Connect with us

Published

on

This summer, I set out to write about Vivek Ramaswamy because I thought that his public-speaking skills set him apart from his GOP presidential rivals. Whereas most candidates were struggling to find their lane, Ramaswamy knew exactly what he was offering: a message that seemed to be libertarian at its core, paired with views that were consistent with more extreme corners of the right. Ramaswamys team agreed to participate in the profile.

Ramaswamy let me shadow him over the course of three days at the end of July. I visited his Ohio campaign headquarters and got a behind-the-scenes view of several of his media appearances. He brought me to his home and introduced me to his family. I flew aboard a private jet with him and rode on his campaign bus in Iowa.

Read: Vivek Ramaswamys truth

Over the three days, Ramaswamy and I had regular conversationssometimes in short bursts, other times in longer sit-down sessions. Last night, in an interview with CNNs Kaitlan Collins, he used the phrase free-flowing to describe our interactions. Our discussions were often challenging, but they were always respectful. With Ramaswamys permission, and in keeping with standard journalistic practice, I recorded all of our interviews.

During our final interview aboard his campaign bus, I brought up one of his more explosive claimsa suggestion that we dont know the truth about January 6. I asked him: What is the truth about January 6 that youre referring to? His answer went down a curious path, invoking the investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, among other topics. At one point, he said this to me: I think it is legitimate to say, How many police, how many federal agents were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers? Like, I think we wantmaybe the answer is zero, probably is zero for all I know, right?

Yesterday, after The Atlantic published my story and his comments about 9/11 and January 6 drew attention, Ramaswamy told Semafor that the quote we published wasnt exactly what I said. Last night, asked by CNNs Collins about the same quote, Ramaswamy said, Im telling you the quote is wrong, actually.

The quote is correct.

Here is the unedited audio and a transcript of our exchange about 9/11 and January 6.

John Hendrickson: When you talk about all the things, We can handle the truth about X, you know, and you list off a bunch of stuffone of them that you said last night is: We can handle the truth about January 6. What is the truth about January 6 that youre referring to?

Vivek Ramaswamy: I dont know, but we can handle it. Whatever it is, we can handle it. Government agents. How many government agents were in the field? Right?

Hendrickson: You mean like entrapment?

Ramaswamy: Yeah. Absolutely. Why can the government not be transparent about something that were using? Terrorists, or the kind of tactics used to fight terrorists. If we find that there are hundreds of our own in the ranks on the day that they were, that they wereI mean, look

Hendrickson: Well, theres a difference between entrapment and a difference between a law-enforcement agent identifying

Ramaswamy: I think it is legitimate to say, How many police, how many federal agents were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers? Like, I think we wantmaybe the answer is zero, probably is zero for all I know, right? I have no reason to think it was anything other than zero. But if were doing a comprehensive assessment of what happened on 9/11, we have a 9/11 commission, absolutely that should be an answer the public knows the answer to.

Well, if were doing a January 6 commission, absolutely, those should be questions that we should get to the bottom of. And there cant be hush-hush, separate, it shouldnt be outside the commission, leaked to some media personality the hours of footage. No, this is transparent. These are the doors that were open. Here are the people that opened the doors, to whom? Here are the people who were armed. Here are the people who were unarmed. What percentage of the people who were armed were federal law-enforcement officers? I think it was probably high, actually. Right? Theres very little evidence of people being arrested for being armed that day. Most of the people who were armed, I assume the federal officers who were out there were armed. And so, I dont know the answers. We deserve to know the answers, right?

We did a Jan. 6 commission. There are certain questions you can ask. We did a 9/11 commission, and if there are federal agents on the plane we deserve to know. And if were doing a Jan. 6 commission and there are federal officers in the field, we deserve to know. Just tell us the truth. Tell us what happened.

Read: A bouncy, fresh brand of Trumpism

And its not just that, right? I think its also the reflective, the reflection on the truth about the underlying motivations of people. What were the sources of the frustration? Right? Is it really just, Donald Trump riled them up in an eight-week period? Or are these people who have been lied to and suppressed for a longer period of time? I think its clearly the latter, right? And I think that the failure to recognize the whole truthwe want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thats, thats really, when I say we deserveand I dont think weve gotten it on any of those questions. On the Jeffrey Epstein client list, on unidentified flying objects, on January 6, on vaccineon COVID-19 vaccineon the origin of the pandemic, which we now know, by the way, systematic efforts by people who had no idea what the origin was to shoot down the origin. And I remember this at the time there were people in sort of the, uh, like, in the sort of the greater Harvard/MIT space, the Broad Institute and otherwise, who were sort of talking about, Well, theres a decent chance it could have, but we should be careful about talking about this or It could undermine, erosion of trust in science. Theres no such thing as a noble lie. Thats my view. The noble lie is nonexistent. No lie is noble.

Hendrickson: I think its interesting to compare and contrast 9/11 and January 6.

Ramaswamy: Oh, yeah. I dont think they belong in the same conversation. Im only bringing it up because it was I am not making the comparison. I think its a ridiculous comparison

Hendrickson: Im not comparing

Ramaswamy: But Im saying that I brought it up only because it was invoked as a basis for the Jan. 6 commission.

Hendrickson: Of course. What Im saying, though, is that I think Democrats and Republicans would agree that 9/11 is a day thats like Pearl Harbor day, where there are good guys and bad guys and America was attacked. I mean, I think thats very clear

Ramaswamy: I mean, I would take the truth about 9/11. I mean, I am not questioning what wethis is not something Im staking anything out on. But I want the truth about 9/11.

Continue Reading

World

Trump vowed to end Ukraine war in first 24 hours of his presidency – nearly 200 days in, could he be close?

Published

on

By

Trump vowed to end Ukraine war in first 24 hours of his presidency  - nearly 200 days in, could he be close?

Seven hours is a long time in US politics.

At 10am, Donald Trump accused Russia of posing a threat to America’s national security.

By 5pm, Mr Trump said there was a “good prospect” of him meeting Vladimir Putin “soon”.

There had, he claimed, been “great progress” in talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian president.

It’s difficult to gauge the chances of a meeting between the two leaders without knowing what “great progress” means.

Is Russia “inclined” towards agreeing a ceasefire, as Ukraine’s president now claims?

Is Mr Putin prepared to meet with his Ukrainian foe, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, too?

The very fact that we’re asking those questions suggests something shifted on a day when there was no expectation of a breakthrough.

Read more from Sky News:
Woman told she may lose leg after liquid Brazilian butt lift
Zoo kills 12 healthy baboons to ease overcrowding

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Mr Trump repeatedly vowed to end the war within 24 hours of becoming president.

On day 198 of his presidency, he might, just might, be one step closer to achieving that.

Continue Reading

World

Zoo staff face death threats for feeding baboon remains to lions

Published

on

By

Zoo staff face death threats for feeding baboon remains to lions

Staff at a zoo in Germany which culled 12 baboons and fed some of their carcasses to the lions say they have received death threats.

Tiergarten Nuremberg euthanised the healthy Guinea baboons at the end of July due to overcrowding in their enclosure.

Some remains were used for research while the rest were fed to the zoo’s carnivores.

Plans to kill the baboons were first announced last year after the population exceeded 40, and protestors gathered outside the zoo to show their outrage.

When the site closed last Tuesday to carry out the cull, several activists were arrested after climbing the fence.

The director of the zoo defended the decision, saying efforts to sterilise and rehome some baboons had failed.

“We love these animals. We want to save a species. But for the sake of the species, we have to kill individuals otherwise we are not able to keep up a population in a restricted area,” Dr Dag Encke told Sky News.

These are not the specific animals involved. File pics: Reuters
Image:
These are not the specific animals involved. File pics: Reuters

‘The staff are suffering’

He said police are investigating after he and the staff were sent death threats.

“The staff are really suffering, sorting out all these bad words, insults and threats,” Dr Encke said.

“The normal threat is ‘we will kill you, and we’ll feed you to the lions’.

“But what is really disgusting is when they say that’s worse than Dr Mengele from the National Socialists, who was one of the most cruel people in human history.

“That is really insulting all the victims of the Second World War and the Nazi regime.”

Josef Mengele was a Nazi officer who performed deadly experiments on prisoners at the Auschwitz concentration camp during the Second World War.

Dr Dag Encke
Image:
Dr Dag Encke

Zoo animals ‘treated as commodities’

Culling animals and feeding them to predators isn’t unheard of in zoos.

In 2014, Copenhagen Zoo caused controversy by euthanizing an 18-month-old male giraffe called Marius and feeding his body to the lions.

At the time, the zoo said it was due to a duty to avoid inbreeding.

Dr Mark Jones, a vet and head of policy at Born Free Foundation, a charity which campaigns for animals to be kept in the wild, denounced the practice and said thousands of healthy animals are being destroyed by zoos each year.

“It reflects the fact animals in zoos are often treated as commodities that are disposable or replaceable,” he said.

Marius the giraffe was put down and publicly fed to lions at at Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark. Pic: Keld Navntoft/AFP/Getty
Image:
Marius the giraffe was put down and publicly fed to lions at at Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark. Pic: Keld Navntoft/AFP/Getty


Zoo asks for unwanted pets

Earlier this week, a zoo in Denmark faced a backlash for asking for unwanted pets to be donated to be used as food for its predators.

In a Facebook post, Aalborg Zoo said it could take smaller live animals such as chickens, rabbits and guinea pigs, as well as horses under 147cm. It said the animals would be euthanised by specially trained staff before being fed to carnivores like the European lynx.

While some people supported the scheme, saying they had donated animals in the past, others are outraged.

“The very idea of a zoo offering to take unwanted pets in order to kill them and feed them to their predators will, I think, horrify most right-minded people,” said Dr Jones.

Read more from Sky News:
Trump could meet Putin next week
Woman told she may lose leg after BBL

Dr Mark Jones
Image:
Dr Mark Jones

Aalborg Zoo has now closed the post to comments and said in a statement: “For many years at Aalborg Zoo, we have fed our carnivores with smaller livestock.

“When keeping carnivores, it is necessary to provide them with meat, preferably with fur, bones, etc., to give them as natural a diet as possible.

“Therefore, it makes sense to allow animals that need to be euthanised for various reasons to be of use in this way.

“In Denmark, this practice is common, and many of our guests and partners appreciate the opportunity to contribute.”

Continue Reading

Technology

Trump’s latest chip tariff announcement raises more questions than answers

Published

on

By

Trump's latest chip tariff announcement raises more questions than answers

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters near Air Force One at the the Lehigh Valley International Airport on August 03, 2025 in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images

After months of speculation, U.S. President Donald Trump has divulged more of his semiconductor tariff plans, but his latest threats might raise more questions than answers. 

On Wednesday, Trump said he will impose a 100% tariff on imports of semiconductors and chips, but not for companies that are “building in the United States.”

As semiconductors represent an over $600 billion industry at the heart of the modern digital economy, any potential tariffs hold massive weight. 

However, experts say the President has yet to provide key details on the policy, which will ultimately determine their full impact and targets. 

“It’s still too early to pin down the impact of the tariffs on the semiconductor sector,”  Ray Wang, research director of semiconductors, supply chain and emerging technology at The Futurum Group, told CNBC. 

“The final rule is likely still being drafted and the technical details are far from clear at this point.” 

Big players win?

One of the biggest questions for chip players and investors will be how much manufacturing a company needs to commit to the U.S. to qualify for the tariff exemption. 

The U.S. has been working to onshore its semiconductor supply chain for many years now. Since 2020, the world’s largest semiconductor companies such as TSMC and Samsung Electronics have committed hundreds of billions of dollars to building plants in the U.S.

Speaking to CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Thursday, James Sullivan, Managing Director and Head of Asia Pacific Equity Research at J.P. Morgan, said this could mean most major chip manufacturers receiving exemptions.

If this is the case, the policy could have the effect of “continuing to consolidate market share amongst the largest cap players in the space,” Sullivan said. 

Indeed, shares of major Asian chip companies like TSMC, which has significant investments in the U.S., rose in Thursday morning trading following Trump’s announcement. Early this year, TSMC announced it would expand its investments in the U.S. to $165 billion. 

Shares of South Korea’s Samsung and SK Hynix — which have also invested in the U.S. — were also trading up after a Korean trade envoy reportedly said on radio that the duo would be exempt from the 100% tariffs.

An exemption on what? 

Beyond the question of exemptions, many other aspects of the potential tariffs remain unclear. 

Speaking on CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia,” on Thursday, Stacy Rasgon, senior U.S. semiconductor analyst at  Bernstein, noted that most of the semiconductors that enter the U.S. come inside consumer goods such as smartphones, PCs and cars.

For example, in 2024, the U.S. imported $46.3 billion of semiconductors — only about 1% of all U.S. imports, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

While Rasgon said tariffs on these imports may be manageable, broader tariffs would be harder to deal with. 

“What we don’t know with [Trump’s] comments on tariffs, is it just raw semiconductors? Are there going to be tariffs on end devices? Are you going to be looking at tariffs on components within end devices?,” Rasgon asked. 

The confusion and questions around semiconductor tariffs were brought to the forefront after the U.S. Department of Commerce started a national security investigation of semiconductor imports in April, just as the sector was exempted from Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs.

The vague language from the Trump administration — though not invoked in the president’s latest proclamations — could theoretically be used to apply broad tariffs to an enormous segment of the electronics supply chain. It’s also unclear on the extent that semiconductor materials and manufacturing equipment used to manufacture chips would fall under the tariffs. 

Bernstein's Stacy Rasgon on semiconductor tariffs, impact on sector and AMD Q2 results

Complex supply chains 

Potential tariff strategies could also be complicated by the intricate and interdependent nature of the semiconductor supply chain. 

Rasgon gave the example of American chip designer Qualcomm, which sends their designs to TSMC to be manufactured in Taiwan and then imported to the U.S. 

“Does that mean those [chip imports] would not be tariffed, because they’re made at TSMC, and TSMC is building in the U.S.?… I don’t know. Hopefully that’s how it would be,” he said. 

Another large buyer of semiconductors in the U.S. are cloud service providers like Amazon Web Services and Google, which are essential to power Washington’s AI plans. 

According to a recent report from ITIF, semiconductors contribute $7 trillion in global economic activity annually by underpinning a range of downstream applications including AI and “big data.”

In a potential sign of American companies seeking to move their chip supply chains into the U.S., Apple CEO Tim Cook, alongside Trump at the White house Wednesday, announced that it will be supplied chips from Samsung’s production plant in Texas. 

The company also announced an additional $100 billion in U.S. investments, raising its total investment commitments in the country to $600 billion over the next four years.

Continue Reading

Trending