ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt on Antisemitism’s Rise 4/23/25

0:00Bring 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 carmaker Tesla reports a 20 % revenue drop. Is the world's richest man worth his enormous paycheck and promise? I was there from the beginning. I think you've switched your view. No, I always, if you can do it, flaunt it. A new book dives into Musk's potentially damaging hubris maximus, author Fez Siddiqui.

0:42The 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.

1:19Squawk Pod begins right now. Stand Becky by in three, two, one. Cue it, please. Good morning, everybody. 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.

2:06As 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. Europe tribe. See, this becomes to me an interesting chess piece in this sort of larger, 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 too high. Yeah, now it's too high. I can't win. Will it go back down or will it go all the way?

2:43No, that's why I was trying to dance it back down. Don't we have that? We'll work on that in the meantime. 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. It's just 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 would be it which could have taken place earlier.

3:26But 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. The Wall Street. When they're talking about who. Yeah, 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 of the advisors told him that an attempt to fire the Fed chair would result. Thanks. No flies on them. It could result in some pain for the financial markets like yesterday and a legal battle.

4:04Treasury Secretary or the day before yesterday, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson was said to be one of the people who spoke with Trump. But, you know, it was Hassett last week who supposedly has a line to the president and doesn't just speak, you know, out of turn, who said that they were investigating ways of doing it. So whatever happened, you know, 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 or same with China. But if you're not talking to China, right, there are still no talks. There's no talk.

4:39So 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 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're, 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. And just play them back to back.

5:23And then, yeah. 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 up 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.

6:01Trump simply called the whole thing off. Yep. 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 couldn't get better deals. Yeah, 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.

6:37We have done it, though, 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 are talking very quickly about it. It'd be nice to have a great new deal. 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?

7:15That's not going back. I don't want that part back. I don't know whether that's... 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 on the margin. Okay, some of it. It is on the margin. And David Solomon made me feel a lot better yesterday. I'm saying it's on the margin. At some point, in a trillion-dollar economy, I mean, the margin.

7:52I think it all it's I don't know if it happens, but there's a possibility that there's actually more positive things than happen. The negative after it's all said and done. We'll see. I mean, it is it feels better to hear what he's saying overnight. For sure. I don't. What I took some heart in today was that the group in the administration that are pushing for the 40 percent. top rate, there's like three of them. And everybody else is like, what are you talking? Outside advisors, too. You're a Republican? What are you, exactly? How do you think, you know, why do you think you got elected and won a majority?

8:29Well, it's interesting because it tells you a little bit about who has influenced 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 wins out. I think, you know, not for nothing, but aren't you glad Besson's there? I'm very 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, you know, there's chaos around him. And he's like, you know, this is just, and when push comes to shove, I don't know what actually happens.

9:13I 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 yet been 100 days. You're not going to make it. That's that. I was the country's going to be fine. But I mean. And I'm back to the counterfactual. Most Trump supporters at this point, even if they're disillusioned. It would take probably World War Three to wish that Kamala Harris had won that election. I think that one of your 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 just to understand.

10:00I don't think that's true. Really. Well, that's a remark about. Did you did you like the four years of auto pen? Did you like the 11? 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. Yeah. I know that's OK with you, but you worried about this one going back. The rule of law. 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 what about ism. And so so 11 million is fine.

10:36Well, when did you talk about that? 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.

11:19Here'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 to Delaware law. This is interesting given that he's an activist, shareholder, and clearly shareholder rights are interesting to him.

11:55He 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.

12:33Though, 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 credit, an area he sees 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.

13:08Of 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 activist equity. Was he wholly talking about Elon Musk's compensation? It was in reference to Elon. That's what I mean. Can you name, 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.

13:46But not on CEO compensation. Not on CEO compensation. So he was talking solely about muscle. 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. And, by the way, the Delaware court has been an ally of a lot of the activist investors in America in terms of giving them leverage over boards. And so to think that he's actually in favor of companies going, for example, to Texas, where, by the way, activist shareholders are not going to have any real leverage. But I mean, that was a case where the shareholders, at least in the case of Tesla, were really on Elon's side on that.

14:24Right. But I think that Dan's comment was actually broad. I mean, we were talking about it. It was broader, but that's why I was asking whether you have other instances where there are. 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. 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 he's made. But when he made that promise to get that compensation, we all said there's no way he'd make it. Right. And he totally did.

14:56So if you're able to do that in the shareholders benefit as well, I think that's 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 my... I'm with you on that. I was there from the beginning. I think you've switched your view. No, I always... What are you talking about? You don't think I thought he deserved it? In the beginning, you thought that he shouldn't get the money. Remember? We thought it was a crazy deal. I never thought that. I thought it was a crazy amount of money, but I never thought he'd ever hit the metrics.

15:28I never switched. 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. Cheese 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 is 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.

16:10But 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.

16:31This is Squawk Pod. Up on Becky, Q. 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. 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?

17:08Yeah, I don't know what it says about what my future projects are. Let me ask you this. From being on Squawk Box so much? Yeah, 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, if you looked over that 12-month period, 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. 20 % of the incidents we saw last year happen on college campuses, and things were certainly worse on the campuses in the first half of 24 versus the second half.

17:51But 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. Okay, so now we got to go to the news of the day.

18:25Okay. 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. All of it. 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 in a way that is strategic and addresses the systemic issues and not sort of detrimental to the whole enterprise of higher education?

19:10That's what we've got. And what do you think about that? What's the answer? 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. Let's know one thing. Right here and right now. For 18 months, we could not get these university presidents to move effectively enough.

19:44That'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 not following the rules of your visa, you shouldn't have a visa. It's a privilege to be here. 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. But 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.

20:20Right. I don't want to see people in lab coats, their work ended because of the lunatics on the humanities side. 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. 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 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 gonna i don't mean the president of harvard says i'm gonna push back i'm gonna fight and everybody goes oh god thank god harvard's fighting that fighting so that anti-semitism can be but can i just i just i just want to do you know what i mean Who's the enemy that they're fighting against?

21:23The 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. You might need to start. And disruption of school. You might need to start. That's the one, two, and three. So everything else. The idea. The courts don't stand for it. The idea. Then it doesn't work. Right. But leaning in, even if you're going to lose. But can I just say something? And I don't think leaning in, is effective. Can I just say something?

21:58Your 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 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.

22:37And 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, 5133 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 100 percent totally blunt about what you are.

23:13I don't believe that it's a total of both sides all the time. Yeah. 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. But they're not because they have a view. It's going to go through the court. But wait a second. Harvard, Harvard has an obligation to protect the civil rights of their Jewish students. Harvard and Columbia. 100%. Which they failed to do effectively for months and months. And Jonathan, you were in favor of the administration pulling funds and threatening with funds.

23:43It 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 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.

24:17It'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 at 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 respects? 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.

24:45Exactly. Title VI obligates them to protect the Jewish students. But I will just say, Joe, like life-saving research, like breakthrough innovation, our higher education system is the envy of the world. It is. Economic innovation. They got 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 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, you ought to be able to cover it for sure. There's no question. And then there's other people that say there's other universities that can do research, obviously.