PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 16, 2025 – PBS News Weekend full episode

Episode Date: August 16, 2025

Saturday on PBS News Weekend, Trump abruptly splits from Ukraine and Europe after meeting with Putin, saying a sweeping peace deal, not a ceasefire, should be the next step in ending the war. How a White House plan to overturn a landmark climate policy could threaten children’s health. Plus, AI-generated models shake up the fashion industry and raise questions about unrealistic beauty standards. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Tonight on PBS News Weekend, President Trump abruptly splits from Ukraine and European allies and aligns with Russia, saying a sweeping peace deal, not a ceasefire, should be the next step in ending the war. Then a White House plan to overturn a landmark climate change policy could threaten the health of millions of children. and why AI-generated models are shaking up the fashion industry and raising new questions about unrealistic standards of beauty. Right now we're at a point where we can create the same level of quality, of beauty, of compositions, so why not utilize it? Good evening. I'm John Yang. Peace efforts in the war between Russia and Ukraine shift to the White House next week when President Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodomar Zelensky. Their talks come as Mr. Trump has now aligned himself with Russian President Vladimir Putin, dropping his demand for a ceasefire and backing a comprehensive agreement to end the war instead. Hours after meeting with Putin and Alaska, Mr. Trump announced his sudden reversal on truth social. It was determined by all, that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement.

Earlier, the president had told Fox News's Sean Hannity that the responsibility is now on others. Now it's really up to President Zelensky to get it done, and I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit. And now for analysis of all of this, Andrea Kendall Taylor, She's a former senior intelligence officer. She's now a senior fellow at the center for a new American security.

Andrea, in addition to sort of flip-flopping, you're changing his position on the ceasefire. There are now reports that he's told European leaders that he now supports Russia's demand for territory for peace. Where does this leave the peace effort? Well, I think this was the big concern going into the Alaska meeting that President Trump would, in fact, come around to Putin's point of view and join on to his demands and then force that deal on Ukraine and the Europeans. And then if they reject a deal that's unjust and unfair to Ukraine, we'll turn around and reassign blame to Ukraine. You know, I think we're perhaps even in a worse position than we were going in because

I'm exceptionally concerned that now after months of suggesting he would ramp up pressure on Russia that Trump is once again reversing course and is going to apply that pressure now on Ukraine. After he spoke with President Trump early this morning, President Zelenskyy had a social media post that doesn't directly contradict the president, but he does say the fire must cease on both the battlefield and in the sky. What does this do for this meeting on Monday? What are the stakes for this meeting on Monday now? Well, the stakes are really significant. As that quote from President Zelensky underscores, the Russian and the Ukrainian sides are as far apart as they've ever been. And so now Zelensky really is in a perilous and precarious position.

He has to walk a tightrope essentially. I think my hope is that he might take a page from the Russian negotiating playbook and come back to President Trump with a yes but to try to demonstrate, yes, that he too is interested in peace, but then lay out his condition. that would have to be met, that might help Zelensky buy a little bit more time for things to calm down and also to buy time for the Europeans, who I do think really need to prepare to step in to fill a gap if President Trump decides to withdraw support for Ukraine. Speaking of those European leaders, they thought they had an agreement with the president to push for a ceasefire. They met with them on Wednesday. What can they now do? You'll see in the public statements that many of the leaders released that they don't want to

directly contradict President Trump. They've dropped their language about asking for a ceasefire before discussions on territory or negotiations. So they're trying to avoid that contradiction, but then are doubling down on some of the other conditions that everyone believes would lead to a more just and durable piece. So they're highlighting, for example, that there can be no limits on the size of Ukraine's military. So I see their role now, again, is trying to keep Trump on side in part to buy time while they ramp up their own capabilities to help Ukraine,

while also really working very hard to keep some boundaries and parameters on any future agreement. Going into this summit, President Trump really raised the expectations for a ceasefire. talked about how it's really what he wanted to come out of the meeting with. And then the day after, he says the ceasefire is out the window. What do you think happened in that meeting? Well, I think, you know, first President Trump sat down with Putin and was able to hear from him Putin's version of the war, his version of what's happening on the battlefield. And he's sympathetic to Putin.

He obviously has an inclination to want to agree with Putin and maintain that close person. relationship. You know, President Trump continues to have this vision of Russia as a great power, perhaps dating back to the 80s with the USSR and, of course, Sergei Lavrov with the throwback with the Soviet Union sweatshirt, reminding Trump that Russia is, in fact, a great power. So I suspect, you know, he went into that meeting with Putin and recognized yet again that Putin is not willing to back down on his demands. And so he now, I think, views Zelensky as the weaker party. And I think one final point that is also worth highlighting is President Trump does not have a solid grasp of the facts and the issues at hand. President Putin,

in contrast, knows these details in and out. He's a steely-eyed, detail-oriented dictator. If they're in a discussion and a negotiation, it's not a level playing field. I don't see how Trump can do a good deal when he doesn't have a solid grasp of the facts. Andrea Kendall Taylor, the Center for a New American Security. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. In tonight's other headlines, Hurricane Aaron, the first of the season, has rapidly intensified into a Category 5 storm.

Aaron has maximum sustained winds of 160 miles an hour and is churning in the Atlantic North of Puerto Rico. The storm strengthened from category 1 to Category 5 in January 5. 24 hours. While Aaron is expected to stay east of the United States, the National Hurricane Center warns it will produce life-threatening surf and rip currents from the Bahamas up the U.S. East Coast all the way to parts of Canada. In Pakistan, rescue crews are frantically searching for survivors from devastating flash floods and mudslides. Heavier than usual monsoon rains in Booneer in northwestern Pakistan are responsible for at least 220 deaths.

and officials say only a fraction of the bodies have been recovered. Survivors said rising waters overflowed riverbanks and sent boulders from surrounding mountains slamming into homes. I was going to work, and on the way, I saw that there was a lot of water coming down. When I saw this, I turned back and people were shouting, save your life, save your life. Many people climbed the mountains, and some people went to the sides. In this way, they saved themselves.

Heavy monsoon rains are expected to continue in the region through next week. The Canadian government has ordered thousands of striking Air Canada flight attendants back to work and sent their contract dispute to binding arbitration. The nation's jobs minister said she acted to protect Canada's economy, which is already buffeted by President Trump's tariffs. The strike lasted only about 12 hours, but in anticipation, Air Canada canceled more than 600 of its about 700 daily flights. stranded more than 100,000 travelers around the world. Air Canada said it could take days to get operations back to normal. Still to come on PBS News Weekend, why eliminating a bedrock air pollution regulation may hurt children's health and how AI-generated models are affecting

the fashion industry. This is PBS News Weekend from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, home of the PBS News Hour. Weeknotes on PBS. Last month, the Trump administration proposed revoking the landmark 2009 scientific finding that's been the basis for EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. If the proposal is finalized, it's almost certain to be challenged in court. And if the administration succeeds, experts warn that it could jeopardize the health of millions of Americans, especially children. pediatrician Deborah Hendrickson is a clinical professor at the University of Nevada Medical School

and the author of The Air They Breathe, a pediatrician on the front lines of climate change. Dr. Hendrickson, what would be the effect of revoking this finding on the health of Americans, especially children? Well, if they revoke this finding, it knocks out a major pillar in our fight against the growing wildfires, rising heat waves, and worsening floods and hurricanes we've been seeing for the past two decades, and it makes it more likely that all of these problems will continue to get worse in the future. And failing to stop this process to me is a crime against children, in my view, because not only are they going to inherit the hotter, more dangerous, and more chaotic world that we're creating, but they're already more vulnerable to the growing health hazards of that world.

We're already seeing that, things like worsening air pollution, rising heat waves, and the trauma of natural disasters. And so we're losing many of the gains we've had over the past century in infant mortality and children's health and welfare. Explain that. You said that their children are more vulnerable. Explain that. Yeah. So there's a long list of reasons why children are more vulnerable, but particularly children under five. And there's three major reasons that we talk about most. One is that their physiology is different. That's the way their bodies work. So we often say in pediatrics that children are not just small adults. And that's because you can't just take the same calculations and assumptions you would for an adult and apply them to a small child.

The second big reason is that they're smaller in size. And the third reason is that their organs and body systems are still developing and can be easily derailed by pollutants and environmental harm. So, for example, if a city is engulfed in smoke like my city Reno often is, and a baby or toddler in that city is breathing, breathing that smoke, they breathe faster than their parents. And they are taking in more air pollution per pound of weight. And their lungs and brain are still developing and can be adversely affected by that pollution. For your book, I know that you spoke to a lot of young people about growing up in areas with heavy pollution. What did they tell

you? What other sorts of things they told you? In our town, it causes a lot of distress and mental health problems because we've been encased in smoke sometimes for eight to ten weeks at a time. In 2021, there were two huge wildfires nearby. And as the weeks wore on, you know, it's very hard on everyone's mental health. But a lot of kids, I think adolescents I'm talking about primarily, feel kind of betrayed that nothing has been done about this problem to help ensure a better future for them. EPA Director Lee Zeldon, when he announced this proposal, said that the finding twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warps. science to achieve their preferred ends. What do you say to that?

I think that's exactly the opposite of the truth. I mean, I think that the statement they released by the five scientists are kind of known for being contrarians on this topic, that if they reverse it, it is disregarding the science, jeopardizing public health, and is a direct contradiction to their mandate to protect public health under the Clean Air Act. doctor you practice in reno nevada which is by some accounts the fastest warming city in the united states what do you see in your practice and the patients you see yeah so when we get engulfed in smoke it's called a smoke wave that'll come over because we're 10 miles from the california border so when the big fires hit california we get we're downwind immediately down the wind and we really get

hit by it and the clinic and the hospital will fill with kids wheezing and coughing you know we've had kids The pediatric ward will fill up with kids on oxygen during heat waves, which often go with, you know, we usually have a heat wave before the smoke hits because the heat will trigger the fire to start. We often see kids fainting in athletic practices. You know, there's been studies showing that pediatric ER visits go up 17 percent when in hot weather. And smoke waves also increase asthma visits by up to 78 percent, according to one study of the campfire in 2018. So these events, have a huge impact on children's immediate health, and because they affect development, like I mentioned, they can have a lifelong impact as well. Dr. Deborah Hendrickson of the University of Nevada Medical School. Thank you very much. Thank you.

The rise of artificial intelligence has touched virtually every industry disrupting long-established workflows and raising concerns about job losses. Now, the fashion world is reckoning with these changes as AI takes hold there from customer service chat pots to virtual fitting rooms and AI avatars starring in marketing campaigns.

Ali Rogan explores this refashioning of the industry and why it's raising alarms. This August's Vogue magazine may give us a glimpse into the future of fashion. This ad features a new model styled in outfits from the clothing brand guests. She gazes into the camera with a wide smile and bright eyes, and none of it is real.

She was generated by AI. Right now we're at a point where we can create the same level of quality, of beauty, of compositions with AI, and you don't have to do with a lot of logistics. So why not utilize it? Valentina Gonzalez and Andrea Petrescu are the co-founders of Serafine, Valora, the AI modeling agency behind the ad that's garnered so much attention.

We believe that AI is the future of fashion in the sense of supplementing and offering a new avenue of marketing. Some have called for a boycott of vogue for giving it a platform. But this ad wasn't the first to use AI models. In March, fashion brand H&M experimented with a new marketing strategy by digitally cloning actual models with their consent. This appeared to be almost more of a campaign for. using AI-generated models, then a clothing campaign. Sarah Ziff is a former model who founded the Model Alliance, an advocacy group for workers in the industry. She recalls how just two years ago the brand Levi's was under fire for

planning to promote diversity by using AI models. It's important that companies actually celebrate diverse people, not just sort of showcase and avatar who is diverse. For many brands, AI models are viewed as a cost-saving alternative to elaborate photo shoots. Industry insiders warned that would take away many traditional jobs, while proponents of AI argue that they're just creating different jobs. We open a new opportunity for a different, completely different type of creatives to expose their work to the biggest fashion magazines and that's the conversation we should be having. To continue that conversation, I'm joined by Cheney Beauvel, a former model turned tech entrepreneur,

who studies AI's impact on society. She's also the founder of Way, a tech education company. Sheenade, thank you so much for being here. You predicted this moment that we are now in. Back in 2020, you wrote an op-ed about it. Ironically, in Vogue, is this a moment a turning point in the use of AI within the fashion industry? Why I think it is a turning point

is because I, and I think many people, kind of look to Vogue in some ways as like the Supreme Court of Fashion. So by AI appearing in one of their magazines, one of the most sought after, exclusive magazines, it's almost like it's the industry stamp of approval on the supplier side in a way that AI is here to stay and acceptable at the highest ranking order of fashion. And this guest ad has elicited strong opinions, a lot of controversy, particularly when it comes to beauty standards and what it means for reshaping. The standards that people look to, the co-founders behind this ad touched on this point. Here's what they said.

I would argue that it's actually more freeing for a woman to know that these images are made with AI and that they are, that doesn't exist and that they're just a digital, created through a digital medium. And so the woman in the pictures actually didn't perhaps start for herself or I believe it's maybe more freeing because you actually don't compare with something that doesn't exist. Hmm. So that's a really interesting perspective. I agree that looking at an AI generated figure, we might start to say, well, because this isn't real, I don't even see the value in comparing myself to it. But the problem is, in some ways, AI has crossed over that uncanny valley where we can understand that it's not real. So the only way that perspective is going to work is if it's clearly identified that the figure you're looking at is AI generated. Without that labeling, which there is no kind of industry rule that that has to happen, we really have no idea.

And that's still a pretty broad assumption. Because they're so perfect and because they're AI, people won't compare themselves to it. I think we would have to leave that question to the Department of Psychology. What is the obligation, in your mind, that fashion companies, AI companies have to disclose the use of these models? And where does that conversation stand right now in the industry? In some ways, it could be argued that there is a lot of editing that happens in photo shoots anyways. And that transparency has never been declared for viewers. In the last couple of years, people have started to demand more natural, more realistic photography.

But when it comes to AI, if we were to continue that line of this kind of blur, How much is real? How much was edited? But this actually isn't a question that's even unique to fashion, right? We're all trying to grapple with how do we understand what is real and what is not in an AI-first world? And it just so happens that this is also going to apply to an industry like fashion and shopping. When we talk about fashion, we're talking about an industry that's never been known as being great on representation in terms of body size, racial diversity. So how does the introduction of AI into this conversation change the debate over representation in the modeling world? Models themselves have worked really hard to build an industry in the last couple

years that is more reflective of the breadth and depth of diversity we see in society. And so what happens to the gains from those actual models who are now kind of kicked off the payroll? And then the second is there's kind of unique areas for exploitation to occur here. So a company could just generate the illusion of diversity and create characters from a community that perhaps nobody in that fashion company or in that brand has anybody on the payroll that represents that community. So you're profiting off of a community that you're speaking on behalf of. And maybe that community would have not worked with that brand. So you get to kind of take control over where communities appear in advertising, which I think could be problematic. And then

the second area of exploitation is misrepresentation. Right. So you could create an identity of, say, an AI-generated black woman that misrepresents that community. So there are all of these kind of strange areas, and I call it digital cultural appropriation, where it's not illegal, right? Cultural appropriation, of course, not illegal, but we as a society decided,

this probably isn't a good thing. Let's draw a line here. And it doesn't mean all characters, AI characters, have to represent the exact people in the companies. No, that's kind of ridiculous. But we do have to figure out what are the new, lines of representation in an era when you can generate identities using artificial intelligence. Wow. Such interesting questions. Sheneid Beauvel, thank you so much. Thanks for having me.

Thank you.