Welcome to Home & Away. I will start with the Jewish holiday of Passover, which began last Saturday night and runs through this weekend. The commemoration of the Jewish people’s liberation from slavery in Egypt always resonates, but rarely as much as this year. In part this reflects the ongoing plight of the remaining hostages in Gaza, who are now marking 18 months of captivity, modern-day Israelites, if you will.
Not surprisingly, there are references to enemies in the Passover story: “In every generation, some rise up to plan our annihilation.” Antisemitism is nothing new, but it is unfortunately thriving. Indeed, there is growing evidence that Josh Shapiro—the Jewish governor of Pennsylvania whose residence was set on fire on the first night of the Passover holiday—was targeted because of his faith.
If you’ve not seen it already, I would encourage you to watch what Governor Shapiro said after he and his family were forced to evacuate their home in the middle of the night. His articulation that there is no place in America for violence of this sort against anyone of any political viewpoint or faith was a rare but welcome reminder of what forceful moral political leadership looks like.
As already noted, antisemitism is all too prevalent these days. While it is essential for Americans of every faith, not just Jews, to speak out against it, it is also essential for Jewish leaders to speak out when antisemitism is used as a justification for actions inconsistent with Jewish values and democratic norms. Anti-antisemitism must not become a blanket license or a pretext.
Ivy With Vertebrate
The centrality of education is one of those longstanding Jewish values. As such, stripping the independence of responsible, if imperfect, academic institutions cannot be justified in the name of fighting antisemitism. Harvard University, which has decided to fight back against this attempt to impose political control over it, deserves our praise and thanks here.
Last Friday, the university received a letter from Trump administration lawyers demanding extensive changes in its governance, hiring, admissions, antisemitism efforts, diversity programs, and student discipline—or risk losing federal funding. Arguably the most egregious stipulation, in a letter filled with many of them, involved international students. Trump’s team demanded that Harvard “prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism and anti-Semitism.” It is enough to make one wonder whether the authors of the letter are themselves familiar with the rights enshrined in the Constitution and the motivation behind the Declaration of Independence.
Harvard’s response could not have been timelier in the wake of the capitulation of Columbia University and a number of law firms. After noting that the university had undertaken “substantial policy and programmatic measures” over the past 15 months to deal with antisemitism and other matters, Harvard made clear it would not back down. It rejected demands it rightly saw as contravening the First Amendment and invading university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. As it wrote in its response:
“The government's terms also circumvent Harvard's statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less objectionable is the condition…that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country's scientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for the world. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government's terms as an agreement in principle.”
I think it is safe to read Harvard’s response as lawyer-speak for “see you in court.” The administration has responded by freezing over $2 billion in funds designated for the university; in addition, President Trump has raised the prospect of Harvard losing its tax-exempt status, something the IRS is reportedly looking into at the behest of Treasury Department officials. How this all plays out will have enormous consequences not just for Harvard and other universities but for American society writ large.
Taking a Pass
I would be remiss to discuss the Passover story this year without acknowledging the number of individuals being held at the Trump administration’s request in an El Salvador mega prison, the vast majority of whom had no U.S. criminal record. Deportations without due process are flat-out wrong. Also wrong are deportations of people who have no business being deported but were sent out because of administrative error, as was the case for Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Supreme Court unanimously voted to order the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the United States, but the administration has so far defied the Court, taking cover behind the government of El Salvador, which is unwilling to send him back. I expect the president of that country was more than willing to take this stance as a way of currying favor with this White House.
Returning to the story of Passover, one cannot help but think of the powerful language that tells us, “You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of a stranger...When strangers reside with you in your land, you shall not wrong them. You shall love them as yourselves for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Exceptions Are the Rule
Meanwhile, all is anything but quiet on the tariff front. There is still no clarity on whether tariffs are a means to an end or an end in and of themselves. Nor is there clarity on what “problem” they are meant to solve. Is the intention to end unfair trade practices practiced by others? Raise revenue? Reduce or eliminate bilateral trade deficits? Create a context for the reindustrialization of America? Decouple from China? What makes it all the worse is that none of these possible justifications bears scrutiny. Nor does it help that multiple voices within the administration are often contradicting one another.
The latest wrinkle, exemptions for specified imports such as smartphones, computers, and laptops, appear arbitrary, particularly in light of Commerce Secretary Lutnick’s initial insistence that these were the very items that the United States was determined to produce domestically. One thing that we can be certain of is that exemptions will be a bonanza for lobbyists and breed corruption. They enable special interests to influence policy while also giving those with early access to decisions a chance to profit from stock trades before such information is made public. And beyond the potential for corruption, there is the reality that exemptions only add to the atmosphere of uncertainty (exacerbated by the growing public rift between Trump and Fed Chair Jay Powell) that is certain to hold back economic growth.
Democrats Getting in Their Own Way: I
Every now and then a picture is worth one thousand words. That was surely true of the picture of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer attempting to hide her face with a folder while in the Oval Office last week to discuss, among other issues, how to mitigate the incoming tariffs’ effects on Michigan’s auto industry. Picture aside, she was hardly alone in not speaking out against the President on tariffs. A big problem here is that too many Democrats are, like Trump, protectionists to one degree or another. It is enough to make one question the value of bipartisanship. Protectionism is not just bad policy but bad politics, as it places a ceiling on the political gains Democrats can harvest from the consequences of Trump’s tariffs.
Democrats Getting in Their Own Way: II
Speaking of the Democrats, I do not understand the widespread opposition to voter ID. Most Americans believe, correctly, that only citizens should vote. That principle is already the law of the land for state and federal elections; the real concern lies in implementation. The SAVE Act, which is currently being debated, requires a passport, naturalization papers, or a birth certificate, items that can be difficult or costly to obtain, functioning as a modern-day poll tax—especially for married women who have changed their name. Instead of rejecting the SAVE Act outright, the Democrats should come out in favor of voter ID so long as the conditions are reasonable, i.e., driver’s licenses or some free identification card to be issued by the government. This approach would align them with the vast majority of Americans and directly counter the bad faith claim by Elon Musk and others that open borders were a means to flood the country with illegal immigrants who would find a way to vote and cast their ballots for Democrats.
From Russia With Love
The president and his chief envoy Steve Witkoff remain stubbornly supportive of Russia in the fourth year of its war of aggression and conquest against Ukraine. Trump described Russia’s attack on the Ukrainian city of Sumy, one that killed 34 and injured more than one hundred, “a mistake” when there is no evidence suggesting it was such. In fact, Putin insists the attacks targeted Ukrainian troops. Trump then doubled down by attributing the war to Presidents Biden and Zelenskyy rather than Putin. Coupled with Trump’s derision of Zelenskyy’s attempt to buy U.S. Patriot air defense systems, I find it increasingly difficult to imagine this administration extending military and intelligence support to Ukraine even though it is warranted strategically and morally and remains the best way to bring about the peace that Trump wants to broker by disabusing Putin of the notion that Russia benefits from stalling.
Giving Peace a Chance
The Iran talks got under way last Saturday in Oman and seem to have gone well enough that a new round has been scheduled. This is potentially a positive development, as we want to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, something that would trigger a nuclear arms race in the region while giving Tehran a sense of impunity to use its proxies for terror beyond its borders. Ideally, this can be accomplished without a war, a prospect the Israeli prime minister reportedly put forward during his recent visit to Washington only to have it rejected by President Trump.
Any negotiated accord, however, must be one worth having. Part of the art of the deal is knowing when not to compromise beyond a certain point and embrace the available alternative. Any new agreement with Iran should set demanding limits on the amount and quality of enriched material Iran can possess. These limits can safely be more than zero—a concession recently opposed by Witkoff on X of all places but likely to be required if there is to be an agreement—so long as there are strict verification protocols that are enforced. Missiles should be covered as well. No less essential is that any accord be open-ended, in the process correcting the sunset clauses of the 2015 agreement negotiated by the Obama administration and torn up by Trump in his first term. An Iranian nuclear weapon in a decade would be no more acceptable than it would be today. Sanctions can be relaxed depending on what is agreed to and then implemented.
Masters-full
Last but far from least, the 2025 Masters was one for the ages. It was not so much Rory McIlroy against the talented field so much as Rory McIlroy against himself. He interspersed shots on the Augusta National course that were inexplicably good with a number that were inexplicably bad. At the end, after 72 holes and then a playoff hole, he emerged with his first Masters, making him the sixth person over the past ninety years, along with Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, and Tiger Woods, to win all four of the major tournaments, completing golf’s Grand Slam. McIlroy immediately dropped to his knees, emotion (one that appeared to be more relief than joy) pouring out. On his eleventh attempt to complete the career Grand Slam, McIlroy displayed resilience and perseverance that was gripping. This, not the release of a blizzard of tariffs on April 2, was a true Liberation Day. I was impressed too by the grace shown by Justin Rose, who for the second time lost the Masters in a playoff. It all made for sports at their best.
A Final Note
As you can see, today’s edition came out on a Thursday given that tomorrow is Good Friday. I may make this a habit after Memorial Day as I expect more than a few of you will choose to take summer Fridays off. More on that later.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Friday, April 11: Aaron Harber Show (on the evolving world order)
Friday, April 11: Wall Street Week (Larry Summers' Tariff Analysis, U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund, TikTok)
Monday, April 14: Morning Edition (Richard Haass Discusses Trump's Tariff Pauses and Their Impact on U.S. Trade Policy)
Monday, April 14: Morning Joe (Haass: U.S. Must Stop 'Pandering to Russia' After Deadly Missile Strike in Sumy)
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens