PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 18, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: August 18, 2025

Monday on the News Hour, President Trump meets with European leaders and Ukraine's president to discuss the war days after his summit with Putin. What Washington residents have to say about the presence of National Guard troops after the president's federal takeover of their city. Plus, Texas Democrats end their standoff, allowing a Republican power grab through redistricting to move forward. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. I'm the Navaz is away. On the news hour tonight, I believe a peace agreement at the end of all of this is something that's very attainable. President Trump meets with European leaders and the president of Ukraine to discuss that nation's future in light of Russia's proposals to end the war. We speak with residents of Washington, D.C., about the presence of National Guard troops after the president's federal takeover of their What the rest of the country needs to understand is while they have more legal basis for doing it in D.C., this is their goal across the country. And Texas Democrats end their standoff in return to the legislature, allowing a Republican power grab through redistricting to move forward. Welcome to the News Hour. Leaders from across Europe descended on Washington today

and a remarkable show of support for Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. Who came to the White House to meet President Trump. The hastily arranged summit followed Friday's anchorage meeting between Mr. Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin. Today's gathering lacked the red carpet treatment Trump gave Putin and indicted war criminal but had the same goal to end three and a half years of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. Nick Schifrin starts our coverage from the White House.

At the White House today, a leader at war survived what his aides worried was a diplomatic minefield and received promises from President Trump of long-term U.S. support. We're going to be discussing it today, but we will give them very good protection, very good security. In a deal outlined today, Ukraine's ability to guarantee its security, will rely on European troops sent into Ukraine. as well as European weapons, and Europe's purchasing American weapons to be dispatched to Ukraine. And today, President Trump declined on three occasions to rule out sending U.S. troops.

Are you going to be willing to send American peacekeepers to Ukraine? Well, we're going to work with Ukraine. We're going to work with everybody, and we're going to make sure that if there's peace, the peace is going to stay long term. Could that involve U.S. troops? Would you roll that out in the future? We'll let you know that maybe later today. that may be later today.

What's the Korean guarantees do you need from President Trump to be able to make a deal? Is it American troops, intelligent, equipment? What is it? Everything. It's a lot about weapon and people and training issues and intelligence. And second, we will discuss with our partners.

It depends on the big countries, on the United States, on a lot of our friends. We're really honored you guys came over. The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky got by with more. more than a little help from those friends today, the largest ever gathering of Europeans in Washington outside a NATO summit, NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta. And the fact that you have said, I'm willing to participate in the security guarantees,

is a big step. It's really a breakthrough, and it makes all the difference. And those guarantees described today as similar to NATO's core principle of collective defense, Italian Prime Minister Georgia Maloney. I'm happy that we will begin from a proposal, which is the, let's say, Article 5 model. It's something we have to build together to guarantee peace. But German Chancellor Friedrich Mertz said there was a pressing principle. I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire. So let's work on that and let's try to put pressure on Russia because the credibility of these efforts we are

undertaking today are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations. President Trump suggested that proposal was already rejected by Putin. If we can do the ceasefire, great. And if we don't do a ceasefire, because many other points were given to us, many, many points were given to us great points. But part of any deal is expected to include a redrawn map, as President Trump discussed with Zelensky in the Oval Office. Russia demands Ukraine withdraw entire. entirely from Donetsk, even though Ukraine still controls part of the province. That would give Russia full control of the Donbass, Ukraine's industrial engine and a key

to the country's defense. Russia's then willing to negotiate in neighboring Zaporizia and Herzan, based on the location of the front line. It's also willing to give back Ukrainian territory it occupies to the north in Kharkiv and Summa. But Russian troops and Russian-backed separatists have been fighting to conquer the Donbass for 11 years. The Kremlin's demand to be given territory that its soldiers have failed to seize is impossible,

Zelensky said yesterday. Russia is still unsuccessful in Donetsk region. Putin has been unable to take it for 12 years. And the constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible, impossible to give up territory or trade land. Before the White House meetings, the Europeans coordinated to present a united front. He called for, quote, joint pressure, including increased sanctions on Russia. But the U.S. will not impose more sanctions during negotiations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this weekend.

The minute you levy new sanctions, those talks probably stop for the foreseeable future, and that means the war continues for the foreseeable future. I hope that doesn't happen. We may very well wind up there, but we're going to try to do everything to prevent it because we want to reach a peace agreement. But some U.S. officials believe even if Putin were given a new map, he would refuse to make peace. In the past, he's demanded Ukraine capped the size of its military and its western support,

and even demanded the U.S. reduce its troops in NATO's eastern flank, as he alluded to, during Friday's Anchorage Summit. We're convinced in order to make this settlement extremely lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate all the primary routes, the primary causes of that conflict. Of course, the European officials who are still meeting with President Trump in the White House behind me believe that the root cause of the war is Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Tonight, Vladimir Putin's top foreign policy aid has confirmed that President Trump called Vladimir

Putin in a call that was described as, quote, frank and constructive. A senior Ukrainian official participating in the meetings tonight tells me that the Oval Office meeting was, quote, very good, and the whole day has gone, quote, more than good, indicating Jeff, that at least the Ukrainians, or from their perspective, they've achieved what they sought to achieve today. And, Nick, what more do we know about what that means? We really don't have many details, Jeff. As I reported at the top of the piece, Ukrainian officials were worried about how today would go, and so their expectations were low. But they had European unity on their side, including many European leaders whom President Trump has grown

quite fond of. And they had momentum already on a key point, security guarantees. Already President Trump's aides were out describing the security guarantees that the U.S. could participate in as NATO-like, as Article 5 like, the idea of NATO's collective defense. And today was the first time that President Trump publicly endorsed the idea of a long-term U.S. presence or a long-term U.S. security support for Ukraine, and he didn't rule out U.S. troops being part of that. Europeans will commit troops for sure, as well as a large amount of money to buy American weapons for Ukraine. But how far President Trump is willing to go, Jeff, that will determine how sweet or sour this deal is for Zelensky. U.S. officials tell me that Zelensky wasn't expected to say yes tonight, but they expected him not to say no and to go back to Kiev and perhaps present a counteroffer.

And Nick, what more can you tell us about President Trump's call to Putin today? What did they talk about? According to Russian media, just out in the last few minutes, they did discuss that trilateral meeting that President Trump has promised and that President Zelensky. the White House today endorse. And his aides, President Trump's aides, really strongly object to the idea that the Friday summit in Anchorage was some kind of win for President Putin. They argue that that summit moved the ball along, allowed this meeting today, allowed the phone call between President Trump and President Putin tonight. And then at that summit, Putin agreed that the security guarantees could be offered by the United States to Ukraine, But of course, they're still sticking points, Jeff.

You heard Frederick Merritt's raised the idea of a ceasefire before the next meeting. That is not something that President Trump endorsed. And Europe wants to keep pressure on Russia. And as you heard, Rubio and others, senior officials saying they will not impose more sanctions while these negotiations continue. Jeff. Nick Schiffrin at the White House for us tonight, Nick, thank you. Thank you. And for perspective on today's meetings at the White House and the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine,

we get two views now. Charles Cupsian served on the National Security Council staff during the Obama and Clinton administrations. He's now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Georgetown University professor, and David Kramer was Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor during the George W. Bush administration. He's now executive director of the George W. Bush Institute, a think tank that focuses on domestic and international issues. It's great to have you both here. Charles, we'll start with you. Do you believe this proposal on the take? Ukraine surrendering territory in exchange for as yet vague promises of security. Do you believe that is a credible pathway toward a lasting peace? I would say that it's a framework that has potential. There are a lot of details that we just don't know yet. And as a consequence, we don't know whether this is going to flame out at the next level when Putin, Zelensky, and Trump sit down, or whether there really is a foundation. here for moving forward. I think there are two critical issues that one needs to focus on.

One is this land swap that has been put forward. No question that it would be a bitter pill for Zelensky to seed land in Donetsk, about 30 percent of it. Ukraine still controls over to Russia, even though many, many tens of thousands of Ukrainians have died on those territories, defending that territorial-important area, minerals, resources, and strategic importance, because it's a front line that's fortified. The other key issue, and this in some ways, I think is the $6 million question, is what is Putin prepared to accept on the other side of that ceasefire line? Is Putin ready to let Ukraine go? Is Putin ready to acknowledge that he has lost the 80% of Ukraine that is still Ukraine. Let it have the army that it desires. Let it have

Western security guarantees. We don't yet have the answer to that question. Putin needs to be smoked out. I think that's the critical question that will determine whether Zelensky can say yes to this deal. And David, how do you see it? Do you agree that this is a framework with potential? Are there too many concessions here that could potentially leave Ukraine dangerously exposed? think it is a framework for potential, and I think it's also a vast improvement over where U.S. policy was last Friday in Anchorage. There, I think Putin felt he came away from the Anchorage Summit with most of the points scored on his side. Today, I imagine Putin isn't feeling so confident about things. I think the display of unity and solidarity with the European leaders, together with President

Trump, with Zelensky, sent a very powerful signal that Putin's efforts to sow divisions on the transatlantic alliance are not going to succeed. And so I think there that was a huge improvement from Ukraine's vantage point. I do think that the administration is going to struggle with the issue of a ceasefire. This is something, of course, President Trump supported before last Friday's summit. It's something he has backed off and wants to pursue a larger peace deal. But it will be very difficult for President Zelensky to agree to sit down with Putin while Russian missiles, drones, and other bombs do tremendous damage to the Ukrainian people. I do think a ceasefire is something that the president should support.

It's something the Europeans want. It's something the Ukrainians want as well. But the biggest question mark out there will be the security guarantees that we're talked about extensively today without shedding a great deal of clarity on what they mean. On this matter of a ceasefire, Charles, is President Trump right when he says it's not realistic to expect that Vladimir Putin would agree to a ceasefire?

You know, I agree with David that everything else being equal, you stop the killing now and then you talk about the peace terms after the bloodshed has ceased. I'm guessing that Trump asked for that in Alaska because that was the deal that was struck in conversations with European allies before Trump went out to meet Putin. And Putin probably said, no, out of hand. And that's because he thinks that he has maximum leverage while he is still killing Ukrainians. And if he stops, then the pressure is off Zelensky and he's less likely to get a good deal. And then on the security guarantees, it is really in some ways the most ambiguous part of this deal. And I do think that there's some tension here. You have in President Trump, in Vice President J.D. Vance,

individuals that have been on record saying, I don't want to send any more weapons to Ukraine. I don't want to offer NATO membership to Ukraine. But they're still talking about something that would be Article 5 like. That's pretty close to a treaty ratified guarantee the security of Ukraine. And so I think there's a big discussion that needs to happen inside the Trump administration about precisely what it is prepared to do to grant security guarantees to Ukraine and, importantly, what the Europeans are prepared to do. Because there, there is actually talk about a coalition of the willing that would put boots on the ground to serve as a deterrent force against a restart of this war by Russia. Russia is still saying, hey, we don't want

any foreign troops and particularly NATO troops on the ground. So a lot, a lot of hard conversations ahead if we're going to see this dialogue go forward. Well, on both those points, David, what kind of support Kenvalodemir Zelensky count on from the Trump administration? And do you believe major European powers like France, Germany, the U.K., are truly prepared to put troops on the ground in Ukraine to prevent further Russian aggression? Jeff, let me first say on a ceasefire. The reason Putin doesn't support a ceasefire is he doesn't support peace in Ukraine. He wants to take over Ukraine. He wants to decapitate the Ukrainian government. He wants to control Ukrainian territory. And he wants to make sure

that Ukraine never moves toward the West or become a successful democracy that could pose a real threat as a competitor to Russia's corrupt authoritarian regime. But I think the West can do things to make Putin an offer he can't refuse by moving ahead with the sanctions. I don't think Secretary Rubio is right. I think the sanctions are what Putin wants to avoid if we impose tough sanctions. If we went ahead with the tariffs against China, as we have done with India because of their extensive imports of Russian energy, if we move ahead with not just freezing but seizing the $300 billion in Russian assets that are in Western financial institutions and make it very clear we're going to continue the military support for Ukraine. President Putin should not have a veto over whether

Ukraine allows foreign forces invited foreign forces on its territory. Russian forces are not invited. They're invaders, they're occupiers, they're committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. But if Ukraine needs European forces, possibly even American troops on the ground to secure its safety and security, then that's Ukraine's right to decide. We've got a couple of minutes left and I want to get you both to weigh in on this question. If this war ends with Ukraine losing significant territory but gaining security, guarantees, does that ultimately strengthen or weaken the global norms against territorial conquest? David, we'll start with you.

This is a war that is not just between Russia and Ukraine. It's not just a European conflict. This is a war that has global implications. We saw that in 2022 when Russia tried to block Ukrainian exports of agricultural and other products through the Black Sea. We saw it with a spike in energy prices in 2022. But also, we have to be very mindful that the Communist Party leadership in China is watching whether the West will sustain its support for Ukraine. Among Ukraine's strongest supporters are Taiwanese. They understand that how we help Ukraine, how we sustain our assistance for Ukraine, will have an impact on the thinking in Beijing vis-a-vis Taipei. So this is a conflict that has global repercussions and ramifications. And it's important that we

sustain our support for Ukraine. We also encourage the Europeans to do so. The Europeans have certainly stepped up. Charles. You know, Jeff, I think under the best of possible circumstances, the outcome of this war will constitute a setback for global norms. Because the, you know, the Ukrainians are going to lose some percent of their territory. Russia will have taken a chunk out of Ukraine by force. But the reality is that Ukraine doesn't have the capability to push them out. And ultimately, you have to allow pragmatism to Trump principle. So if Ukraine can see itself to turn into a success story, defensible, secure, democratic, anchored in the West, security guarantees from European countries in the United States, I think Zelensky should take this deal,

because it's the best offer he's going to get. And the alternative is a war that grinds on for years that could ultimately turn Ukraine into a failed state. Charles Cupson, David Kramer, thank you both for your time and for your insights this evening. We appreciate it. Thank you. In the day's other headlines,

Hurricane Aaron is roaring past the Bahamas today a Category 4 storm while the U.S. braces for possible impacts in the coming days. Aaron is expected to remain offshore and turn away from the East Coast later this week, but forecasters are warning of dangerous waves, rip currents, and high winds as it passes by. Aaron's outer bands hit parts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands this weekend when it rapidly intensified from a Category 1 storm to a Category 5 in just over 24 hours. Experts say that makes Aaron one of the most rapidly intensifying Atlantic hurricanes ever recorded. In Pakistan, more than 150 people are still missing after flash floods devastated the country late last week.

So far, the downpours have killed more than 275 people, mostly in Pakistan's northern regions, where glacial rivers carved through the steep terrain of the Himalayas. Today's search efforts were interrupted by fresh rains, and many villagers fear water levels will rise again, leaving them with nowhere to go. When we came back to our homes last night, we were afraid that the rain and flood would enter our houses again. Children are scared. People cannot sleep in their homes.

They were up the whole night, fearing the flood could hit their houses. Monsoon rains have killed more than 600 people across Pakistan since the start of summer. From floods to wildfires, in Spain, firefighters are struggling to contain nearly two dozen wildfires. dozen wildfires that have been fueled by an unrelenting heat wave. The fires have burned an area

more than twice the size of London, the largest area covered in two decades. Scorching temperatures that have lasted for more than two weeks and reached 114 degrees Fahrenheit just yesterday have made firefighting conditions treacherous. The Spanish Army has deployed 3,000 troops and 50 aircraft to help firefighters, and at least six European nations have offered support. The fires have killed at least eight people across southern Europe. A flight attendant strike at Air Canada entered its third day today. The country's labor authority is calling the walk off at the country's largest airline illegal. I say what? Won't fly. I say what? Won't fly. But for the second time in as many days, 10,000 union flight attendants have not complied with return to work orders. The sides

remained far apart on issues like higher wages and attendant pay both before planes take off and after they land. Air Canada has canceled hundreds of flights per day as a result of the stoppage, upending travel for 500,000 passengers. The conservative cable network Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to Dominion voting systems to settle a defamation lawsuit. The voting machine company had accused the Trump-aligned cable channel of broadcasting false claims that it rigged votes against Mr. Trump in his 2020 election loss. Today's settlement comes after Fox News paid over $787 million two years ago to settle a similar defamation lawsuit. Meantime, MSNBC announced it will change its name later this year as it splits from parent company NBC Universal.

The rebrand will be called My Source News Opinion World, or MS Now for short, and it'll drop NBC's peacock from its logo. MSNBC has been building a separate news division for months as it spins off from NBC with other networks like USA and E. None of those other networks are changing their names, including financial station CNBC. On Wall Street today, stocks were mostly flat holding near their all-time records. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had the biggest relative drop on the day, losing nearly a tenth of a percent. the NASDAQ was the only minimal gain among the major indices, and the S&P ended virtually unchanged. And here's a word we never imagined we'd say on the news hour.

Skibbidi isn't just internet slang anymore, it's an official term in the Cambridge Dictionary. Skibbony, a term coined on YouTube, can mean good or it can mean bad depending on the context. Cambridge Dictionary announced more than 6,000 new entries this year, including Tradwife, which is shorthand for the traditional wife. influence her lifestyle. Delulu, short for delusional and forever chemical, referring to pollutants that linger in the environment. Well, still to come on the news hour, a Republican power grab through redistricting moves forward after Texas Democrats return to the legislature. Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the latest political headlines, and newly released recordings rekindle

interest in folk singer Woody Guthrie's music. This is the PBS News. hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at W.E.T.A. in Washington. And in the west from the Walter Kronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. Residents of Washington, D.C. and the surrounding region are still adapting to life under federal control after the president seized authority over the city's police force and deployed the National Guard. Nearly 400 people have been arrested in the Capitol since the takeover last week. And today, Mississippi and Louisiana joined a number of other Republican-led states in sending hundreds more troops to the nation's

capital. In recent days, our team has fanned out across the city to hear how daily life has changed and what residents make of the president's move. Hundreds of National Guard troops are now stationed around parts of Washington, D.C., and its iconic landmarks. Nightly checkpoints have become routine in some areas of the city, as have protests against the increased security presence. We don't have the sort of crime problem that President Trump is describing. People do feel safe.

Several DC residents, like retired George Washington University professor Jeff Levy, joined a recent protest in front of the Metropolitan Police headquarters. What the rest of the country needs to understand is while they have more legal basis for doing it in DC, this is their goal across the country. Protect DC. This Alexandria Virginia native who asked us not

to use her name also join the demonstrations. They're trying to make it less and less safe and make you more and more scared. So I hope people will just stand up and let their voices be heard because most people do not want this. Lorena and Josiah Bowie just arrived in Washington, D.C. from Florida

as Jaze prepares to begin college at American University. From what I've seen so far, D.C. has been one of the safest places I've been. There is not one hint of some sort of crime epidemic. One of the first stops for the mother and son was the National Mall, where National Guard troops were on patrol, even stopping for photos with tourists. The National Guard is walking by.

So these are the first officers that we do see. I was expecting them to be all over the place, and I guess little by little they are coming through everywhere. To me, it's extremely sad because this is not what this country was founded on. Although the president declared a crime emergency in Washington, Earlier this year, the Justice Department reported that violent crime in D.C. had hit a 30-year low. And many residents went about life as usual over the weekend, including Jeff Menzer, who we met at a local farmer's market. I generally feel safe. I go out at night. I, you know, fortunately, I do live in a neighborhood that is relatively safe.

It actually has an ongoing police presence because it's on Capitol Hill, but random crimes do happen. But a major reason cited by the Trump administration for placing the city under federal control was to target juvenile crime in the nation's capital. D.C. police say the three teen carjackers got caught up in traffic, which soared in Washington during the pandemic as well as around the country. It has since fallen to level seen in other cities, but then came a highly publicized attack on a Trump administration official by a group of teenagers earlier this month.

I see too much violent crime being committed by Young punks who think that they can get together in gangs and crews and beat the hell out of you or anyone else. Shajib Udala and his wife own this convenience store at Heckenger Mall in northeast D.C., an area long plagued by high crime. Their store was recently robbed and vandalized by dozens of teenagers, and Udala says D.C. police needs more than 30 people robbing us, and they show up like more than 30 minutes late. that's when I don't think so they are enough. They might be busy for somewhere else. So he's not, I don't think so, it's not enough police are down here. They say they welcome the federal takeover,

but at least so far, they say they haven't seen an increase in security in this neighborhood. Of course, they're going to be over there, why, because it's close to the White House or capital or something. They need to have it more in the D.C. area where they know the crime is. Not far from their store, Abdullah Saleem runs this boxing gym in the Trinidad neighborhood, where he mentors local teens. We need order in our city. If you don't have no order, you ain't got no city. He hasn't seen an increased presence in his neighborhood either,

but he says he supports what the president is doing. I've been seeing a lot of atrocity, a lot of murders, a lot of innocent children, a lot of innocent babies, and there's nothing done about. While much of the efforts so far appears to have focused on areas closer to the White House. Federal agents have shown up in some high crime areas of the city, but some residents aren't happy about it.

They started pulling up, just SD hopped out style of resiners, put one of my homies and handcuffs. This 19-year-old, who asked us not to use his name, lives in Ward 8 in Southeast Washington, which has among the highest crime rates in the city. Last week, he recorded this video showing agents from multiple agencies at this housing complex, where he says, He and his friends were simply hanging out late into the evening.

They had firearms, they had their weapons, and we didn't have nothing but just ourselves to protect and make sure everybody was good. They just basically harassing us for real. People getting pulled over, left and right. I've seen checkpoints everywhere. I felt like I was in a foreign country. Nathaniel Long co-owns District Alley, a bar in the popular nightlife area of U Street in northwest D.C. Where social media video has captured crowds reacting to the new checkpoint. He agrees that crime is an issue in D.C., but says the White House won't solve it by force alone.

It's like a takeover instead of like, let's add some aid and let's work with the local authorities and city. I mean, it's like a bull and a china shop, and it doesn't have to be that way. This year, House Republicans have withheld more than a billion dollars of D.C.'s budget, while the White House has also made cuts, including to police, security. and the courts. That's added to many residents' skepticism about President Trump's plans for D.C. They told us they was coming every day.

So that's basically what I'm expecting for them to come every day. The problem is the threat is always going to be there. This administration, this president, has a pretty short attention span that they will have to move on to something else. And perhaps they'll release the Epstein files. We've gone through many dark times before,

and I think this is just another dark time. And I do believe that it's up to us as, you know, citizens to stay active and to not give up or give in. The emergency authority gives the president power over the city's police force for 30 days. But he's already said he wants that extended. State lawmakers are back in session today. in Texas, and that includes Democrats who've now returned after leaving to block partisan redistricting. The House Speaker gaveled the chamber in for business for the first time in two weeks. We are done waiting. We have a quorum. Now is the time for action. We will move quickly,

and the schedule will be demanding until our work is complete. Texas Democrats returned because California Democrats are planning their own partisan map to counteract any GOP gains. I'm not happy to be here. We didn't choose this fight. We don't want this fight. But with our democracy on the line, we cannot run away from this fight. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin has more. Jeff, this battle of the maps could decide the next battle for Congress.

To dig into what's happening, we're joined by Dr. Sam Wong, director of the Electoral Innovation Lab, whose pioneered ways to analyze gerrymandering. Sam, let's start with California. If you look at the maps, the one on the left is the current, congressional map. And then on the right, you see what Democrats are now proposing. Help us understand what Democrats are doing in California and how many seats do you think they could gain. Well, Democrats are working with a map that is drawn by an independent commission,

and that commission went to efforts to represent different parts of the state. So as a result, there are Republican-leaning parts of the state that are represented. Democratic-leaning parts of the state also represented. Democrats have now sketched out a draft man. that will pick them up around five or six seats. And the way they've done it is by arranging parts of the state to be more favorable to them. And so the Independent Commission tried to respect communities. And now what the Democrats are trying to do is draw a map for the next few elections, a temporary map that will basically take Republicans and pack them into a smaller number of districts

or split them. And through this artful arrangement, gain an advantage of a five-seat gain compared with the neutral map that's in place now. Texas Republicans are hoping to also gain at least five seats there, but do you think they can? Your estimate's a little different. It's going to be a little bit tough. So the current Texas map is already gerrymandered to favor Republicans. What they're trying to do is eliminate districts in the Dallas area, the Houston area, I believe San Antonio, and then along the southern border. Some of that is going to involve drawing districts that violate the

Voting Rights Act, and so they're hoping to get the Supreme Court to go along with that and basically change the state of play for Hispanic voters and parts of the state. The hard thing for them is that they have assumed that they're going to get performance like what Trump got against Harris in 2024. But that could backfire because, of course, voters can swing back and forth. And especially Hispanic communities, because that's a constituency that's been moving fast in the last few years, could move back again because of actions by ICE and so on. It's hard to predict how they're going to react to what's been happening over the last year. And that's a gamble that Texas Republicans are taking. And we know the pattern with midterm elections anyways with an incoming president.

Usually it goes the other way. But to your point, Texas Democrats are using strong language. They are saying these maps are racist. Republicans say that's offensive. They say that's not true. But in your analysis, what do you know about the shifts affecting different races and their power, their ability to be represented in Texas from the proposed map? Well, the state of the law right now, Lisa, is that districting has to follow a bunch of federal rules, including compliance with federal law on the Voting Rights Act. And so there are districts in Texas now that respect that, that give Hispanic communities power. And so redrawing districts to take away that is a natural consequence of drawing a partisan gerrymander because party and race are so often

correlated. Hispanic voters tend to vote Democratic in the urban areas of Texas. And so doing away with those districts would naturally affect racial representation. And so it's hard to change one without changing the other. How convoluted are these maps? Are there any examples that stand out to you? Oh, there are some good ones. Let's see. So one that sticks out to me is the Texas, I believe, the 32nd district, which is a district in the new draft that kind of starts in East Dallas and then goes out like a kind of like a tadpole shape and it goes out towards Arkansas. And it gets most of the way to the Arkansas border. If you know Texas at all, from Dallas to the Arkansas border is a good long drive. And so that's a shape that is basically a thing that gerrymandering can do for either

Democrats or Republicans make a kind of a pie slice that starts in the city and then goes out to rural areas. Overall, where do you think this now we see kind of fervent effort to look at redistricting puts Republicans and Democrats? Who benefits here? What does it tell you about the parties? Partisan redistricting peaked 10 years ago in 2012, and until today, until this month, gerrymandering actually is somewhat lower than 10 years ago. So now, with just a few seats in Congress needing to flip in order to give Democrats control, there's a certain whiff of desperation to try to find seats anywhere to flip control. Now, in a median year, it only takes 13 seats, a typical change in a midterm year is 13 seats. And so Democrats and Republicans are trying to tilt that a little

bit. The major places where they're trying to do it are Texas, Ohio, and Florida on the Republican side, California on the Democratic side. The net, if it all came to pass, would be, in our estimation, at the Electoral Innovation Lab, maybe five or six seats. So not quite as much as what typically happens when people change their minds in an election, but in a really tight race could make the difference. Sam Wong, thank you so much for talking with us. Thank you, Lisa. For more on the politics of the redistricting fight. We're joined now by our Politics Monday duo. That's Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR.

It's great to see you both. Hello. Good to be here. So the Texas House of Representatives reached a quorum today after Democrats returned, ending their two-week standoff, now paving the way for Republicans to pass these congressional maps that could net the GOP as many as five seats. Democrats are claiming a moral victory because they elevated this issue to a national platform. Is that enough a moral victory versus an actual victory? Well, they don't have the numbers to be able to have an actual victory here. The only victory they can get is a moral victory. And certainly they have raised the profile of this as an issue. The state of California

is now moving forward with trying to get a ballot measure that would change their maps, at least temporarily. That is a direct reaction to what's happening in Texas. So certainly people are talking about this mid-course redistricting in a way that they weren't before. If it had sort of been slammed through, the likelihood is that it would have been maybe a new cycle or two, and now it's been a couple of weeks. Tam mentioned California. What do those maps look like and what hoops need to be surmounted? There are many more hoops. Now, obviously, Texas had the hoops. They had to have a quorum, but now that that's done, it's much easier to get those maps done. In California, they do want to put this onto the ballot. So this would be a special election

to vote specifically on changing the current law, which says that an independent redistricting commission draws the lines. Here, they would say, because, and literally, we haven't seen the language yet, but the language would look something like, we're only doing this because of what Republicans did in Texas. This will be short term, only last through 2030, which is the next redistricting year. But they have to get all of that language and the legislature to sign off on the maps by Friday. So that's one hoop. Democrats feel very confident.

They're going to have the votes in the legislature. It is overwhelmingly Democratic, not surprisingly. Then the big hoop, and that's getting voters in the state to agree to overturn something that they do like, which is an independent commission. And this is the challenge for Governor Newsom and his allies, not only is he trying to convince voters to give up something they like, even just for the short term, but he has some pretty powerful adversaries in this. The person who held that seat of governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, for years, who was the person who was governor and had pushed this during his term as governor, an independent redistricting commission, that is, is coming out against this. So this is going to be a huge, expensive battle. The most important thing for Newsom to be able to do to succeed, for Democrats to succeed, is to convince voters that this really isn't about redistricting.

This isn't about lines. This is about Donald Trump. And hoping that making it about Donald Trump, in fact, they're not calling it the Trump bill, but they are calling it election rigging act, the anti-rigging act, essentially, to tell voters, don't think about it so much as all of this gerrymandering thing. Think about it as preventing Donald Trump from getting what he wants. And if Newsom is successful, after all of that, then voters have to actually vote for the individual candidates who run in those races.

Well, that's a whole other long story. That's the same thing with Texas, too. These lines are potentially being drawn, but these races are not being decided. Until next November. Yeah, until next November. And it depends on candidates, and it depends on voters, and it depends on the economy and a whole bunch of other things

that you can't control just by drawing lines on a map. That's right. And this certainly sets Newsom up to be the opposition leader looking ahead to 2020. That's right. You know, as the Democratic Party

is trying to figure out who are we, what do we stand for, who's the sort of stand in right now as the leader of our party, this gives Newsom a pretty high-profile platform. Of course, if it fails, then that also is a platform that he will have to

explain if he does decide to run in in 2028. Well, as we talk about maps and elections and voters, President Trump said he's going to sign an executive order to abolish mail-in voting, Tam. In many ways, parroting what Vladimir Putin told him on Friday, Putin said, U.S. elections were rigged because of postal ballots. In fact, that's not true. Election officials say voting has never been as secure. What's this all about? This is something that President Trump has been raging about since he won the first time, really.

He has been looking for some sort of explanation for why he didn't get as many votes as he thought he should. Going back to 2016, then again in 2020, certainly that was a very big deal, and he has not gotten over it. He is repeated, though there's nothing really to back this up, that mail-in balloting is why he lost in 2020, and we know that he has not really ever accepted that he really lost. So that's at the core of this. And it does set up something very interesting. One, voting is pretty much decided by the states. It's not a federal jurisdiction.

Voting is a state and local thing. So that is a significant barrier to what he's trying to do here. Certainly he could inspire Republican states, but they've already been inspired. But it also sets up the issue where, you know, in 2024, Republicans did a really good job of harvesting. mailing ballots and getting people to, quote, bank their vote. And they did a decent job of getting Trump not to talk about mail-in voting because banking the vote is a key strategy for elections, for parties. So that'll be a fascinating tension if he continues along this path. And of course, as you know, as a White House correspondent, this is true that if you ask Donald

Trump what he's thinking, he will tell you. He will. And so here's what he said, basically revealing his motivation for all of this. Mail-in ballots are corrupt. Mail-in ballots, you can never have a real democracy with mail-in balance. And we, as a Republican Party, are going to do everything possible that we get rid of mail-in ballots. It's time that the Republicans get tough and stop it, because the Democrats want it. It's the only way they can get elected. So he's saying mail-in ballots benefits Democrats. Is that true?

Right. There is still a partisan difference. difference. It wasn't always this way between who uses mail and ballots and who doesn't, largely driven by Donald Trump during the 2020 election when he at first was saying that these cannot be trusted. It's changed a little bit. And Tam's right in the 2024 election. Republicans worked very hard to try to undo all of that. But where Republicans really do well now is when the electorate is as big as possible. It wasn't always the case. Part of the reason that Republicans really liked mail-in voting.

They were very good at mail-in voting was because it could be very targeted. Now, they really want to get the pool of voters as big as possible. And one way to get the pool as big as possible is to make it as easy as possible to vote. If you're denying mail-in voting, then especially in states at West,

where that is de rigour, that can be problematic. Yeah. Annie Walter, Tamara Keith. Great conversation. Thank you both. Thank you. You're welcome.

Nearly 60 years after his death, American folk icon and social activist Woody Guthrie is experiencing a resurgence of interest. Last week, Guthrie's publishing company released a new album featuring never-before-heard recordings, a mix of original songs and intimate spoken reflections. meantime, on stages around the world, some of the biggest names in Folk and Rock are adding Guthrie classics back into their set lists, underscoring his enduring influence. Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown has more for our series, Art in Action, exploring the intersection of art and democracy as part of our canvas coverage. This land is your land, and this land is my land. Woody Guthrie in a way we've never heard him before. His voice weakened by illness, recording his American classic.

Even adding a few previously unheard verses, in his Brooklyn, New York apartment, all captured on a two-channel tape recorder, surrounded by the sounds of everyday life, And his wife and small children. That's about all I've got to say. Can I say hello? Hello.

You know, I never knew my grandfather. Anna Canoni is Woody Guthrie's granddaughter and the current president of Woody Guthrie publications. This is the first time I ever got to hear my grandfather as if he was just my grandfather. You know, the intimacy of being in a home with a musician who just kind of picks up a guitar and plays while you're in the middle of a conversation.

A conversation taking place on the new release Woody at Home, Volume 1 and 2. In addition to well-known favorites, the album from recordings in 1951 and 52 includes 13 never-before-heard songs. And covers a wide range of topics from war and politics to love. It also contains three tracks of Guthrie talking, including to his music publisher, Howie Richman. Howie, I'd like to talk to a couple of words about this idea of changing songs around. The recordings were made to protect Guthrie's rights to his songs and allow his publisher to share them with others in the music industry. It's rough and raw and intimate. There's really nothing fancy about it. You really feel like you're in

same room with him, kind of a fly on the wall. British singer-songwriter and activist Billy Bragg's relationship with Woody Guthrie goes back decades, playing his music and helping bring it to new audiences. And Bragg was one of the first people Anna Canoni sought feedback from on the new release. I heard someone trying to make sense of the life that they were living in in New York and the early 1950s reflecting not just what was happening around them, but what was happening in the home, what was happening in their day, what was happening in their life. You either think of him out on the road covered in dust or if you know a little bit about him

in the Merchant Navy in the Second World War, but you certainly don't imagine him sitting around looking after the kids in his house in Coney Island. Guthrie was born in 1912 in Oklahoma and as a young man during the Depression moved around the country, including to Los Angeles, where he hosted a radio show. He served in the Merchant Marines and Army in World War II, and then came to New York, all the while crafting songs of life in America, often of the poor and dispossessed. The years in New York would be some of Guthrie's most prolific and see a growing influence, eventually on several generations of musicians, famously including Bob Dylan, a relationship dramatized in the recent film a

complete unknown. I wanted me, would he? Mm-hmm. He also began to show signs of Huntington's disease, a neurodegenerative disorder that would lead to his early death at age 55. To restore the tapes, Canoni worked with Steve Rosenthal, a four-time Grammy-winning producer. The audio technology that we used, it was able to take a mono recording. We have been under in a blue-green sky where the good angels go to fly.

and separate it out into Woody's guitar, Woody's voice, background noises, and a hum. So that all that emerges is really just Woody. Said the big landlord to the backdoor bum, he's getting awful tired. Guthrie's writing about the marginalized and oppressed has made his songs a staple ingredient of protest movements since the 1950s. He represents the kind of big brass, spike that earth the singer-songwriter tradition that I am a part of. So in that sense, Woody is perhaps one of the first alternative songwriters. He wasn't just writing songs for commercial purposes. He was writing songs to put across a set of ideas that he strongly believed in. And all the more so amid

today's political and social upheavals as musicians such as Bruce Springsteen. And songwriter and social activists, Ani DeFranco, are playing his songs to protest Trump administration policies. Woody was awake. I think Woody was compassionate and trying to bestow love and truth. Politically speaking, we are in very perilous and desperate political times. So I think a timeless voice of unity and equality and justice, like Woody's, is very important now. The new album contains the only known recording by Guthrie of one of his most famous songs, Deportee, written in 1948. They're flying me back to our old Mexican border. About 28 migrant farm workers who died when the plane deporting them back to Mexico crashed. It's an especially timely song, and now more than ever.

I think there are many kinds of protest songs, but I think the classic protest song is galvanizing and motivating, you know, a song that sees and recognizes a social political problem and motivates people to address it, to confront it, to overcome. Billy Bragg has also been performing War of Guthrie's music since the start of Donald Trump's second term. In these times, he represents a patriotic American who stood up for what he believed in. But currently, one of the songs from Woody's repertoire that I'm using to address the things that Donald Trump is doing is all you fascists are bound to lose.

I'm trying to make an argument in that that we don't slip. From autocracy into something much deeper and much darker. For Anna Canoni, the political, mishes with the personal. You know, he's singing songs about injustice, racism, greed, corruption. Get ready for the bugle call of tea. It's Bob Dylan, right? He said, you can listen to a Woody Guthrie song and actually learn how to live. I've been following that line kind of so hard

that I've looked through almost every single lyric, my grandfather has written to figure out the kind of person I want to be. I love using Woody as a tool in my tool belt to go through life, and I think a lot of musicians do too. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Jeffrey Brown. This land is made for you and me. And that's the News Hour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.