PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 20, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

Wednesday on the News Hour, NATO leaders plan what role U.S. and European forces could play in the future defense of Ukraine. The American Academy of Pediatrics releases new vaccine recommendations that diverge from CDC guidelines. Plus, the challenge of making Florida communities more resilient to climate change amid potential federal funding cuts. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, NATO leaders plan what role U.S. and European forces could play in the future defense of Ukraine. The American Academy of Pediatrics releases new vaccine recommendations that diverge from CDC guidelines. And the challenge of making Florida communities more resilient to climate change amid potential federal funding cuts. We're in Hurricane Alley, and we can't necessarily. pick up our island and move it. We are the barrier to the mainland. Welcome to the news hour. Today Moscow demanded that it must participate in any security guarantees provided by the U.S. and Europe to Ukraine. That is likely a non-starter for the West that illustrates the challenge. facing the allies as they try to forge a path toward peace.

Russia's new demand comes as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff met today with his European colleagues here in Washington and NATO's military chiefs met in Europe, hoping to create a plan that would provide Ukraine the ability to defend itself and ensure its future security should the two sides come to a peace agreement. Nick Schifrin begins our coverage of today's military meetings as Russia continues to wage its war on Ukraine. In northeast Ukraine today, on day 1,273 of this full-scale war, life looks like hell. And for the residents of Sumet today, who escaped their homes hit by a Russian drone,

peace feels impossibly distant. This is the kind of attack that 32 NATO military chiefs met today to try and help Ukraine prevent. They plan security guarantees to protect a post-war Ukraine. As did Chairman and the Joint Chiefs, Dan Cain, whom European officials tell PBS NewsHour met his European counterparts today in the Pentagon. France and Britain are willing to deploy thousands of troops into Ukraine to help observe any peace deal.

They would also help support and train Ukrainian troops, Europe's most capable military, often fighting with Western weapons that need maintenance. But they can't do it alone. forces need American intelligence, coordination, logistics, and weapons. Ukraine wants $90 billion worth of American weapons paid by Europe, both offensive and defensive, including Patriot Air Defense. The U.S. publicly hasn't revealed how much military support it will provide, but it will include assistance from the air, President Trump said yesterday in a Fox News phone call.

When it comes to security, they're willing to put people on the ground. We're willing to help them with things, especially probably if you could talk about by air. We will give them very good protection, very good security. What's new this week is President Trump's assurances on Monday, the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and to European leaders, the U.S. will help. That's enough direction for the military planners to begin to detail how the U.S. can help a European force, and European officials say U.S. help is necessary.

And this coalition will work very actively now with the United States of America, which But Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today demanded Russia have a say in those security guarantees, suggesting Moscow would demand the ability to reject them. We cannot seem to agree that issues of security and collective security are now being proposed without the Russian Federation. It won't work. Which shows enormous gaps between the two sides as Russia continues to wage its war. For the PBS News Hour, I'm next.

Schiffel. For perspective on the challenges of providing a security guarantee to Ukraine, we turned to James Townsend. He had a decades-long career focusing on Europe, including as Deputy Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO policy during the Obama administration. He's now a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council. James Townsend, welcome to the News Hour. Thanks for joining us. It's great to be here. Thank you. So militaries, as you will know, can be used for offense and for defense, how can a security force or guarantee be put together that simultaneously provides security to Ukraine, but also doesn't provide Russia with the pretext that it's threatening Russia in any way? Well, the goal of this coalition of the willing and this security guarantee

is to deter Russia. It's not to threaten Russia. So the kinds of equipment that this military force could have would not be something that would be seen as good for the offense. This is something that's going to be instead something that is involving air defense. It's involving some anti-tank weapons, that kind of thing, so that it can't be mistaken as a threat to Russia. We've already heard from Sergei Lavrov of Russia that this idea won't move forward without Russian involvement or Chinese involvement. If you are Vladimir Putin, And why would you agree to any of this right now? Well, he is truly looking on this as something that will stop him from taking further advantage of Ukraine down the road.

That's for sure. And so he places a high price on having a neutral Ukraine and a Ukraine with a small military force. But if he wants something bad enough, if he wants a bigger piece of Ukraine or other kinds of, of concessions from Ukraine or from the West, then he'll give into this, maybe a reduced version of a security guarantee or a force that looks a little bit different. But if he really want something else, the price that he'll have to pay is having this security force there. So in terms of what he might agree to, what would work for Ukraine, what the NATO nations can provide. As Nick reported, you heard France and Britain say that they're willing to deploy thousands

of troops into Ukraine, who could help support and train troops in Ukraine, also help to observe any peace deal. Just give us a sense of what that looks like in practical terms on the ground. Well, in practical terms, these forces will have to be at a high state of readiness. They'll need to be outfitted with equipment that we were just talking about that are not threatening, but that are going to be successful in terms of making sure Putin understands that they are a credible force and that can be a deterrent to him. They'll need to exercise. They'll need to work with a Ukrainian military force that is also strong. So Putin can't have his way in terms of having a tiny Ukraine force come out of any agreement. That force needs to be

robust. And these two countries or other members of the coalition, the willing, need to work very well with them in concert with them to make sure Putin knows that they're going to have a hard time crossing into Ukraine with these forces on the ground? To have a force that is credible, as you say, that is robust as you say. How fraught is that, though? I mean, how do those troops, if they end up getting fired at in some way, does the Article 5 collective defense mean that these troops are now part of this larger war? Well, that's a great question, and that's what they're working on right now.

This Article 5-like scenario that they're talking about really talks about. about the nations that are sending these troops into Ukraine, that the understanding would be, and this is, again, a best guess because we don't know, but it looks like what they're going to say is that those countries sending in these troops will have to be ready to support these troops, reinforce these troops, give these troops everything they need should the Russians come across the border. And Putin needs to know that this will happen, that these troops will not go away. They won't retreat. Their countries won't come in and pull them out. That, in fact, with this kind of guarantee, that if one of those bits of the coalition is attacked, the others

will come in to their defense, along with Ukraine as well. What about the U.S. role in all of this? It's being reported late today that a senior U.S. Pentagon official told a group of allies that the U.S. will play a minimal role in Ukraine's security guarantee. Does any of this work without the U.S. acting as a backstop? Well, it can work without the U.S. providing a backstop, but the U.S. engagement is part of the deterrent for Putin. Putin's got to know that, in fact, the U.S. is part of this. We may not have boots on the ground. We may not have combat forces. A light touch U.S. engagement could be providing transportation. It could be providing intelligence. It could be cyber defense. It could be providing satellite communications.

things that the French and the Brits and others who might be in the group don't have as much of as the U.S. does. So this engagement will be helpful by the United States. It will help support those that are going to be on the front line. But it's also a strong signal to the Russians that we haven't walked away, that we're part of this too, and we're going to support that coalition and we're going to support Ukraine as well. James Townsend, senior advisor at the Atlantic Council. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. The day's other headlines start at the Texas State House

where lawmakers are moving closer to approving a controversial new congressional map that has sparked a nationwide fight over redistricting. A quorum is present. The legislature had enough members to do business today after Democratic lawmakers returned to the state, they had fled earlier this month to block the Republican-led body from voting on the new map. Pushed by President Trump, it would help Republicans pick up five more seats in next year's midterm elections.

Democrats say it's drawn on racial lines and blame Republicans for breaking the rules by pushing a new map in the middle of a decade. We are in a turning point for our democracy. If we allow cheating, and that's what this is, it's cheating, elections will no longer reflect the will of the people. In a democracy, people choose their representatives. This bill flips that principle on its head, letting politicians in D.C. choose their voters, and that is un-American. In response to what's happening in Texas, California lawmakers are set to approve a new map later this week that could add seats for Democrats that would then go before the state's voters in November for approval.

Other states, both red and blue, have signaled that they could follow with new maps of their own. Also in Texas, a federal judge temporarily blocked the state from requiring that schools display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In a 55-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Fred Berry wrote the displays could adversely affect the children by suppressing expression of their own religious or non-religious background and beliefs while at school. Today's decision follows similar legal challenges in Louisiana and Arkansas. The issue is expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Here in Washington, Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited National Guard troops at Union Station today amid protests over their presence in the city. Appreciate you. The two said the forces have already brought crime down in Washington, but the visit was at times drowned out by demonstrators nearby chanting Free D.C.

Standing alongside Vance and Hegseth, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller dismissed the protesters, claiming they have no. connection to Washington, D.C. So we're going to ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go haul them a ticket nap because they're all over 90 years old, and we're going to get back from the business of protecting the American people and the citizens of Washington, D.C. Their visit came after a crash on Capitol Hill this morning between a National Guard military vehicle and a civilian car. Authorities say they rescued a person trapped in the car who went to the hospital with minor

injuries. The National Guard vehicle was reportedly designed to deflect roadside bombs and war zones and weigh some 14 tons. President Trump is expanding his pressure campaign on the U.S. Federal Reserve, calling on Fed Governor Lisa Cook to resign. That's after the head of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Pulte accused her of mortgage fraud, writing that she, quote, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms. Pulte alleges that Cook had claimed her homes in both Atlanta and Michigan as primary residences when taking out loans. The Fed declined to comment on the accusation. It comes amid a broader push by President Trump to force the central bank to cut interest rates.

Cook has a vote on the Fed's rate-setting committee, and her current term ends in the year 2038. Hurricane Aaron is growing in size and strength as it tracks offshore along the East Coast. The Category 2 storm is not expected to make landfall as it moves north. the end of this week, but it's having a direct effect on coastal communities with tropical storm warnings from the Carolinas up to Maryland. In North Carolina, officials warn that ocean swells could rise as high as 20 feet swamping beachfront neighborhoods. The state's governor is warning residents that rip currents and other threats are a real concern. Folks on the coast need to take care. I want to emphasize the

importance of taking this storm seriously because it's a serious storm and conditions can deteriorate quickly. Farther north, states like New Jersey and Delaware have closed some beaches for the day, while New York City closed all its beaches to swimming today and tomorrow. Now to severe weather of a different kind, extreme heat is descending on parts of California and the southwest, bringing scorching temperatures that will last into the weekend. Forecasters expect the high tomorrow in downtown Los Angeles to hit 95 degrees. Just outside the city, stretching into parts of Arizona, temperatures will rise up to 115 degrees. L.A.'s mayor is warning everyone to take the heat seriously. These temperatures could be dangerous, especially for our most vulnerable residents,

children, pets, people who work outside, unhoused Angelinos, and those with certain health conditions. The higher than normal temperatures and low humidity will also increase the fire danger in the region, California's Governor Gavin Newsom is preemptively deploying firefighting crews and equipment to high-risk areas in the state. In the Middle East, the Israeli military said today it's moving forward with its planned operation to take over Gaza City. A spokesperson says troops have already started circling the outskirts of the city. To support that effort, Defense Minister Israel Katz approved a plan to call up 60,000 new

reservists while extending the service of another 20,000 already on active duty. The build-up comes, as many Palestinians have sought shelter in Gaza City, though it's far from safe from Israeli strikes. Medics say two children were killed in this house overnight. It's a systemic and programmed plan to displace people, destroy houses, and make it a burnt land. Meantime, Israel has given final approval for a new settlement project that would slice the occupied West Bank in two. The E1 settlement, as it's called, is significant because it would block. a potential route between Ramallah and Bethlehem. The international community largely sees Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal.

The UK and Germany have joined Palestinian rights groups in condemning the plan, saying it could derail any hopes for a future Palestinian state. Back here at home, Target is shaking up its leadership as the retailer struggles with rising competition and the lingering effects of a consumer boycott. Current CEO Brian Cornell plans to step down in February. will be replaced by company veteran Michael Fidelke, who is credited with overhauling Target's supply chains and expanding its digital services. Target faced boycotts earlier this year when it scaled back diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. Today's CEO announcement

comes, as Target reported, another quarter of sluggish results. The company's stock fell more than 6% on the day. Elsewhere, on Wall Street today, tech stocks once again weighed on the broader markets. The Dow Jones Industrial average managed a slight gain of just 16 points, but the NASDAQ slipped more than 140 points, and the S&P 500 also ended in negative territory.

And Judge Frank Caprio, who enjoyed a wide following on social media due to his kind approach in his Rhode Island courtroom has died. Now, we're talking about your father. Now, you're going to say guilty or not guilty. What do you say? Guilty.

Guilty. Caprio was the star of the reality show Caught in Providence, where he was known to deal with traffic violations and other cases with a mix of compassion and humor. His approach earned him Emmy nominations and a nickname as the nicest judge in the world. Caprio's passing was announced on social media. He had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2023. Frank Caprio was 88 years old. And still to come on the news hour, the impacts of the Trump administration's potential reclassification's potential reclassification. of marijuana. The debate over allowing parents to use taxpayer money to pay tuition for

private or religious schools. And the president targets the Smithsonian in an effort to rewrite parts of U.S. history. 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 Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. The American Academy of Pediatrics released new COVID-19 vaccination guidelines, and for the first time, they diverged significantly from the recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As Stephanie Syre reports, the changes leave parents with competing guidance as we head into the fall. Omna, in May, Health Secretary Robert of Kennedy Jr. announced the CDC would no longer be recommending the COVID shot for healthy children. But yesterday, the AAP issued contrary guidance, saying all children under the age of two should

receive a COVID shot to protect from severe illness. It also called on insurers to continue covering the shots for that age group. For contacts, we're joined now by Dr. Paul Offett, pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Offett, thank you for joining the program. So this new A.A.A. recommendation is based on the conclusion that children under 23 months old are at the highest risk of severe COVID. But isn't it still relatively rare among children? Do the numbers justify, you think, vaccinating all children under two? So there was a presentation made by Fiona Havers of the CDC in April of this year looking

at what has been the impact of COVID on children in the previous year. And what she found was that thousands of children were hospitalized. Of those who were hospitalized, about one in five were admitted to the intensive care unit, virtually all were unvaccinated, half were previously healthy, and 152 children died. Most were less than four years of age. So I think the impact of this virus in that age group still warrants getting a vaccine if you've never had one. The CDC, as you know, under Secretary Kennedy, who is an overall vaccine skeptic, has reached a totally different conclusion than the AAP. Last year, the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot,

despite the lack of any clinical data, to support the repeat booster strategy in children. That ends today. It's common sense and it's good science. There's no evidence healthy kids need it today. And most countries have stopped recommending it for children. The health secretary has been accused by many, including you in the past, of spreading misinformation. But the AAP is also coming under scrutiny. Kennedy and others accused the organization of getting funding from Big Pharma. Who are Americans supposed to trust? Trust the American Academy of Pediatrics because it's the American Academy of Pediatrics that's following the science.

RFK Jr. doesn't have those data because he doesn't have data. What he does is he chooses to lean on conspiracy theories because that's what he always does. He believes everybody is in the pocket of Big Pharma, that whether it's journals, medical journals, or whether it's doctors or scientists or health care agencies or public health officials, everybody is in the pocket of industry except him. Who should you trust? You should trust the American Academy of Pediatrics. I think what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done to the CDC and has done to the Advisory Committee

of Immunization Praxis, which advises the CDC, has been tragic. And as a consequence, most medical and scientific institutions now don't trust advisory committee for immunization practices anymore, and they certainly don't trust Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is a 20-year anti-vaccine activist, science denialist, and conspiracy theorist. The AAP president upon announcing these guidelines said she wanted to provide clear and confident guidance on this. It's pretty black and white. Again, recommendation for all children under two to get the COVID vaccine. Do you think that sort of lack of nuance among health authorities can be problematic? Certainly during the height of the pandemic, that

seem to backfire, I mean, given the landscape of some mistrust, even of scientific expertise? I think that what we found is that the virus still circulates, SARS-CoV-2 virus still circulates. It's going to be circulating for years, if not decades, if not centuries. You know that children by six months of age will be fully susceptible to this virus. You know that over the past year thousands of children were hospitalized and more than 150 died. I don't think this is an example where we need nuance. an example where we need a clear, firm recommendation. And I think what the American Academy of pediatricist has done has given us that recommendation, and we should follow it. You're going to have

doctors in the trenches who I suspect are going to be having conversations with a lot of confused parents. You may have schools wondering whether the vaccine should be mandated. What else do you expect the fallout of these diverging guidelines to be? I think it is confusing. I think on the one hand, you have the CDC saying regarding children getting a vaccine that it's shared clinical decision making. Then you have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. standing up in a one-minute video on X saying that he no longer recommends this vaccine for healthy young children. Then you have the American Academy of Pediatrics saying that in clear terms that children less than two years of age who've never been vaccinated should be vaccinated uniformly because we know that thousands of children

are getting hospitalized, that most are less than four, that one in five are admitted to the ICU, that most run vaccinated and a half were previously healthy. So of course, healthy young children benefit from this vaccine. That is Dr. Paul Offutt, pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia joining us. Thank you. Thank you. Some people hate the whole concept of marijuana because if it does bad for the children, it does bad for people that are older than children. But we're looking at reclassification, and we'll make a determination over the next,

I would say over the next few weeks. That was President Trump last week, promising answers soon on a major potential shift in national drug policy. John Yang is here with what that long-anticipated change could mean for marijuana. users, businesses, and research. John? Jeff, the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration puts drugs into five categories, what are called

schedules. It's based on their medical value and potential for abuse and addiction. Right now, marijuana is in the most restrictive category, Schedule I. That's the same category as heroin and LSD. Schedule 2 includes fentanyl and cocaine, 3, Tylenol

with codeine, steroids, and testosterone, 4, Xanax and Valium, and five over-the-counter medications like Robitussin. Last year, the Biden administration proposed moving marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. That wouldn't make it legal on the federal level, but would ease federal restrictions. Bo Kilmer is the co-director of RAND's Drug Policy Research Center. Mr. Kilmer, I want to examine what this would do, moving from 1 to 3, what it would do for

various groups? First of all, what would it do for individuals, whether they're using marijuana recreationally or for medicinal purposes? It wouldn't make much of a difference. Realize that while 24 states have legalized cannabis for adult use, and we've got 40 states that legalize it for medical use, all of that activity at the state level is still illegal under federal law. So if we were to move at the federal level from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3,

that wouldn't necessarily change what's happening at the state level. And then for businesses, businesses that sell dispensaries or other businesses that sell marijuana? They would benefit from this. There's a part of the Internal Revenue Code or the tax code, which specifically says that if an entity is trafficking a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 drug, that means that they can't deduct normal business expenses on their federal taxes. So if you were to move cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, those businesses would then be allowed to deduct those expenses. They'd make more money. And on the public, health side, there's a concern that what that would mean is that these businesses would then be

able to write off advertising and marketing. So we'd see more promotion. And what about for medical research and pharmaceutical companies? Yeah. So in general, you can do research on Schedule one drugs, but it turns out there are a lot of hoops that you need to jump through. And so in general, if you move from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, it should reduce some of those restrictions, reduce some of those administrative barriers. However, The Congressional Research Service came out last year and said, look, there was a law that was passed in a bill signed into law in 2022, which was specific to doing research on cannabis. And so their takeaway on this is that moving cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 isn't going to

make much of a difference. That said, some may argue that while moving it from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, there could be less stigma. So some researchers may be more likely to get involved. But even if on the margins, this reduces administrative barriers and if more people get involved or want to get involved in research, the bottom line is who's going to pay for it? The National Institutes of Health, they fund a lot of the research on cannabis. And so a big question remains is, will there be money there to support this research?

The Gallup poll has been asking this question about support, public support for legalizing marijuana for some time. In 1969, only 12% supported that position. 2023, 70% supported it. You've been studying drug policy for 20 years. How has the politics of this issue changed? It definitely has become more bipartisan or nonpartisan over time. Early on, this is much more kind of a liberal or left issue and definitely is much more mainstream today. Given the fact that the president doesn't use alcohol and talks about the effect of alcohol on his brother, Fred, does it surprise you that he's coming out talking about reclassifying marijuana? Not necessarily. You know, people have been just talking about rescheduling cannabis for decades.

And, you know, in the previous administration, they were taking this seriously. It stalled out, you know, at the end of the administration. So it's not surprising that this is a topic of conversation, especially given where public support is for legalization. In 2022, Gallup found that very slim majorities said that marijuana negatively affected both society and individuals. What do we know about the health effects of marijuana use? I mean, like alcohol, most people who use cannabis don't run into problems. And some of them actually do benefit, you know, from, you know, for potentially for medicinal purposes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any risks or people don't run into problems, especially for those who use

frequently and then are using kind of higher potency cannabis. Now, there are many issues here. You know, for example, impaired driving. There's increased evidence of cardiovascular risk for frequent users. And then there are also mental health concerns, especially for youth and young adults who are frequently using these higher potency products. The thing to keep in mind is a lot of the research that's been done on cannabis isn't necessarily based on the products that are being sold in stores. And this needs to change. But stepping back, you know, allowing some of these higher potency products, I mean, that really is a policy choice. You know, policymakers could decide not to allow those products to be sold, or if they do, they could, you know, implement THC caps, or they could tax cannabis in a way that nudges people towards some of those lower potency products.

There are pros and cons with all of these different policy levers, but this is something that should be part of our cannabis discussions. Bill Kilmer of Rand. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me. how vulnerable South Florida is to the impacts of climate change. For our series' tipping point, William Brangham recently traveled to the region to explore how climate startups, local governments, and researchers are working to make the area more resilient amid potential federal funding cuts that could hinder those efforts. In an industrial warehouse in Miami, modern concrete printing is replicating something nature has done for millions of years.

It's actually the world's fastest concrete 3D printer. Anya Freeman is the founder of kind designs, a climate and construction startup. It's kind of hypnotic to watch. It's very satisfying. It's like frosting on a cake. In roughly an hour, these thin layers of concrete

will have added up to a 10-foot tall seawall, a barrier for where ocean meets land to protect property from the water. But it's not just the printing that makes these unique. The Texture and elaborate design mimics the roots of Florida's ubiquitous mangrove trees, creating what Freeman calls a living seawall.

So we have a library of designs customized for different marine habitats that's local. So in this case, this is a Miami Beach project. It has the mangrove roots design. And the point is to attract native species. These are very familiar shapes for them to create caves for them to hide from predators. And also as a bonus, this also helps dissipate wave owners. It's no surprise that this kind of work is being done in South Florida, because it's hard to think of another part of the country that's as threatened by climate change as this place is.

You've got increasing heat, increasingly powerful storms, flooding, and sea level rise. For any startup that wants to commercialize and grow their technology, they're going to find a space where they can do that here. Tyrian Brown helps run what's called the Risk and Resilience Tech Hub, Hub, a region-wide effort that received nearly $20 million in federal funding last year to bring together academic institutions, local governments, and startups around new technologies focused on adapting to climate change. The funding for the Tech Hub was just a sliver of the billions the Biden administration

put towards fighting climate, money that is now facing new political headwinds. As part of the one big, beautiful bill, will also further. the slash the funding for the Green News scam. Since taking office, the Trump administration has sought to cancel tens of billions in climate grants and proposed ending millions in climate research. The Climate Tech Hub hasn't lost its money, and Brown argues this work is critical to keep building on Florida's progress, which began in earnest after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. We developed some really strong building codes that have really led what needs.

to happen in order to protect homes. So if anything, that gives us the opportunity to be the leading voice and the global producer when it comes to emerging technologies around this resilience space. Florida International University in Miami is a key partner in the Tech Hub and a pioneer in building and designing products to survive in a warming world. On its engineering campus, researchers can simulate a Category 5 hurricane to test building materials and designs, and it's planning to build a new facility to account for more powerful storms.

The spray process is that, first of all, I have to make sure that the aggregate is exposed. Across campus, engineering professor Atarod Azizinamini has developed an ultra-high-performance concrete that can be sprayed on to existing crumbling structures. The material is so dense. The material is seven, eight times. is stronger than regular concrete. But the biggest aspect of this concrete is that it is so durable.

Nothing penetrates through it. The concrete mix incorporates tiny steel fibers and is designed to repair infrastructure, like bridges, rather than having to replace them wholesale, saving money and the carbon footprint of rebuilding from scratch. Cement uses lots of energy, produces lots of CO2. With this material, there's two advantage. First of all, you use a list of this one.

Number two, it's almost maintenance-free. Rather than lasting in 20 years, it's going to last you 100 years. Azizya Namini has already had a chance to try his spray-on technique in the real world, successfully repairing this bridge in Virginia last year. He says he's received interest from several other states. These emerging efforts, supported by the tech hub, are happening alongside a long-standing push by local governments, to make South Florida more resilient to storms and floods and heat.

On Miami Beach, the nearly eight-square-mile barrier island, across from Miami, the city has become a model integrating climate adaptation into urban development. Very important to preserve all that we can. Mangrove stabilize the shoreline. The city's chief resilience officer, Amy Knowles, showed us a new city park on Biscayne Bay. So if we were standing here before this project, how much lower would we be Yeah, so we'd be about two feet lower. Over the years, as flooding has gotten worse, the city has been forced to raise whole roads,

build a pump system to move excess water out, and stiffened its building code. Miami Beach and this area has so much to offer, but we're in Hurricane Alley, and we can't necessarily pick up our island and move it. We are the barrier to the mainland. The city also started a program to subsidize improvements on private property. It's not going to be the full width. North Miami Beach, homeowner Michael Phillips is showing where a new seawall is being built behind a small condo building. In the four years, I've been here. I've observed the sea level come up a couple inches. It's a real thing. And it's not going to stop.

Phillips Condo Association decided to rebuild and raise its seawall when high tide waters kept overtopping it. So how are you guys able to afford to do this? It's a big hit for a small association like ours. You know, we're only 12 years. These aren't million dollar properties. The building enrolled in the city-run grant program that covers the cost of an engineering consultation and a matching grant of up to $17,500. That will cover less than a third of the total cost. It's really just made it possible for us. Considering this whole thing on our own is just going to be a stretch for a lot of our owners.

Given the enormity of the challenges that you all face, do you think there is enough funding to keep this city going? going. For us, we're taking it one budget at a time. We've brought in about $80 million in funding for resilience projects over the last couple of years. We will continue to go after that grant funding, and we've been able to show results. Knoll cites how infrastructure changes have kept the water at bay and prevented hundreds of tidal flood events.

In banking on the continued need for Floridians to adapt, Kind Designs is betting on itself and not tying its future to government funding. These are the completed living seawall panels. Foundier Anya Freeman says she's raised $11 million in recent years. Her strategy, make a product that helps people combat climate-driven sea level rise, but makes a profit at the same time.

You have to be a capitalist before you're an environmentalist if you want your idea to scale. Because I see so many wonderful ideas and extremely well-meaning founders in the climate technology space. And my vast majority don't make it more than a year because it's just not affordable. Absent government intervention or grants. With or without federal support, the reality is that living in this low-lying storm-prone area means adapting for a warmer

world isn't optional. For the PBS News Hour, I'm William Brangham in South Florida. In recent years, two-thirds of America's public schools have lost students. And now, as more states roll out or expand private school voucher programs, many public school districts are fighting to hold on, trying new ways to recruit families and keep their schools open. In Arizona, the national model for school vouchers, families there typically get $7,500 per child through the state's fast-growing school choice program. But critics warn those dollars come at a cost, diverting critical funding from already struggling public schools.

Laura Meckler is a national education reporter for The Washington Post. She's been reporting on this and joins us now. Laura, thanks for being with us. So since 2019, two-thirds of traditional public schools have lost students, lost enrollment, and that trend is accelerating. I was shocked when I read that number. What accounts for it? Well, there's a lot of things that are behind the enrollment drops. I mean, some of it's demographics in certain places and some of it is school choice. There are in certain states in particular. Arizona is definitely one of them. There is more and more competition for the same number of students.

And your recent reporting focuses on Arizona, which has a number of alternative options. They have a robust charter school system. There's tax money for homeschooling, expansive private school vouchers, which are available to all families, regardless of. of income. How does it all work? Yeah, I mean, there is really a philosophy underlying all of this, which is that schools should be subject to the same sort of marketplace forces that are at work when we're choosing other things that are important in our lives, and that public schools should not have a monopoly on public funds or on students. And so in Arizona, they're really pushing this pretty far. So there is a robust, as you said, a robust charter school option, and we kind of know how those who are, you can actually transfer to a different public school if you want to. And there are also private school vouchers. So the state will pay if you want to go to a private school or even if

you want to homeschool your kids. Are these alternative options delivering results? How do students in these schools compare to their peers in traditional public schools? Well, we actually don't really know because kids who are in private schools are not required to take the state tests that kids in public schools do and that we're also familiar with. I mean, there is a lot less accountability in this system. The accountability is essentially the market that parents, if they're unhappy, they will change. But we don't have that kind of robust data that we have that we use to compare one public school district to another. And what's it take for public schools to stay competitive in this kind of environment? Well, you know, they have to really go out there

and sell themselves. I mean, but it is hard for them because they have to take everybody. So, you know, kids who are really struggling, kids who don't do well in private schools, they might bounce back. A lot of kids who have special needs are in the public schools and they are required by law to educate them and to provide them with services. But yes, public schools are, of course, fighting back and they're talking about their strengths and what they offer to parents, to children, to the community as a whole. So it's not like public schools. schools are done with, by any means, the vast majority of kids still do attend public schools. There's no doubt about that. But they are having to, in certain states, at least, really fight for

those students. School choice is an initiative that President Trump has championed. What does this tell you about how the GOP envisions the future of education in America? I think it very much is this idea of a marketplace that we should not just, in fact, it's telling, for instance, if you talk to people who support school choice, they often refer to public schools as government schools, this idea that it's sort of a denigration of them. I think, I don't know if anyone hears government school and thinks, that sounds great. They, the idea that we have long sort of assumed that public schools are the public option, they're the ones that get public money. But the new philosophy is very much that if it's tax dollars, that the parents should

control the money. And that if they're unhappy, they should be allowed to go somewhere else. I mean, Part of the challenge, though, here is that many of the people who are benefiting from school vouchers in Arizona and elsewhere were people who are already in private schools. So in that case, it isn't so much taking away from the public schools, but it is a new expense for the state who is paying money for those vouchers when they weren't paying any money before and that that has real budget implications. And we should say this is going to go national because there's a new federal tax credit that's set to take effect. Is that right? That's right. This is a really big deal. We've never. had a federal tax dollars going for school choice before. But now, for the first time, starting in 2027, states will have the opportunity to opt into a new program where taxpayers will get a 100% tax credit. They will get all their money back if they donate to something

called scholarship granting organizations, which essentially hand out vouchers to kids in their state. So this is going, again, states have to opt in. And for Republican states or states that already have these programs, it'll be an easy choice. But for a lot of Democrats, states that don't have these programs. This is going to be a real, real battle about whether they adopt this program. Let's shift our focus to Oklahoma, because Oklahoma, as you well know, they're requiring applicants for teacher jobs coming from California and New York to take a so-called America First Test. The state's top education official says it's designed to safeguard against, quote, radical leftist ideology. What more should we know about this? Well, the first thing to

keep in mind is the top state official, as you mentioned, Ryan Walters, is very much, this is a very Ryan Waltery sort of thing to do. I think it's fair to say. He's quite conservative. He's on the forefront of the culture war issues. And he's done things like tried to require that the Bible be taught and try to make the state pay for Bibles for every student in the state and only do it in a way that they would have to buy Trump Bibles. He's done a lot of things along these lines. So this is just sort of the latest. I mean, one thing to keep in mind, and I don't know if this is going to fly, is his proposal is essentially that certified teachers have to take a test, a 50-question test. And, you know, some of the questions are completely legitimate questions, to be

clear. But they're only applying that to people coming from certain states. I don't know if that's going to ultimately survive. If you say, oh, certain people, if you're coming from New York, you have to take this test. But, you know, if you're coming from Texas, you don't. Certainly more to come on that front. Laura Meckler of the Washington Post. Thanks, as always. you. Good to see you, too. Yesterday, in a post on Truth Social, President Trump described the Smithsonian Institution's 21 museums and national zoo as, quote, out of control for emphasizing, as he put it, how bad slavery was. The president said he'd instructed his attorneys to review museum exhibits. That post is part of a larger pattern by the president in his second term to reframe historical narratives, in particular about America's history of racism and discrimination.

As part of our series, Art in Action, exploring the intersection of art and democracy and part of our canvas coverage, I'm joined now by historian Pineal Joseph. He's from the University of Texas at Austin's Center for the Study of Race and Democracy. Professor Joseph, welcome back to The News Hour. Thanks for joining us. Hi, Amna, great to be here. So the president complained online that the Smithsonian focused on how horrible the country is, in his words, how bad slavery was. He also said this as part of that post. He said, the museums don't focus enough on the success and on the brightness and on the future. As someone who studies history and looks at this intently, what do you make of those concerns?

Well, this is really part of an ongoing narrative war that we've had in American history. between those who are supporters of reconstruction, multiracial democracy, and then redemptionists who are supporters of the racial status quo that existed long in this country, both during slavery and then during the period of Jim Crow after. So when we think about what the president is saying, what he's saying is that the real unvarnished truth about American history hurts too much for all of us to understand and to know and to learn lessons from those truths. And that diminishes our democracy, it diminishes American history, and it diminishes the post-war American order that has really created the most effective multiracial democracy in American history.

And that history is both a tragic history, but it's also a triumphant history. And as somebody who's been a huge attendee at the Smithsonian since I was a boy, that history is always told in a very balanced way where we talk about the evolution of American democracy, not just slavery and racial segregation, but also the civil rights movement and the suffrage movement and the women's movement and LGBTQIA, how queer folks transform this country, the disability rights movement, immigrants. You know, the museums are just one piece of a larger conversation around this. The conversation and reframing of slavery as part of America's history is just one piece of it, too.

But the president has focused on race a lot, even on previous attacks. on the museum, and he's called them divisive. You've heard this argument before. It feels like we're hearing it more and in more public spaces where people will argue that, look, only a small percentage of white Americans were in slavers during the period of slavery. That slavery is thousands of years old.

This idea that even talking about it is divisive in and of itself. What do you make of that? Well, this whole subject is the subject of my newest book, which is called Freedom Season, how 1963 transformed American Civil Rights Revolution. In 1963, we remember it because of President Kennedy's assassination, Birmingham and Martin Luther King Jr., the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. But it's really a year of debate and discussion and dialogue on what does American

history mean and what does American identity mean. The best-selling book of that year is James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time. And what that book argues is an argument that the only way America can achieve a multiracial democracy is to confront that history of racial slavery. And it's confronting that history not by trying to create new scapegoats in this age of Jim Crow, but by saying the exact opposite, saying that all Americans should have access to dignity and citizenship, but because black people historically have been marginalized and have been oppressed, it's only through black dignity and black citizenship that all communities of color and white people will access that dignity and citizenship. So when we think about what President Trump is saying, he's really saying

the exact opposite. 1963 ushered in a 50-year racial justice consensus with legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that gave us the most robust multiracial democracy in world history. What we've seen over the last, 12 years, ever since the Shelby v. Holder decision ended Section 5 pre-clearance of the V. V. Rights Act is a post-consensus America where we see Charlottesville and Tiki Torches. We see the January 6th riots, which have been reinterpreted in our current context. We see this suppression of voices that allowed the United States of America to really be this transformational nation and this beacon for hope and liberty and

dignity and citizenship all across the world. So we are turning back, but we've always been in these narrative wars. When we think about the end of the civil war, over 700,000 Americans died to create a second American republic instead of amplifying those voices of dignity and citizenship, we're heading back to the old days of Jim Crow of racial exclusion, instead of really embracing the best that America can be. So the president says he's ordered his attorneys to review those museum exhibits, right, that we could see changes in the future. We don't know yet. But how do you look at that piece of it?

Could there be some changes made in the way that we present our history in these museums? And also, should the president be allowed to weigh in on these things? I mean, these are federally funded institutions. They are free to the public. Have we seen that kind of thing before? We have. This is reminiscent of the age of McCarthy. the age of the Cold War years where speech was suppressed, you know, folks who were cultural

producers in Hollywood and academics lost their jobs, but average people lost their jobs too for speaking out for social justice. And certainly a president should not have the right to do it because the whole success of the American Revolution is that we have no kings. We shouldn't have oligarchs either, even though we do. But we have no kings in the United States of America, and a president should not be allowed to stifle or suppress voices, whether those voices are on the left or on the right or moderate voices. Penil Joseph from the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the University of Texas at Austin. Thank you for joining us. Thank you, Amna, for having me. And there is a lot more online, including our conversation with Henry Lewis Gates Jr.

The Professor in Finding Your Roots host shares his experience meeting Pope Leo in what he and other genealogists found in the Pontiff's family tree. You might recognize some famous names in there. That's at pbs.b.org slash news hour. And that is the news hour for tonight. I'm Omna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at... PBS NewsHour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.