a great negotiator” ([26:18]).
• Christine Rosen on the lack of strategic vision: “The end goal here [...] he talks about making the best deal, beating this guy back” ([41:03]).

Discussion Highlights:

• The panel criticizes Trump's inconsistency and personalistic approach to international negotiations, arguing it undermines coherent foreign policy.
• Concerns are raised about the long-term implications of Trump's strategies, including the potential for increased geopolitical instability and weakened alliances.

3. Trade Tariffs and Economic Implications

The discussion shifts to the Trump administration's handling of trade tariffs, particularly those imposed on Chinese high-tech electronics.

Key Points:

• The administration employs retaliatory tariffs but inconsistently applies them, leading to market uncertainty.
• Seth Mandel warns of the corrosive effects of selective tariff implementation, which fosters rent-seeking behavior among corporations seeking personal benefits.

Notable Quotes:

• Seth Mandel on rent-seeking: “What we have is individual companies, corporations, capitalists courting him personally” ([30:26]).
• John Podhoretz on the broader economic impact: “If you impose a 10% tariff across the board, [...] but tariffs that are selectively lifted encourage corruption” ([35:54]).

Discussion Highlights:

• The panel argues that inconsistent tariffs create an unpredictable economic environment, hindering businesses from effective long-term planning.
• There is a consensus that the administration's tariff policies may facilitate corruption and undermine fair trade practices.

4. Federal Funding and Higher Education: The Harvard Case

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to scrutinizing the Trump administration's approach to federal funding for higher education institutions, using Harvard University as a case study.

Key Points:

• Harvard has received over $9 billion in federal funding, primarily directed towards medical and scientific research.
• The Trump administration has intensified its scrutiny of Harvard's compliance with anti-Semitism definitions, notably the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition.
• Harvard’s commitment to these definitions has led to additional federal demands, raising concerns about overreach and the undermining of institutional autonomy.

Notable Quotes:

• Seth Mandel on Harvard’s settlements: “Harvard agreed to use the IHRA definition... which is much harsher on anti-Zionism” ([52:21]).
• Christine Rosen on the administration’s tactics: “If it does lead to universities being better about anti-Semitism on campus, that's all for the good. But this is pure brawling politics” ([55:28]).

Discussion Highlights:

• John Podhoretz criticizes the administration’s use of emergency powers to impose additional requirements on universities, arguing it erodes the rule of law: “This should be scaring everybody” ([47:15]).
• Christine Rosen acknowledges the potential benefits of increased accountability but warns against the administration’s personalistic and politically motivated approach: “He's happy to engage in corrupt favor trading if it benefits him” ([59:44]).
• Abe Greenwald emphasizes the need for transparency in how federal funds are allocated and utilized by elite institutions, questioning the tangible benefits derived from such substantial investments: “What we are getting for the money that is going out the door” ([58:39]).

5. Nation of Laws vs. Nation of Men

A recurring theme throughout the episode is the tension between upholding the rule of law and the administration’s personalized approach to governance.

Key Points:

• The panel underscores the importance of a nation governed by laws rather than the whims of individual leaders.
• Concerns are raised about President Trump’s selective adherence to judicial rulings, particularly his focus on complying only with the Supreme Court while disregarding lower court decisions.

Notable Quotes:

• John Podhoretz on legal consistency: “We are a nation of laws, and we have a process” ([09:17]).
• Christine Rosen on the erosion of moral and ethical governance: “There is no one in his administration who is making the moral case for what he's actually doing” ([58:42]).

Discussion Highlights:

• The panel debates the long-term implications of prioritizing personal agendas over established legal frameworks, warning of potential authoritarian tendencies.
• There is a consensus that upholding the rule of law is crucial for preventing tyranny and maintaining societal stability.

6. Conclusion and Reflections

In concluding the episode, the hosts reflect on the broader implications of the Trump administration’s actions across various domains. They express deep concern over the erosion of legal integrity, the increase in politically motivated policies, and the potential for long-term damage to American institutions and international standing.

Final Notable Quotes:

• John Podhoretz encapsulates the overarching concern: “This is not the way to make a sustainable argument over time” ([66:48]).
• Christine Rosen warns about the lasting cynicism fostered by the administration's tactics: “They are using corrupt favor trading [...] that's the cynicism that is very corrosive long term” ([63:22]).

Final Reflections:

• The hosts call for vigilance in preserving the rule of law and maintaining institutional integrity against personalistic and politically driven overreaches.
• They emphasize the importance of transparency, accountability, and adherence to legal processes in safeguarding democratic principles.

This episode of The Commentary Magazine Podcast provides a critical examination of the Trump administration's strategies in immigration, foreign policy, trade, and higher education. Through incisive analysis and pointed commentary, the hosts underscore the challenges posed by governance that prioritizes personal agendas over established legal frameworks and ethical standards.