PBS News Hour - Full Show - April 13, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

Monday on the News Hour, as the United States blockades Iran's ports after the first round of peace talks fails, we look at how the move is likely to affect negotiations and gas prices. Hungary's longtime leader, and Trump ally, Viktor Orbán, is defeated in a landslide election. Plus, President Trump picks a fight with Pope Leo, who says he won't back down from speaking out against war. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amman Nawaz. Jeff Bennett is away. On the news hour tonight, the United States blockades Iran's ports after the first round of peace talks fail, how the move is likely to affect negotiations and gas prices. Hungary's longtime leader and Trump ally, Victor Orban, is defeated in a landslide election. Everyone could see that the system was cracking under the strain, and Peter Madre jumped out ahead. And President Trump picks a fight. with the Pope, who says he won't back down from speaking out against war. Welcome to the news hour. The U.S. began a blockade of Iranian ports today, less than two days after a first effort at peace talks between the Americans and Iran failed in Pakistan. White House correspondent Liz Landers begins our coverage.

Today, in the street of Hormuz, it was the U.S. Navy that said it will enforce a blockade. A choke point for roughly 20 percent of the world's oil, now abortions. organing chip caught in the middle of an impossible negotiation. The U.S. said it would block all ships entering or leaving Iranian ports. President Trump issued a direct threat, warning that if any Iranian vessel comes close to the U.S. blockade, it will be, quote, immediately eliminated. And today said there will be no deal until Iran gives up its highly enriched uranium. If they don't agree, there's no deal, there'll never be a deal.

Iran will not have a nuclear weapon, and we're going to get the dust back. We'll get it back either. We'll get it back from them or we'll take it. The escalation follows the failure of 21 hours of marathon talks in Islamabad this weekend. The negotiations were meant to turn a fragile ceasefire into a broader agreement. Instead, both sides walked away, blaming each other. The bad news is that we have not reached the agreement. And I think that's bad news for Iran much more than it's bad news for the United States of America. Vice President J.D. Vance said the ball is now in Iran's court.

We go back to the United States, having not come to an agreement. We've made very clear what our red lines are. And we leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We'll see if the Iran is accepted. But Iranian foreign minister Abbas Arakshi said Iran negotiated, quote, in good faith. But when the sides were just inches away from a deal, the U.S. turned to what he called maximalist demands and imposed a blockade instead. Iran's speaker of parliament reacted to the U.S. blockade by trolling the president, showing a map of gas prices near the White House in Washington, adding, quote, soon you'll be nostalgic for $4 to $5 gas. Unfortunately, this is an escalation by the United States by invoking the doctrine of blockade, which is a law of naval warfare construct.

So this is going to be perceived as aggression against Iran amid this ceasefire, and so there will be some form of retaliation. Ian Ralbee is a founder and CEO of Auxilium Worldwide and focuses on maritime security. He said the blockade could become an open-ended military commitment with global economic consequences. If the American blockade actually does function and it does suspend any movement through the Strait of Hormuz as it is likely to do, we're actually going to see a further increase in price because what is happening is that the limited trickle of oil that was coming out, roughly $3.5 billion since the start of this conflict to largely the Asian markets will become zero. Ralebi cautioned that the scope of the blockade and how it will be imposed is still unknown, but said it may not hurt Iran as much as the U.S. hopes. The Iranians are probably going to find

ways not only to adapt economically, but also adapt militarily and try to create concommodant harm for everybody else. So they're likely to push back in different ways. And that could, attacking neutral vessels. Today, China also came out against the blockade. Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said it is not in the common interests of the international community and urged for a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire. The United States' partner in this war, Israel, was not part of recent negotiations as Pakistan doesn't recognize the state of Israel. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the U.S. and Iran failed to reach a deal because Iran did not open the straight and refused to give up its right to enrich uranium.

Yesterday, I spoke with Vice President J.D. Vance. He reported to me in detail, as officials of this administration do on a daily basis. The central issue on the table from the perspective of President Trump and the United States is the removal of all enriched material and ensuring that there will be no enrichment in the years ahead, which could be decades of no enrichment inside Iran. That is their focus, and of course, it is also important to us. Iran said it will not open the street until there's also a ceasefire in Lebanon, which it says was part of the ceasefire agreement. But since the ceasefire in Iran, Israel has intensified its attacks on Lebanon, attacking 100 sites in 10 minutes last week, killing nearly 400 people.

And the search for remains continues. Hezbollah has also been firing rockets into northern Israel. And yesterday, Netanyahu met Israeli troops in Lebanon and vowed to continue the way. war. Entire in southern Lebanon, this family's incomprehensible grief. They lost their baby girl, Tallinn, killed in an Israeli strike during her father's funeral. Teline's elder sister, seven-year-old Aline, survived but with severe burns. And while world powers debate escalation, here the war's reality is measured not in strategy, but in lives lost. With the PBS News Hour, I'm Liz Landers.

For a perspective now on the situation with Iran, we get two views. Alan Eyre is now at the Middle East Institute after serving in the U.S. government for four decades. He was part of the Obama administration's negotiating team for the Iran nuclear deal, which President Trump pulled out of in 2018. And Miyadh-Maliki was born and raised in Iran, and until last year, he was Associate Director for Sanction Targeting with a focus on Iran in the U.S. Treasury Department. He's now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Welcome to you both. Thanks for being here. Thanks for having us. Yeah, they'll begin with you.

Will this U.S. naval blockade, will it force the Iranians to change course? I think so. I think it's really, you know, with the blockade, the regime now has two options. Come to his term, you know, come to the back to the negotiations table and accept some kind of a, if not a full deal, but some agreement to continue to negotiate by some time. Or just accept the fact that the economy is going to do. collapse. I think domestically, the Iranian regime knows that they're more vulnerable than they are in the battlefield. I mean, as a matter of fact, they shot down the internet for over 40 days.

That's about $50 million a day in economic damages that they're taking on only because they worry about uprising in country. So they're taking that hit just to avoid any kind of domestic pressure. They're going to face that domestic pressure soon if the blockade is effective. Alan, what do you make of that? You think the U.S. blockade will have that impact on the regime? Unfortunately, I'm a little less optimistic than Miod is. I think even if the blockade is perfectly done and effective, it will take too long to have the requisite effect on Iran. Because there's two dynamics here.

One is the global economy suffering because the strait is closed. And the other is whatever pain we can inflict on Iran by a fully effective blockade. But they have land borders. There's other ways of getting things in and out of Iran. So it might be effective. over time, but too long a time frame for it to matter. Secondly, it's escalatory, not just giving Iran more targets to shoot at, but I find it hard to believe the United States is going to

try to board, for example, a Chinese vessel or a Pakistani cargo and interdict that and stop that trade. So I think it's partially performative. It helps put some additional pressure on Iran, but it won't get Iran to accept current U.S. terms. What about that, Mia? I mean, the point is here, too, is it incentivize them to come back to the table and negotiate or to see through the threats that they made, which is saying no port in the region will be safe if the block A goes on. You know, I disagree with Allen's on the point that there are alternative ways for Iran to continue its trade.

You can't truck in $160 million a day in import. There's no alternative to Persian Gulf, and straight or foremost, for Iran's trade. I mean, you're looking at 90% of its economy really relying on the trade that goes through a straight of foremost. They can't continue to take, they can't sustain running an economy. that can't import anything, can't support anything. And then eventually they're going to have to drop their oil extraction. And when you drop your oil extraction, because you're running out of oil storage,

then you're going to have to shut down your wells, and then you're going to have strikes, you're going to have labor strikes, you won't be able to pay salaries, they have issues with taxation. They can't collect taxes right now because they shut down the Internet, because they can't produce metals and they can't produce petrochemicals. So the state of economy is so vulnerable domestically that I don't think anything can reach.

replace the export and trade that we rely on through the Persian Gulf. Well, again, I think meaad's right, but I think the time frame is wrong. In the long run, you're right, a fully effective blockade brings it on to its knees. But like Kane said, in the long run, we're all dead. And by the time it's effective, the world economy has gone over a cliff because the straight of hormones is closed. We saw during COVID that Iran can get by, it can eag by with drastically decreasing increased economic activity, drastically decreased exports of oil.

So, yes, he's quite right that it's an effective tool, but not in the time frame we need to put pressure on Iran. What do you see, Alan, let me stick with you for a moment. What do you see as enough pressure, sufficient pressure to bring Iran back to the negotiating table and also that might get it to accept some of the U.S. demands so far? Do you see anything upon that? I don't think that's in our bag of tricks. I think, you know, pressure works best in complement with negotiations.

We have enough pressure to bring Iran to the table. Iran wants to come to the table, but once they're at the table, for Iran, this is an existential battle. And so there are certain red lines, just like the U.S. has red lines. If what's most important for the U.S. is the nuclear issue, there's a deal to be had. Unfortunately, for President Trump, it's a lot like the JCPOA. And that's one of the reasons why he just want to do it. But what's more important than any possible nuclear deal is, again, largely for time reasons, the strait has to be opened as fully as possible, as quickly as possible.

Do you see Iran accepting any of those demands, or does the U.S. need to rethink them when we're talking about giving up the right to enrichment, opening up the strait of hormones? You know, I think if Iran accepts those 10 demands that President Trump put before them, then in that day, I would say there was a regime change. I think the 10 demands that we put before them, if they accept all 10, then I would say the regime changed. Because they really changed the principles of these regimes, you know, not supporting the terrorist proxies, the enrichment of uranium, that they have been, really, they have invested close to a 300 of billions of dollars in the nuclear enrichment program. If the Iranians accept all 10 points, then it would be a really different regime that is we're dealing with.

That's why I don't think they're going to accept the 10. I think with this regime you can't get a deal that would serve for national security interest. And I think with Blockhead, we have an opportunity to either really see a regime that would change its behavior, which I would say regime change, or really a collapse in Iran's economy, which is going to lead to an opposition movement. Alan, do you see, where do you see the U.S. line that might exist for the resumption of military operations here? I think it's, I mean, President Trump has already said, that he might do limited strikes.

I think for domestic political reasons, he's loath to do that because it will spook the markets and lead to further economic price rises. But he's clearly exasperated. He's only got one gear, and that's increased pressure, and that's not working.

So I don't know what the next step is. I mean, unfortunately, this administration, U.S. administration, is both unwilling and unable to do serious sustained negotiations. so a diplomatic solution is even harder for that reason. So, yeah, it's hard for me to find a way out of this mess. Yeah, we should point out, as we speak here,

Vice President Vance has been on Fox, and he's repeatedly saying that the ball is in the Iranians' court. What do you see the Iranians doing in this moment? You know, I think we just, I think at this point, they're just trying to think how they can cause some, you know, increase cost on a blockade, you know, whether it's going to be some asymmetric operations against, you know, tankers that are in the Persian Gulf, going after some, you know, some of the oil refinery

or oil facilities in the Gulf, they're probably in the planning phase because they understand this blockade is going to lead to economic collapse internally. It'll be really the end of the way that our economy is set up right now. And back to Alan's point, you know, I think the diplomatic approach with this regime is just not going to work at this point. I think there's nothing but pressure that you can really focus on to bring this. regime to either accept some of the terms we're putting before them or really just let the Iranians take the government back. You know, the regime that killed 40,000, I think the numbers are much higher, 40,000 innocent

Iranians in 48 hours. It's not a type of regime that you can make a peaceful deal with. They shut down the Internet for 47 days. Who would do that? I mean, you cut the entire population out of the international communication systems. I don't think anything other than pressure would work with this regime at this point. I'll give you the last word here. And Miat says, no chance of any diplomatic deal to get out of this.

You say? I think that's very unlikely, too. Again, it's peculiarly American misconception to think that every problem has a solution. We shouldn't have entered this war. There was no need to. It was unnecessary. And at this point, I think we should be looking not for the ideal solution, but just the least bad solution. Alan Eyre, Miat Maliki.

Very good to see you both. Thank you so much. Thank you for having this. In the day's other headlines, a federal judge has dismissed President Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the publisher of the Wall Street Journal for a story on the president's ties to the late convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. That article from last summer centered on a sexually suggestive letter written for Epstein's 50th birthday that appears to bear Trump's signature. The president denies writing it. The ruling marks the latest setback to the president and his efforts to manage fallout. from the Epstein files.

Mr. Trump's legal team said they would refile the suit. The Trump administration says it will allow the Stonewall National Monument in New York to fly a rainbow pride flag once again. That reverses an administration directive to remove it back in February, which drew fierce backlash. It also settles a high-profile lawsuit from LGBTQ-plus groups and historic preservationists. The site is the first-ever national monument commemorating LGBTQ-19. Plus history. Pending a judge's approval, the pride flag will return to a federal flagpole, raised between an American flag and the Park Service flag. A new study found that deadly anti-Semitic

attacks around the world last year were the highest seen in more than three decades. In all, 20 people were killed across three continents. Fifteen of those people were killed in the mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration on Sins. Sydney, Australia's Bondi Beach. Other deadly attacks were recorded in the U.S. and the U.K. The annual report from Tel Aviv University said the violence is part of a spike following Hamas' October 7th attack on Israel and Israel's war in Gaza that followed. Swimmers from both Russia and Belarus will be allowed to compete on the world stage again without restrictions and with their respective flags and national anthems. That marks a major shift in a key sport ahead of the 2028.

Los Angeles Olympics. World Aquatics, the sports governing body, had required Russians and Belarusians to compete as neutral athletes since 23 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In a statement, World Aquatics said it would, quote, ensure that pools and open water remain places where athletes from all nations can come together in peaceful competition. And on Wall Street, stock staged a big comeback today despite the stalemate in peace talks between the U.S. and Iran. The Dow Jones Abreel average added 300 points for a modest gain, while the NASDAQ shot up by more than 1%. With a 1% gain of its own today, the S&P 500 has rallied to erase nearly all its losses from the Iran War. Still to come, on the news hour, Democrat Eric Swalwell resigns from Congress amid sexual assault allegations.

Tamara Keith and Jasmine Wright break down the latest political headlines. And media expert Evan Shapira joins our podcast to discuss through. future of the industry. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of PBS News. The incoming Prime Minister of Hungary struck a hopeful tone today, and for the first time since 2010, it was not Victor Orban. Peter Majar has called for a swift transition of power, and as Stephanie Syde tells us,

he began to chart an ambitious course to reverse central pillars of Orban's rule. In Hungary today, a Budapest street musician sounds notes of jubilence and hope. He's one of the millions of Hungarians celebrating the weekend's election defeat of Victor Orban and his 16-year grip on power in this parliamentary republic. With nearly 80% voter participation, 5.9 million Hungarians delivered a clear verdict. Overwhelmingly choosing the opposition party Tisa, led by Peter Majjar. Tens of thousands celebrated the results on the torchlit streets of Budapest last night. The incoming Prime Minister promises to lead Hungary back to its European alliances.

Yesterday, the Hungarian people made many decisions, perhaps one of the most important being that Hungary's place in Europe was, is and will be a country. that is a member of the two most important and largest alliance systems, the European Union and NATO. A former Orban loyalist, he ran on an anti-corruption platform. Hungary is in trouble in every respect. It's been plundered, looted, betrayed, saddled with debt, and ruined. It's been turned into the poorest and most corrupt country in the European Union. A systemic change is needed, since ours has been effectively controlled by an organized, criminal group. Prime Minister Orban's hardline nationalist government eroded democratic norms and institutions,

helping him stay in power. From stifling and co-opting independent media to weakening the judiciary's independence, the nation slid toward what the European Union labeled electoral autocracy. TISA party, which won an astounding two-thirds majority in Parliament over the weekend, has vowed to undo Orban's institutional overhaul. We will do everything in our power to ensure that this truly marks the beginning of a new era, because the Hungarian people did not vote for a simple change of government, but for a complete transformation of the system.

Magyar's win was praised by European leaders, including Germany's Friedrich Mertz. for Hungary and Ukraine, yes, things will be easier now. This shows that our democratic societies are evidently much more resilient against Russian propaganda. Orban was sympathetic to Russian President Vladimir Putin and just last month blocked a $103 billion EU loan package to Ukraine. At a news conference following his win, Majyar described what he would say to President Putin. If Vladimir Putin calls, I will pick up the phone. I don't believe that will happen, and I won't call him myself. But if we were to speak, I would tell him, please, after four years, end the killing and stop that war.

Kremlin spokesperson Dimitri Peskov downplayed the impact of Orban's loss. We expect to continue our very pragmatic contacts with the new Hungarian leadership. We've heard statements about a willingness to conduct a dialogue. I don't think this has anything to do with the future of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. But Hungary's return to the European fold and further from Russia fueled hopes today. I feel very happy. I have been waiting for 16 years this morning to beat Mr. Orban. He had a illiberal system which was against our fundamentals.

We are Europeans and we want to stay in Europe. For more now on the Hungarian election and how the results could reverberate around the globe, we turn to Kim Lane Shepley, a professor of international affairs at Princeton University, who lived and worked extensively in Hungary. Just a few years ago, Majjar was an Orban supporter. How did his positions win the people during this campaign, Kim, and lead to such a seismic victory? Yeah, well, Peter Mardier sprung out of the Orban machine. He had spent about 20 years, being.

part of the Fides' party as a loyalist as someone who came up for the ranks, as someone who benefited a lot from actually his association with Orban. And so there were a couple of events that I think caused him to pop out of the woodwork, so to speak, and take on Orban as a challenger. One was that his ex-wife, Judith Varga, had just been fired as Prime Minister in a scandal that was probably Orban's fault, but that he blamed on her. And he kind of came to her defense, very publicly. But the second thing was that the European Union, having gotten really fed up with Orban, had cut most of the funds that the EU gave to Hungary, putting Hungary in a financially precarious position. And so everyone could see that the system was cracking under the strain.

And Peter Marjor had jumped out ahead. So he came out of the woodwork. He didn't really have much of a prior profile. And he came out as a critic of Orban, and particularly as a critic of Orban's corruption because he knew where all the bodies were buried and he was a very credible source on exactly what that corruption was. And he took that corruption theme right up through his victory this week. So now there's this expected turn back toward Europe. But when it comes to Ukraine, Orban has been blocking billions of dollars of aid that the EU wants delivered to Ukraine. What should we expect moving forward on Hungary's role in the war? Well, I think that Peter Mondiara will stop being an irritant to the EU, and my guess is that he will probably not exercise the Hungarian veto on this giant loan to Ukraine.

That said, I don't think he is going to sort of cuddle up to Ukraine very much, because over the years, Orban has really whipped up a kind of anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Hungary. And I think this whole foreign policy issue about the war next door is not really where Madera wants to. to spend his time. So I think you'll get out of the way of Europe. He won't block it, but he's not going to be there as a giant supporter cheering on Ukrainian fight against Russia. He has promised quite starkly, I think, to cut the Russian ties that Orban had cultivated. And so I think insofar as the Ukrainian veto on Ukraine was part of Orban's making ice with Russia, that reason will be gone. Orban's 16-year-old hold on power helped write a playbook that populist leaders, including critics, say our own President Trump, have used.

What does Orban's loss mean for this type of strongman leadership in other Western democracies? A lot of Orban's machinery that has supported the far right across Europe, and for that matter, has helped the far right in the United States. A lot of that machinery is going to remain intact because the funding that holds up is, huge operations called the Matiasch-Corvina's Collegium and its various think tanks like the Danube Institute has been buffered from change by an incoming government and it's going to go on operating even without having a state behind it. So it's a mixed story on all that. And I might say that this Danube Institute, which is Victor Orban's English language think tank, was a partner with the Heritage Foundation in drafting project 2025. And the way that you can see that is,

that Trump's opening salvo months exactly duplicated what Victor Orban had done when he came to power in 2010. So, you know, I think the Trump administration has lost a friend and an ally. And yet, even with this playbook,

Orban lost, with almost 80% of the populists turning out, does Magjar's rapid assent potentially offer a playbook for Trump's political opponents? Yeah, so the way that Maguire won, I think, is very instructive to other oppositions trying to fight back against autocracy.

The first thing is that autocrats do try to rig the rules in their favor. So when a pro-democratic candidate runs, he's got to figure out how to get around the rig rules in the system. And Peter Maudiard had figured out that the way Orban's system was set up was that a rural voter would have roughly three times the weight in the parliamentary elections as an urban voter. All of the oppositions had previously cultivated the cities, more cosmopolitan, more anti-authoritarian, you might say.

Peter Maguire went out to every single village in person to persuade Orban's base, actually, that Orban was not acting in their interests. He also built this huge, big tent so the people who voted for him probably agree on very little else than that Orban has to go and that democratic institutions have to be rebuilt. And that the corruption all has to stop. So very cleverly, Maudiardier played the issues that appealed to the broadest group, and he ignored all of the pleas to deal with issues that only dealt with part of his base. So big tent, figuring out the election rules, figuring out a path to victory.

All of that matters. And the world is watching. Kim Lane Shepley of Princeton University. Thank you. Thank you. President Trump is openly condemning the head of the Roman Catholic Church. after Pope Leo the 14th criticized the U.S. and Israeli war with Iran. William Brangham reports on the rare public battle between the President of the United States

and the first U.S.-born Pope. After his attacks on Pope Leo earned him global condemnation, the President this afternoon refused to relent. We believe strongly in law and order, and he seemed to have a problem with that, so there's nothing to apologize for. He's wrong. The president's remarks today doubled down on his lengthy tirade online and on the tarmac last night. He's a very liberal person and he's a man that doesn't believe in stopping crime. He's a man that doesn't think that we should be going with a country that wants a nuclear weapon so they can blow up the world.

I'm not a fan of Bob Leo. The president spoke yesterday after returning to Washington from Florida. echoing his post on social media, where he took issue with Pope Leo's criticism of American actions in Venezuela and Iran, he wrote, quote, I don't want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I'm doing exactly what I was elected in a landslide to do. The president also implied that the first ever American Pope owed his job to Trump, writing, If I wasn't in the White House, Leo wouldn't be in the Vatican. Today, on route to Algeria, Pope Leo responded. I have no fear neither of the Trump administration are speaking out loudly about the message of the gospel.

And that's what I believe I am called to do. The pontiff defended his earlier comments about the evils of war. I basically said that the message of the church, my message, the message of the gospel, blessed other peace speakers. I do not look at my role as being political politician. I don't want to get into a debate with him. I don't think that the message of the gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing. And I will continue to speak out of activists against war,

looking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateral relationships among the states, to look for just solutions to the problems. It was Pope Lio's comments two days ago that apparently sparked the president. President's anger. At a special prayer vigil Saturday night at St. Peter's Basilica, Leo denounced the, quote, delusion of omnipotence that he argued was fueling the war in Iran and other global conflicts. May the madness of war cease and the earth be cared for and cultivated by those who still know how to create, safeguard and love life.

Today, the President's comments about the Pope drew widespread criticism. Catholic bishop Robert Barron, who leads the diocese of Winona, Rochester in Minnesota and serves on the White House's Religious Liberty Commission, wrote, The statements made by President Trump on Truth Social regarding the Pope were entirely inappropriate and disrespectful. I think the president owes the Pope an apology. The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Paul Coakley, also issued a statement, quote, I am disheartened that the president chose to write such disparaging words about the Holy Father. Pope Leo is not his rival, nor is the Pope a politician.

He is the vicar of Christ, who speaks from the truth of the gospel and for the care of souls. President Trump stoked more outrage when he posted this Christ-like image of himself, hands glowing and healing a sick man. When even some allies condemn the image as blasphemy, the president, took it down, saying it had been misconstrued. It was me. I did first it, and I thought it was me as a doctor, and had to do with Red Cross as a red cross worker there, which we support. And only the fake news could come up with that one.

President Trump's relationship was also tense with Pope Leo's predecessor, Pope Francis. They clashed at times over immigration and climate change. After Francis died, the president posted another AI-generated image, this one of himself wearing papal robes. Meanwhile, after landing in Algeria today, in this place, let us remember that God desires peace for every nation. Pope Leo laid a wreath at the monument honoring those who died in that nation's war for independence and said a prayer for peace.

For the PBS News Hour, I'm William Brangham. Democrat Eric Swalwell of California announced today he will resign his seat in Congress after reports from multiple women accusing him of sexual misconduct, including in one case rape. In a statement this afternoon, Swalwell wrote, quote, I will fight the serious false allegations made against me. However, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make. Earlier today, the House Ethics Committee had launched an investigation as some of his Democratic colleagues called for his expulsed. from the chamber. And over the weekend, he also ended his campaign to be governor of California. Our congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin is here now with the latest. So Lisa just remind us what exactly were the allegations brought against Eric Swalwell.

Rumors first rose over social media for the past few days, but starting on Friday and over the weekend, we saw reporting first from the San Francisco Chronicle and then CNN bombshell specific accusations against Congressman Swalwell. CNN said that four women, accused Swalwell of misconduct. Most were anonymous. One was named. Now, those charges range from unsolicited, explicit messages or nude photos to unwanted, touching to one accusation of rape.

Now, we have not independently verified those charges. The rape accusation in both stories is similar. It's made anonymously by a woman who says when she worked for Swalwell, he took her out for drinks, and then she passed out, and she believes she was raped while she was passed out by Swalwell. She says years later after she stopped working for him, she again was alone with Swalwell and she says that time that she was raped after she said no to intercourse with him. Now, Swalwell says none of that happened. He has maintained his innocence about that sexual misconduct, but he did say he made some mistakes against his wife. Now, the question then is,

why did he resign today? Let's look at more of his statement that he came out with. He wrote, I am aware of efforts to bring an immediate expulsion vote against me and other members. Expelling anyone in Congress without due process within days of an allegation being made is wrong. But it is also wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties. Essentially two things that he's saying he doesn't want the precedent of due process being rolled over. And he's also saying it seems he feels that votes might have been there to expel him. Now, of course, all of this came after he was in a major election battle, as you said. I reached out to Swalwell. Personally, I've covered him for years. I have not heard back.

You have, as part of your reporting, we've been talking to staff and others, and you've learned that staff saw red flags for years, is that right? That's correct. This is something you often think of as a whisper campaign. This is, unfortunately, one of the major systems of protection for some Hill staffers. Now, I learned from two different staffers who I've known for a while, have covered and worked within the past. One told me that multiple times they knew of Swalwell reaching out to interns. In one case, Swalwell, asking an intern for their Snapchat address to communicate that way, which it's not easy to understand why a member of Congress would want to snapchat with a young intern. The other staff telling me that Swal, he saw that Swal on the floor

of Congress taking young women there after hours, and that the idea was that that was sort of something he did repeatedly. Now, both of them saying that there was a whisper campaign to tell some interns and other young women, especially to stay away from him. But that's the problem with the whisper campaign. It depends on being in the right place, having the right person looking out for you. Now that he's resigned, there's no need to expel him. But where does all of this leave some of the other efforts to expel other members of Congress? That's right.

And this is breaking news right now. I have confirmed with two different sources that we now expect Tony Gonzalez, the Republican from Texas, to announce his plan to resign tomorrow. Now, as many of our viewers will remember, and we have covered before, this last month, Gonzalez admitted that he has. had a sexual relationship with a former staffer who died by suicide. We also in the last week saw reports that another former staffer of Gonzalez's came out and said that he sent her explicit and unwanted messages. Sleeping with staffers by members of Congress is explicitly

against House rules. There was bipartisan backlash against both Gonzalez and Swalwell. Both were up for potential expulsion. We're seeing both of them reacting to that right now. Now, one example here, Gonzales's fellow Republican, Byron Donald spoke yesterday. These allegations are despicable, and they demean the integrity of Congress. These things are just completely unacceptable.

As far as I'm concerned, both gentlemen need to go home. Now, the Swalwell expulsion really grew from Democratic calls for their own member for Swalwell to leave Democrat Teresa Lagarde-Lajar-Fernandez. She heads the Congressional Women's Caucus. She said Swalwell needed to go. And I spoke to her earlier.

She said the entire ethics process is deeply flawed. We need to fix our ethics process because it needs to work faster. It needs to be easier for women staffers to report what's going on. Do you think there's a broader culture of sexual misconduct on the Hill? I do believe that that's a problem. Until there is accountability, which means you lose your job because of sexual harassment. And there could never be consent in that power position, right? That you need to be both have a public accountability and then accountability in the House rules.

And this will make a difference, I think. The question of accountability is not over because Swallow and Gonzalez were not alone. You can see in this photo two other members of Congress, Florida Democrat, Sheila Scherfellis McCormick, the Ethics Committee has found that she fraudulently kept and used hundreds of thousands of dollars in COVID relief money, they are planning on issuing a punishment for her in the next couple of weeks. And Republican Cory Mills of Florida, financial and sexual misconduct charges, both of them have said they are wrongly accused. Now, Omna, only six members of Congress have ever been expelled in history, mostly because they're usually, they get in a position where they just resign rather

than face a two-thirds vote. It's a high bar to expel them, but this was in consideration. Meanwhile, I know you've been reporting on the ethics process talking to current and former staffers about that culture. What did they tell you it's like on the Hill right now? I have spoken to so many current and former staffers today, senior, junior, former interns, everyone. They all agree that after the Me Too movement, which we covered, I think, well, here on the PBS News Hour, on the Hill, there were changes. However, they think in recent years those changes have been ignored and have been rolled back. And what I heard was really the idea of a culture that is an underlying subterranean, as one person called it, problem. Let's look quickly at the system.

right now on the Hill for dealing with these ethics problems. Lawmakers and staff are required to get sexual harassment training every year. Now, there are also multiple offices where misconduct can be reported, but most of those offices can keep those investigations secret, and they take a long time. Part of that is, of course, they want to be thorough. There is due process, of course, to members and staff members who are accused, but there are many critics who say that's gone too far now, and that it's protecting those who are doing the wrongdoing in this. case. There are, of course, many professional supportive offices in Congress. I don't want people to think that the entire place is dangerous. However, I am convinced by my talks today that we

really have seen a reckless, sometimes, and often careless, deepening culture of harm on Capitol Hill. Lisa Desjardin, great reporting as always. Thank you. Welcome. Let's delve further now into the day's political headlines. Congressman Swalwell's resignation, the feud between the president and the Pope, and of course the war in Iran. For that, we turn to our Politics Monday duo. That's Tamara Keith of NPR and Jasmine Wright. White House correspondent for notice. Amy Walter is away.

It's great to see with all. Good to be here. Let's pick up where Lisa left off there. And Tam, I'll start with you. Your reaction to the news of Eric Swalwell's resignation, under growing pressure from his own fellow Democrats, what it means for the California governor's race, too. What do you make of it?

Well, in terms of the California governor's race, that race had been sort of stuck. It's a huge field of Democrats, two major Republican and, names. And it just hadn't really moved much at all. And then in the past week, we got President Trump endorsing Steve Hilton, one of the Republican candidates. And then Eric Swalwell dropping out, Swalwell had in some polls been the leading Democrat. That really scrambles that race. Some Democrats had been concerned that it's a top two primary. Democrats and Republicans all compete against

each other to find out who will go on to the general election. There had been, some concern among Democrats that two Republicans would emerge from that primary. Now with Trump endorsing Hilton and with Swalwell dropping out, there's more movement in this race than we've seen in a long time, and it seems likely that it will end up being a Democrat and a Republican that makes it out. Jazz, what do you make of how quickly this all moved with Eric Swalwell and also the pressure he was under from his own fellow Democrats? I mean, it showed that it had momentum, and I think to Lisa's point, it showed that he at least believed that there could have been

a vote to expel him, something that, again, is a high bar and doesn't often happen. I will say that if you take a step back, Democrats for the last eight months have really been focused on this idea of accountability. We've seen them push forward on the Epstein files, wanting to see more people brought in front of the House, oversight committee, wanting to see more people be deposed, wanting to see the Department of Justice do more, show more files. That's really been a charging message of their own. And so it would have looked, pretty hypocritical if for their own party they didn't say hey you have these really horrid and kind of tragic allegations against you you can stay in the in in the house and I

think that the key mark that we saw earlier today was Senator Ruben Gallego a close friend of Eric Swalwell's come out and say that I support expelling him because of these allegations that kind of was a canary in the coal mine and then afterwards we saw that message from Eric of course we're now also following the back and forth between President Trump and the Pope. Pope Leo last week condemned President's rhetoric towards Iran. Trump has criticized him over the weekend. The Pope said today he has no fear of the Trump administration. Tam, it is not the first time that the president has criticized the Pope.

But I also want to point out, as we reported earlier, the president posted this picture of himself, as Jesus, it looks like in the photo, before deleting it today. When he was asked about it, he said he did post it. He thought it was an image of him as a doctor. From the president's perspective, someone you've covered for years, what's going on here? The president probably saw something on TV about the Pope and got upset at things that the Pope was saying. The Pope has been subtle, but not entirely, not entirely subtle. He's made it clear that he believes that the war in Iran is problematic and that he has, he has, he has,

He has offered some shade about the war. And then you have the president, he frequently posts AI images that put him in a glowing light, quite literally a glowing light in this one as Jesus. And, you know, there was that previous post where he had himself in papal gear. He is just a sucker for AI images that show him. doing something awesome. And so these posts happen late at night, and

it's just incredibly common. The president also has a view that he was saved in Butler, that he is in office to do God's will. He really has... The assassination attempt, I guess, I'm saying. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. After the assassination attempt. But that he is there because of divine intervention. Yes, exactly. Well, jazz, pick up where Tamif is is leaving off here. And we should also point out that he's seen a bit of a dip in support from groups that might care about these kinds of issues. The latest numbers from Pew Show less than half of white Catholics now support his agenda. It's a five-point drop from last year,

eight-point drop in white evangelicals, 13-point drop among white Protestants. How do you look at that? I mean, I think you have to take a look back to 2024, which is the coalition that he put together to win going back into the White House. It was kind of a handshake deal from the Christian right from the Catholic right, who may not like everything about President Donald Trump, who may not like parts of his personality, the brashness, but like fundamentally what he has decided to do on abortion, has decided to do on other issues that they really care about, expanding the rights of the church in America, something that perhaps maybe a Democratic president wouldn't have done so quickly. And so they made that agreement, you know, in essence,

to kind of vote for President Trump. And not only white Christians and, white Catholics, but also Hispanic Christians and Hispanic Catholics. So that was that kind of armchair deal with them. And so now you're looking at it. And the question is whether or not they're feeling that that's fulfilled. I think that your, those, those polls are concerning. And that's why you saw J.D. Vance just a few minutes ago on Fox, basically trying to downplay it. Say the president likes to post jokes and he took it down because people did not, he felt that people did not understand his humor. But when we go back to the midterms in November, the question is going to be whether or not they can pool some of that coalition

that put President Trump back at the White House in November, and numbers like that don't show or don't provide a sense of confidence and things like this obviously don't grow numbers like that. Meanwhile, Vice President Vance is just back from Pakistan, Tam, as you know, where he was in those first round of talks

to actually get an end to the war in Iran. They failed to get that deal. We're now in a world, Tam, as you know, where gas prices are going up, The national average is now of $4 a gallon. The president said they could be even potentially higher by midterms. Is this president incentivized to make a deal with Iran? The president has given every indication that he wants to make a deal,

though he does have red lines, as J.D. Vance talked about in that Fox News interview, the red lines involving nuclear weapons or the ability to make nuclear weapons. The president wanting to get that enriched uranium that is currently buried deep under the earth. But the president wants a deal and needs a deal. And his action related to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is another acknowledgement of that, that he's trying to find a way to get an upper hand. He's trying to find a way out because every voter I talk to these days and I've been talking

to a lot of swing voters who voted for President Trump, they all mentioned gas prices. It is a very real and present problem in people's lives, which makes it a very real and present problem for the politicians. Jazz, how do you look at it? Yeah, I think the president is trying to create leverage, and they want Iran to come back to the table. Now, there are reports that there are negotiations going on. There are reports that there could perhaps be another set of talks,

although it seems like it'd be on a lower level than what we saw in Pakistan over the weekend. But fundamentally, I think you are seeing two notable things. One, you're seeing President Trump say, I think that they'll come back and make a deal. Now, this is obviously something that he said before, but we know that he really wants to find a solution so that they can move on. When I talked to White House officials last week, they talked about things in the future looking past Iran. So the White House wants to get past this conflict. And then secondly, you're not hearing him go back to the language of combat or strikes.

Yes, he says it could happen, but you're not hearing him full-throatedly endorse it. It's very clear that the White House wants to make some sort of diplomatic deal, no matter how difficult that may seem at the moment. Jasmine Wright, Tamara Keith, great to start the week off with you, Bo. Thank you so much. Thank you. Well, the media industry's been navigating substantial turmoil in recent years, from big mergers to layoffs to accusations of government censorship. On a recent episode of our PBS News podcast, Settle in, Jeff Bennett explored all this upheaval with Evan Shapiro. He's an award-winning producer who now writes about the industry for his substack, media war and peace. Here now is a clip of that conversation.

I do think, you know, we have this perception that very few people control the media. That is less and less true on an ongoing basis, especially when you consider that YouTube is now the biggest channel on TV sets in the U.S. And everyone says, well, they're the big tech, you know, they control so much voice. in reality, YouTube is 4.6 million different channels, you know, and a million of them control a lot of the voice there, but that's still a million channels. So in my mind, fragmentation is now the most important factor in media. You know, I like to say that, you know, when I was rising up in media, it was a lot easier because your competition was a few other channels. Now your competition is everybody, all seven billion people on the planet Earth with a smartphone.

The good news is that back when I was coming up in media, there were only a few buyers of the stuff that you would make. Now, there are 7 billion, 8 billion buyers of the media you make. So the control has shifted from these ivory towers who think they're still in charge to the consumer themselves who really do control the media in their system settings whenever they touch that piece of glass that they pick up first thing in the morning. You recently gave a talk called The Year of Change or Die, which is pretty stark framing. What did you mean by that? So this is the year that the combination of the creator economy and mainstream media will really intersect in a way that they hadn't before. And you see this in Procter & Gamble producing a microsop for TikTok and Instagram. You see this in Mr. Beast being on Amazon, Ms. Rachel being on Netflix.

And so the folks who operate their businesses by the vanity metrics of eras past, they're going to find it more and more difficult to succeed. The best example I'll give you is last year, all premium streamers on the face of the earth. So these are the paid streaming platforms like Amazon Prime and Netflix and Disney Plus and Hulu and the rest. they gained 175 million new subscribers. Hooray. They also lost 158 million subscribers. The retention has been growing.

It's a third of what it was five years ago. It's half of what it was four years ago. They're going to get to a zero retention in the next couple of years. And then suddenly, premium streaming, this thing that was going to save television, right, is going to be in the same place cable. is losing subscribers, revenues shrinking instead of growing. And in reality, at the same time, these social media platforms, social video, things like YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snap, these are now where people under the age of 50, not under 30,

not under 20, under the age of 50, they're spending much more time there than they are on other platforms. The fastest growing segment of viewers of YouTube on television are people 55 plus. And you can watch that full conversation and all episodes of Settle In on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Amna Nawaz. On behalf of the entire News Hour team, thank you for joining us.