PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 24, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: August 24, 2026

Monday on the News Hour, President Trump promises more tariffs on Canada after trade talks break down. The U.S. threatens new sanctions on countries doing business with Iran now that the military conflict is in a stalemate. Plus, new reporting details how President Trump directly intervened in the government's lawsuit against the entertainment company Live Nation. 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. Amman Nawaz is away. On the news hour tonight, President Trump promises more tariffs on Canada after trade talks break down. The U.S. threatens new sanctions on countries doing business with Iran now that the military conflict is in a stalemate. And new reporting details how President Trump directly intervened in the government's lawsuit against the entertainment giant Live Nation. There's still a feeling that there could have been a lot more that was gotten from the company. than what the DOJ was able to get them to agree to. Welcome to the News Hour. The trade war between the U.S. and Canada is intensifying after negotiations broke down over the weekend.

President Trump announced today that tariffs on Canadian made cars, trucks, and auto parts will rise to 50% at the start of the new year, part of a broader round of 50% tariffs covering $28 billion in Canadian goods. The president defended the move on social media, writing this, Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years. Their ridiculously high tariffs on our farmers and farm products has made life impossible for these great American patriots. Over the weekend, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney

said his country had been preparing for a fundamental shift in its relationship with the U.S., which it no longer views as a reliable partner. Our government understood before many that America would transform all of its commercial relationships, that it would put a series of tariffs on its closest allies and use economic integration as a weapon. We recognize that sometimes its signature was written in pencil. The breakdown threatens to deepen the economic fallout

on both sides of the border and raises new questions about the future of North American trade. For a view from Canada now, we're joined by Peter Armstrong, senior business correspondent for the CBC. Thank you for being with us. Thanks for having, Jeff. And President Trump, as you well know, has long argued that Canada takes advantage of the U.S. when it comes to trade.

What does the data actually show? Yeah, I mean, it's an argument that really infuriates Canadians because, for the most part, that trade deficit that the U.S. runs is only because America decided to buy more safe, friendly next door than oil from Canada. Were it not for oil, there wouldn't be a trade deficit at all. all. And in fact, if you look at it and include services, so everything from consulting to software to digital streaming, that trade deficit shrinks to basically nothing. I think it's $40 billion at that point. So the argument that the trade deficit is what's behind all this, you know, economists will tell you, I run a trade deficit with my dentist. It doesn't make him a bad guy's trying to rip me off. It means I use the services he provides and he spends my money somewhere else

in my community and it all kind of works out well. When the president and rights, we don't need Canada, they need us. Economically, how accurate is that? Is Canada more vulnerable in this trade war than the U.S.? I mean, yes, Canada is more vulnerable, but that doesn't mean this isn't being felt already by American producers, American businesses, American households and consumers, right? Like, just take the auto industry. The automakers in North America have paid out something to the tune of $110 billion

in the last 18 months alone in tariffs and costs due to the disruptions. And we've seen a pretty significant drop-off in U.S. made cars coming to Canada. Canada is the number one export market for everything in the United States. It's the number one export market for cars as well. And a 27% drop-off is mean like, I think it's a $7 billion loss for U.S. automakers. And, you know, you look at what else do they need? We provide an awful lot of the oil that gets turned into gasoline for American consumers, right? 25% of refinery throughput, put another way, the oil that goes into a refinery to become gasoline,

25% of that comes from Canada. And so it's been this really helpful, really reliable, really friendly relationship for, you know, 60, 70 years. And the undoing of that, if that's in fact the goal, is to undo the economic ties between these two countries, is not going to come without pain for people on both sides of the border. And that remarkable phrase from the prime minister that America's signature was written in pencil. Given the depth of the U.S.-Canada relationship, what does it say when a Canadian Prime Minister is now publicly questioning whether the U.S. can be relied upon? Well, a couple of things. You have to take into account the ferocious anger and sense of betrayal that I think a lot of Canadians are feeling right now. And it's not just this round of

terrorists. It's not just the last round of terrorists. And it's not just the constant berating of, we're going to turn Canada into the 50, state or that they refer to the prime minister as governor and these other sort of just disrespectful ways of treating your closest trading partner. But the cumulative effect of all of that really has weight. And then you have to think about the fact that what we're undoing here is the USMCA agreement that was signed into effect during Trump's last term. It's not like this was a deal that was made 40 years ago by some other, you know, a Democrat or somebody that he disagrees with.

This was made by Donald Trump, by Jameson Greer, by American officials that are still part of this administration. And they said at the time, this is the greatest trade deal in history. And it was going to benefit everybody on both sides of the border. And then literally on day one of the administration, they came in and said, well, that deal's no good anymore. We want to restart everything. So you do have to wonder how much an agreement that we might have made would have been worth. And whether at the last minute or in six months or in a year from now, the terms of that agreement would have been torn. So I do feel some sympathy for the Prime Minister trying to carve away through all of that uncertainty

to find a deal that's good for both economies, but especially for Canada, for his constituents. The ferocious anger that you speak of when Carney describes what's happening in terms approaching an economic war, is that how Canadians broadly see this rupture with the U.S.? They do, absolutely. And to put it very plainly, again, it's not just the tariffs. And it's not just the threats of economic annexation or, you know, like today, the vice president of the United States referred to Canada as a state. This is not something that I think anybody in the United States would accept from any other country talking about your country. Nobody here is accepting it as something that should be reasonable or taken reasonably here in this part of the country.

And, you know, they've taken lots of measures to push back, but the ones that seem to get under the skin of the administration the most are the two that have nothing to do with the federal government. It's the provinces that have taken American alcohol off the shelves of liquor stores in 8 to 10 provinces. And it's been a really grassroots move by Canadian consumers and households to not travel the United States while these tariffs are in place. Both of those have come with enormous costs to tourism-heavy regions and to California wines and Kentucky bourbons. And the more of this goes on, I think the less likely it is the Canadians, even when those things go back on the shelves and even when tourism is back to Canadians say it's a okay to travel there again. I'm not sure how many will actually take up a glass of American bourbon or travel to the United States, given how disrespected and how angry and how upset they are with the way

this administration has treated Canadian trade, Canadian businesses, and I think Canadian citizens. Peter Armstrong, senior business correspondent for the CBC. Thank you for being with us. Oh, you bet. Today, the U.S. launched with the Trump administration is calling an economic D-Day against Iran. Operation Economic Outcast, as it's called, threatens tougher sanctions on countries that continue to trade with Tehran. It's a new campaign of maximum economic pressure, as the administration tries to avoid returning to war while struggling to break Iran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz. Nick Schifrin has more.

In the Strait of Hormuz with vessels mostly at a standstill and diplomacy in a standoff, today the Trump administration returned to economic pressure. Economic engagement of any kind with this murderous regime will expose those responsible to the full reach of American power. Those engagements include direct flights and financial ties. But mostly Iran's revenue is from oil, and 90 percent of Iran's crude exports are bought by China. President Trump has emphasized U.S.-China strategic stability.

Today, Bessent neither ruled in nor ruled out new Chinese sanctions. No one is above the reach of U.S. sanctions. Today, Iran's currency dropped to a record low, and Iranians are struggling from massive inflation. But Iranian leaders today threaten to block all the U.S.'s Gulf allies' oil exports, and they vowed military revenge. We will retaliate in a seismic manner. Meanwhile, today, there are some efforts to restart diplomacy. Today, Pakistan's powerful army chief, General Al-Assin Munir, visited Tehran.

He has played a key mediator role, as has Oman, whose foreign minister will visit Iran tomorrow. For perspective on all this, we turn to Miyadh Maliki. He was born and raised in Iran, and until last year, he was Associate Director for Sanctions Targeting in the U.S. Treasury Department with a focus on Iran. He's now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Mian Maliki, thanks very much. Welcome back. Thanks for having me.

It's the News Hour. The U.S. has had sanctions on Iran for years. Why might today, why might this different version, new version of maximum pressure, produce any different results? That's a great question. I mean, it's accurate to say that Iran's economy or Iran has been subject to the most comprehensive sanctions in the history of sanctions. Since President Obama, when you had a secondary sanctions that was put in place all the way until today, layers and layers of sanctions, all sectors of Iran's economy are subject to sanctions. What's different today, what I sense today from Secretary Besson's announcement is really focusing on the engagement aspects of enforcement of sanctions,

meaning engagements with partisan allies and others on how we can bring these nations to enforce existing sanctions more forcefully, and that includes not just U.S. economic sanctions, but you also have European Union sanctions against Iran. You have U.K. sanctions in many countries that have their own bilateral or unilateral. sanctions against Iran. Is what you're saying basically that the effectiveness of what was announced today dependent on diplomacy, dependent on the president diplomatically engaging with some of these countries that still do business with Iran, whether from China, which we'll get to in a second, or the United Arab Emirates?

Absolutely. I think sometimes a threat can be more impactful than a tool itself. And I think what's been happening here is some engagement campaigns, I can imagine in the Treasury Department, their country programs or research that have been done. for each country jurisdiction that is still conducts trade and business with Iran, and they have some engagement strategy, whether through direct engagements or in some cases rolling out sanctions actions and then engage those governments or jurisdictions to enforce sanctions better.

When it comes to the UAE, how important is it that that country, which has given Iran an economic lifeline for many years, follow through on not only the threats today, but what they promised last week, which was to cut off trade with Iran? Well, that's the key on the announcement from UAE's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So if you look at where the naval blockade, the U.S. naval blockade lines are, it's really outside of the foremost. So what remained within the Persian Gulf was it trade and commerce between UAE and Iran. It's really economic lifeline for Iran to get gasoline, to get goods and services

and access to the financial sector in UAE. And most importantly, the exchange houses that Iran really uses to get U.S. dollars and also get access to the revenue from oil, from China, some of which are moved to UAE. So now with UAE's decision, you can imagine how this naval blockade, the line of naval blockade are now extended within the Persian Gulf. Now, the announcement by UAE's leadership alone

can really lead to some derisking in UAE's exchange market. Even if there's no meaningful enforcement, that message itself can probably deter a significant level of exchange activities that Iran has done and that in UAE. When it comes to Iranian revenue, though, as I pointed out, in the piece, it is China, right? 90% of Iranian oil exports go to China. Explain how the sanctions announced today are supposed to help stop Beijing from that.

But crucially, do we have any indication that President Trump is willing to sanction China? Well, that's a big question. I think at the end of the press conference that Secretary Besson had, a question was, what are you doing as far as banks? And he said, well, we'll have one bank by the end of the week. And he also said he doesn't want to blow up the financial economy, financial sector. I take that as Treasury Department is not there yet to go after a major bank. And especially a bank in China.

Absolutely. I mean, Chinese banks are larger than U.S. banks. I mean, these are major backbone of the trade between China and the U.S. and global economy, and 80% of that trade goes through U.S. dollars. So what happens here if you have about 500,000 barrels of oil a day that the Chinese are purchasing from Iranians, that's a major drop. Despite sanctions, that's important. That's a major drop from 1.5 million barrels to 500,000 barrels a day. So they're complying with sanctions. So there's some level of fear of the sanctions already in China. I think what Secretary Besant is hinting at engagement with these banks to make sure that the revenue from Iran's oil. to China. They stay in China and they're not leaked out of these banks to the Iranian regime. You and I have been talking about maximum economic pressure on Iran for many years.

You were the author of some of the sanctions. But bottom line, there are experts who say this isn't going to change Iranian behavior, that Iran can take the pain of economic sanctions, even if China or the UAE cuts them off, and that will still not produce the results that the U.S. wants. Well, the Iranian regime will take the pain at the expense of the Iranian. people, that's what they do. But the pressure is building up domestically. Now, what I would say is let's go back to the 80s. I mean, historically, you can see how the Iranian regime from the 80s on, they've only responded to pressure. You know, in the 80s, after eight years of Iran-Iraq war in 1988, Ruhulah Khomeini, and the Supreme Leader, after eight years of promising victory in that conflict,

after facing major economic pressure, defeat on the ground or militarily, agreed to accept a ceasefire and gave up and had the poison, the chalice of poison. So bottom line, you do think that this pressure will work and could get Iran to a ceasefire. It depends on the level of enforcement, right? If you see a meaningful enforcement, then we might get to a point that the regime is going to have to accept, as they have historically. Miad Maliki. We'll have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

Thanks for having me. We start the day's other headlines with a wildfire emergency in the West, a blaze that's raging just outside of Reno. That's Nevada's largest city outside the Las Vegas area. Tens of thousands of people have been urged to evacuate and firefighters are still trying to bring the fire under control. Stephanie Sye reports. Tonight, above the glow of Reno's lights, a far more ominous glow, hillsides and flames. A massive and menacing wildfire is burning just miles outside the major city. The fast-moving hawk fire ignited northwest of Reno on Saturday and has already scorched about 25 square miles.

The smoke is bad. Look at the visibility. The fire was 27% contained as of today. At least seven people have been injured in the fire, including three first responders. With this wind, listen to the fire, while. watching them as they've done this fire and many others. It just takes that little breeze and that one ember. Firefighters are battling 90-degree heat, strong winds and dry tender brush as they try to get a handle on the fire from the ground.

And the air. Nevada's governor has declared a state of emergency and deployed the National Guard to assist some 800 fire personnel. Tons and tons of children. Shelters have filled up as tens of thousands of people have been. forced from their homes. Schools were closed to keep evacuation routes clear. Yeah, hey, going out. Many were urged to stay away for several days because shifting winds are making the fire unpredictable. Oh my gosh, I'm still scared to death. It's like, you don't know if the winds are going to shift and it's going to get worse, you know, so you're just kind of, I got all

myself in my car and his car. Fire officials say an investigation into the cause of the Hawk fire is ongoing. They say it is the third human-caused wildfire in the area in just the past two weeks. Many residents say they're devastated and concerned that the fire could spread to more neighborhoods on the edge of the city. To a lot of people around here, this is their entire livelihood. This is their entire life they built for years and years, and we've never seen a fire like this. Dozens of homes have been lost, but the full scale of the damage is not yet known. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Sy. Meantime, roughly 45 million Americans are under extreme heat alerts today as parts of the South are facing a prolonged and dangerous heat wave.

The most intense conditions are expected across the southwest and southern plains states. Forecasters are expecting triple-digit temperatures with records likely to fall in the coming days. While in Hawaii, the National Hurricane Center says Tropical Depression Mokke is expected to bring heavy rain, and strong winds as it passes to the south. Hawaii is still recovering from Hurricane Lala, which battered the Big Island just over a week ago. The U.S. Supreme Court today cleared the way for President Trump to move ahead with his executive order restricting mail-in voting,

though it's unclear how much of the plan can be put in place before the November midterms. The order directs the administration to create lists of U.S. citizens and requires the Postal Service to obtain lists of eligible voters from states to deliver mail-in ballots only to those people. The ruling could still face additional legal challenges, and with some states set to begin sending out mail ballots within weeks, the administration has little time to put major changes in place.

President Trump has long criticized mail-in voting, repeatedly claiming it leads to widespread fraud despite evidence to the contrary. He is also voted by mail himself, including in this month's Florida Republican primary. Turning now to the war in Ukraine, The UK and France pledged increased support today as the country marked its 35th Independence Day. In a video released for the occasion,

Ukrainian authorities showcased the country's drone technology and other military hardware. European leaders were also on hand. On his first overseas trip since taking office, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham pledged to help Ukraine produce long-range missiles. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky also delivered remarks, calling for continued support from abroad and unity at home. We are not asking you to fight for us.

Give Ukraine everything it needs to stop this war to stop it faster than Putin can start the next one. To prevent that, we must act together. Meantime, both Russia and Ukraine continued their attacks today. Russian officials say three teenagers were killed when a Ukrainian drone hit this building in the southern Russian city of Krasnodar. And authorities in the Odessa region say a Russian attack on warehouse facilities there injured at least five people. The Pentagon says it struck a boat in the Eastern Pacific

killing two people it accused of trafficking drugs. The strike on what officials called a low-profile vessel operating along established narco-trafficking routes was the first to be announced in about two months. And it comes, as the Trump administration has said it wants to extend military operations to land targets in Latin America as well. At least 210 people have died

in dozens of such attacks since U.S. forces started their offensive nearly a year ago. Critics have questioned the legality of the strikes. In Illinois, former sheriff's deputy Sean Grayson has died six months into a 20-year prison sentence for killing Sonia Massey, a black woman who had called 911 for help. His lawyer confirmed his death but provided no additional details. The 32-year-old had been diagnosed with colon cancer, and last month his application for an early medical release was denied. It's not clear whether the cancer contributed to his death. Body camera footage showed Grayson's shooting Massey in her home in July of 2024.

Her killing sparked nationwide protests and led to changes in how Illinois law enforcement hires officers. The Trump administration is moving to codify a new fee for H-1B worker visas that costs more than $103,000. In a filing today, the Department of Homeland Security said some of the revenue would be used to help fund the nation's immigration courts and ICE. Earlier this summer, a judge in Massachusetts struck down a similar temporary fee. The H-1B program allows U.S. companies to hire tens of thousands of foreign workers each year. President Trump has argued it takes jobs away from Americans,

but many companies say it's needed to recruit top talent, especially in tech and research. Well, stocks on Wall Street started the week mixed. The Dow Jones Industrial Average managed a gain of about 140 points, NASDAQ fell 200 points on the day. The S&P 500 fell further back from its recent records. And longtime television actor and singer Shelley Febrey has died. She found fame as a teenager in the late 1950s playing Donna Reid's daughter on the Donna Reid Show, seen here on the far left. Febrey also appeared in three movies with Elvis Presley and had a music career of her own. Her 1962 single song,

Johnny Angel was her biggest hit rising to number one on the Billboard charts. Febrey found success later on the sitcom coach where she earned two Emmy nominations. In a statement, her family said she'll be remembered as a source of love, strength, laughter, and comfort. Shelley Febrey was 82 years old. Still to come on the news hour, we speak with the editor of a military newspaper who was fired after reporting on the conditions aboard the USS Lincoln. Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on South Carolina's Senate runoff. And Richard Rousseau discusses his new novel about the places we leave behind.

This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of PBS News. The Wall Street Journal is reporting new details about President Trump's role in a major antitrust case against Live Nation, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster. Justice correspondent Ali Rogan has more. The Department of Justice spent more than a decade building a case accusing Live Nation of illegally dominating the live event industry by thwarting competition to keep ticket prices high and restricting artists' access to live venues. But according to a new Wall Street Journal investigation, the president urged senior officials at the DOJ to settle the case just days

before it was set to go to trial. It came shortly after the president met with the company's CEO in the Oval Office. Attorneys General from 33 states, NDC had joined the lawsuit, and despite the settlement most refused to sign on to it, saying the terms were too favorable. In April, a jury in the state AG's case found the company illegally monopolized the ticketing market. For more, I'm joined by Wall Street Journal, investigative reporter Rebecca Ballhouse. Rebecca, thank you so much for joining us. What did you and your colleagues reporting reveal about President Trump's involvement in this case? Yeah, so as you said, this was an incredibly unusual case. It's a case that was first brought by the Biden administration. And when it's announced in 2024, then Attorney General

Merrick Garland says it's time to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster. And when Trump comes into office, his first spring in March 2025, it looks like he's poised to kind of keep up that pressure on the industry. He announces this executive order that's aimed at cracking down on the concert industry, specifically targeting ticket scalping and exploitative pricing. So it looks like, you know, the pressure's on and that he's not going to sort of reverse course on what the Biden administration has been doing. And then, you know, we see the DOJ and live nation spend months and months exchanging settlements at negotiating. Live Nation for months can't even get in the door with the DOJ. They can't even get a meeting. And then finally, their CEO sits down with

Trump in the Oval Office just days before the trial is set to start. And our reporting shows that after that, Trump makes the call to the DOJ and says, settle this case. And by that, the end of the day, that Monday, the first day of the trial, Live Nation's lawyer tells the judge that they all but have a deal for a settlement. And that's hashed out in the next couple of days. Stunning 180-degree shift. This is a playbook that other individuals and companies have followed when they are trying to appeal to President Trump directly, when they're facing lawsuits. So what sort of tactics did you find that Live Nation employed to curry the president's favor and get him to intervene in this way? Well, so I should say here, the meeting with the president and the Oval Office with the Live Nation CEO,

Trump had actually called that meeting to discuss the Kennedy Center, which at that point was a real fixation of his. He wanted to improve bookings at the center and wanted Live Nations help on how to do that. And so he had asked the CEO to come and meet with him to discuss. that and then over the course of that meeting said, you know, something to the effect of how's the case going, has it been resolved yet? And we understand that the CEO told him we've been having these talks with DOJ, but they failed and the trial starting Monday. So that's one piece of it. You know, they certainly were able to get on the president's radar, but it's not our reporting that they arranged this meeting for this express purpose. What we do know that they did is that they had months before the trial started, hired a set of lawyers. from Sullivan and Cromwell, who were also representing the president in his two New York appeals. And so in December of 2025, they had hired that law firm to take over their settlement talks with DOJ. And one of the reasons why we understand they hired Sullivan and Cromwell is because they had these connections with DOJ leadership. And when you went to the Department of Justice for

response, what did they say, given how unusual this type of intervention from the commander-in-chief is? So the Justice Department didn't acknowledge the reporting in our story regarding the president's intervention in this case and his call to the DOJ. What they did say is that, you know, they were able to get more from the company earlier than if they'd gone through this trial process. But what I did find really notable was Live Nation's response to our reporting. And what they said is that if you can't get a meeting with the antitrust division, which they spent several months trying to do, you have every right to go over their head to senior DOJ. leadership, as we saw they did in this case. And so I think it's a really interesting example of a company kind of owning using some of those levers while they're not acknowledging going to the president directly and saying that that was a part of it. They are saying that they appealed

over the heads of the antitrust division, which is something that would have been very unusual in previous administrations. As we mentioned, many state attorneys general declined to sign on to this settlement because they thought Live Nation got off too easy. They moved forward with their own case. We know that a jury has decided against Live Nation, but between that case moving forward and this settlement, where does that leave Live Nation today? Well, I think certainly more in limbo than it had hoped for when it reached this settlement with DOJ. I think the hope was certainly that states would sign on and that this would kind of end the trial and end the case, that that's not how it played out. And instead, now they're

they're facing, you know, the judge is going to have to decide on the state's request to ask Live Nation to sell off ticket master. And so the remedies in that case have yet to be decided. Rebecca Wallhouse with the Wall Street Journal. Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. A Justice Department spokesperson told the news hour today in part, the journal's account of how this resolution came together is in material respects categorically false. The department stands behind this settlement and the many lawyers who negotiated it. Now to the leadership upheaval at Stars and Stripes, the newspaper that has served American troops for generations. Its publisher was fired and its editor and one of its reporters were removed

as well. The turmoil has raised new questions about the future of a publication with an unusual mandate. Stars and Stripes is funded in part by the Pentagon, but is protected from military censorship and editorial control. Eric Slavin was its editor. until last week and he joins us now. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me. So let's start with what happened. On Friday, you received a separation notice

from Stars and Stripes. What reason were you given for your firing? It didn't actually come from Stars and Stripes. It came directly from the Pentagon, but I was told that I was being, receiving a notice of proposed separation for insubordination, and it cited a CBS interview that I did where I said that hypothetical censorship

would be a personal red line. So you were fired for saying that censorship is bad? Essentially, yes. This comes amid a broader shakeup. The Pentagon fired the publisher after he announced his retirement. You were let go, as was a Middle East reporter in April. The Pentagon fired the Omsbudsman for the newspaper, whose job had been to safeguard editorial independence. Do you see all of this is connected?

Yes, I do. Going back to January the 15th, that's when we first saw a tweet from the Pentagon's press office, which was coordinated with the rescission of the Code of Federal Regulations, which spelled out a lot of the freedoms that were guaranteed to Stars and Stripes. At the same time, there was a leak to a friendly news organization, to the administration, that talked about getting rid of our overseas reporters and replacing them with military reporters. So I think there were plans.

And days before your separation, Stars and Stripes published significant reporting about the problems aboard the USS Lincoln. Your firing notice doesn't mention that story, but do you have any evidence that that reporting played a role in your dismissal? You know, as you said, it wasn't in the statement. I can tell you that on August the 11th, Stars and Stripes was the first to break a lot of the details that came about aboard the USS Lincoln. and I'm very proud of the reporting that we did. It's a fundamental benefit for U.S. service members to be able to have that kind of credible reporting. Now, the administration didn't single out stars and stripes,

but I know there were certain people within the administration who did voice displeasure with the reporting about it. So my separation came about 10 days later. As I said, it doesn't cite that. Those are just the facts. I want to pick up on something that you said about members of the military being able to rely on stars and stripes for credible reporting. For viewers who might not know about this media organization, explain how it's different from any other news organization covering the military. So, Stars and Stripes exists at many different overseas bases, and Stars and Stripes will cover the kinds of stories that nobody else really has the interest or the bandwidth to cover because nobody else is going to look into a lot.

cost of housing for service members at a small base in Poland or the barracks in Germany or a high school basketball game between two schools on military bases. We cover these kinds of things because we know there's an audience for it and we know that nobody else will. At the same time, you have the Pentagon providing roughly half of Stars and Stripes funding. There is this question some people might ask, why shouldn't Pentagon leadership have some say over the publication? Well, the Pentagon already has its own public affairs wing. What Stars and Stripes brings is unique. And ultimately, I think it's great

for the morale of service members when they can look at something and say, yeah, this is credible, this reflects my lived experience. And it's not something that's coming out of a public relations arm. It's something real. We were just looking at this extraordinary montage of people reading your paper, former paper, Stars and Stripes over the generations. As you see it, where is the legitimate line between oversight and interference with independent journalism? Well, Stars and Stripes has to remain independent of the military chain of command, its editorial content, must remain that way for it to be credible.

And that's something that General Dwight Eisenhower said in World War II. He said, this is the soldier's paper, do not interfere. And that has been the tradition of Stars and Stripes, and I certainly hope that it can continue in some way. Eric Slavin, thank you for being here and for sharing your story. Thank you. Tomorrow, Republican voters in South Carolina will replace the late Senator Lindsey Graham on November's ballot and a runoff between his sister, Darlene, and Congressman Ralph Norman.

Reporter Gavin Jackson of South Carolina, ETV, has the story. Thousands turned out Friday in Myrtle Beach to hear from President Trump as he rallied for his hand-picked successor to the late Senator Lindsey Graham, his sister, Darlene, in the final days of a condensed campaign sprint. That went from 10 candidates two weeks ago to Graham and 5th District Congress. Congressman Ralph Norman. She sees her outsider status as a positive, but it also comes with some negatives, like on the debate stage last week. Senator, are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States. If so, why? I'm just going to be honest here. I'm not on national security. I'm not that informed on national security, so, but I do support the military. On Friday, Graham continued to downplay the comments. The critics say, I shouldn't

for the Senate. They say, I'm not a politician. You know what I say? Guilty as charged. Trump was asked about her performance before heading to South Carolina on Friday. She is a terrific woman who answered. I watched that. I thought it was a very honest answer, actually. Friday was also the last day of early in-person voting, and Graham supporters weren't too concerned over her debate response. It's not something she's been involved with her whole life as far as foreign policy and stuff. But you know, we've got a lot of people in Congress and the Senate that's probably a little dumber on things what she is. That's how I feel. Politicians don't know everything when they walk into office. And I think that's a legitimate answer to know your limitations.

Norman, Graham's opponent, served in the State House for years, then in Congress since 2017. Norman is a member of the Far Right House Freedom Caucus and garnered statewide name recognition after coming in third during the June gubernatorial primary, and he classified Graham's response differently. You don't have to be an expert, but you have to explain your positions and your overall opinion. And she just didn't do that. Whoever wins Tuesday will face off against Democrat Annie Andrews in November in this solidly Republican state. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Gavin Jackson and Myrtle. Beach. We turn now to the political fallout from the stakes in South Carolina and the November elections to new reporting about a private meeting involving the president's son-in-law and the top

House Democrat. Let's welcome in our Politics Monday duo. That's Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. It's always great to see you both. We are going to work our way to this South Carolina Senate race. But I want to start with this Supreme Court ruling today, Amy, allowing President Trump to begin carrying out parts of his executive order restricting mail-in-ball there are, as we sit here, more questions than answers at the moment. But based on what we know, what does this mean for voters heading into November? Yeah, I mean, I think it shows some confusion because it is true. There are other injunctions that still need to be worked through.

Now, I've talked with somebody who does a lot of work with election administration, who, at least up until this most recent ruling, and said, I just don't think that the federal government is going to be as engaged in the, running of elections as it seems to be at this moment. But if you are a voter and you hear all of this information coming back and forth for you, you may be concerned about whether or not your ballot is actually going to be counted. And that is a major issue. Absolutely. All right. So let's talk about the South Carolina Senate race. President Trump's pick, Darlene Graham. She faces a real fight tomorrow. Tam, you've been reporting on this. What can you tell us? Well, I can tell you that

President Trump's super PAC MAGA Inc. just dropped more than $800,000 to help get out the vote for Darlene Graham. This is notable, notable, MAGA Inc. has something like $400 million cash on hand. They have not spent it on pretty much anything all year long. One of the big questions of this midterm is, will MAGA Inc. ever spend any money? And now we have an answer. They're spending a large sum of money for darling Graham. And that is just another indication that she needs the help and that the president had this rally on Friday night where he said, just pretend I'm on the ballot. Just act like you're voting for me, which I think is basically his midterm message to Republican-based voters. But in a way, he is on the ballot because his endorsement, the power of his endorsement is on the line.

Yeah, and what's so interesting about this race is that Ralph Norman, he's not running some anti-Trump campaign. What he's saying is, hey, look, I'm Maga, too. I'm with Donald Trump, too, but you don't have to take Donald Trump's choice. Well, he has two arguments. That's fair. If you are Trump, your argument against that would be, well, really, how loyal are you to me, Mr. Norman? You endorsed a candidate, Nikki Haley, who was the former governor of South Carolina, over me. Yes, they go way back, over me in 2024. So if you're looking for the loyalty piece of this, and that's, let's be really clear. When the president is giving an endorsement, it's more than just he wants to show how much sway he has over voters in these races. What he's really suggesting is I want somebody who's going to be loyal, not necessarily to the party, but to me the person.

And I know a lot that Darlene Graham, even though it's not Lindsey Graham, would be personally loyal to me in a way that I can't guarantee that Congressman Ralph Norman would be who is famous for Norman during his time in Congress, being sort of a contrarian, voting against leadership, being part of the House Freedom Caucus. So if that's what you are looking for as the president, which he's always looking for somebody who's going to be loyal to the man, President Trump, then Darling Graham would be the easier and better. choice for him. Well, in an unusual bit of midterm maneuvering, you've got the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, meeting with Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law, informal advisor. They met privately in New York in recent weeks. This was first reported by the New York Times. And the meeting raises many questions. The obvious one to me is, is the White House starting to hedge against a Democratic majority next year? What I find so fascinating about this is, late last week, I spoke to a senior White House official and asked, what is your

agenda? What is your legislative agenda? What do you want to be able to do if you, if Republicans maintain control of Congress? And the answer was like, well, you know, the Save America Act maybe, this is the voting-related legislation. There isn't this big, bold series of laws that the president is running on. There isn't this big, bold series of actions that they want Congress to take. this is a president who has done most of his governing through executive order and has done the bare minimum that he has to do with Congress. So the idea that the president himself is trying to forge a path forward with Democrats is kind of hard to believe that he personally would really want that. And there are those on the left, certainly people on social media who seem

to be, for whatever reason, upset with Hakeem Jeffries for taking this meeting, in part because he spent months presenting Democrats as a check on Trump. Right. Does privately meeting with Jared Kushner complicate that message? Well, it could, for some members of that coalition on the left, which says, you know, if the argument that Democrats are running on, this midterm is about corruption and the ways in which the Trump family has benefited from the presidency, Jared Kushner obviously falls into that category. And there are many who believed on the left that what the Democrats should do,

if they take control of the House, is spend most of their oversight power on President Trump and the deals that he and his family have cut. So that sort of undercut that message by sitting down with Kushner versus, say, sitting down with somebody who actually works in the White House or in the legislative staff. And that's the thing. Jared Kushner does not hold a formal government position, and yet he's the key guy, the top House Democrat, potential House Speaker, is sent to meet with? What does that say? I think it says that they have a little tiny bit of a prior relationship and that President Trump has virtually no relationship with Hakeem Jeffries, which we saw when we had these government shutdowns and there were basically no negotiations,

and then the White House spent weeks trolling Jeffries with memes. Let's talk about these Canada tariffs, shall we? Shall we? The politics of it. Doesn't seem to make sense. on the face of it. What's your thing? Especially if you are, I don't know, a senator in a very tight race

in a state that borders Canada, known as Maine, Senator Susan Collins, this weekend was campaigning, out campaigning, and saying I just don't think this is a great idea for the state of Maine, given

the relationship that we have. Michigan, also a very important state in the United States Senate race. Also, borders, Canada. A lot of auto parts. go back and forth between those two states. So the mixed messaging from the White House on tariffs has become really a problem for Republican candidates who want to drive a message about affordability, and we're going to bring prices down, we're cutting your taxes, while at the same time voters in these

states are filling up their gas takes with gas that's more expensive, but also are seeing the impacts of tariffs, whether you're in Iowa and you're a farmer, whether you're in Michigan, working in the auto industry, or whether you're in Maine and lumber or blueberries or lobsters or anything else that is going back and forth over the border. And based on your reporting, why is the president picking this fight now? It is not clear why exactly he is picking this fight now. However, as the war with Iran has dragged on, he is looking for new and new. or new old ways to assert himself on the world stage.

And some of this is that some of the tariff stuff has ripened again after the Supreme Court case. And so, you know, the White House and the Trump administration really do see this as a policy that is pro-worker, pro-America. Almost everyone disagrees with them, including economists and many Republicans. But this is something that is a firmly held belief for the president, and so they are forging ahead on all of this.

Tamara Keith and Amy Walter, thanks as always. We appreciate it. You're welcome. Richard Russo has written 10 novels, won the Pulitzer Prize for Empire Falls, and collaborated on screen adaptations and TV series based on his work. Now, his latest book has just been published, 40 years after his debut novel. Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown visited him recently for our Arts and Culture series, Canvas. Funny thing about the Adirondacks. Head up the north way toward Montreal.

And right away, you sense you're leaving the Rust Belt. The opening lines of the prologue to Richard Rousseau's latest novel Under the Falls, about a man who leaves behind a hometown fallen on hard times, but finds he can't quite escape it, like the author himself. If you look back to my earliest fiction, the lens through which I look at the world, has really not changed. It's place, its character, and class. Place, character, and class. For many years, Rousseau has lived and worked in Maine, along the coast, in and near Portland. But many of the books, for which he's best known, are set in the industrial factory towns

of the Adirondack Mountains in upstate New York, especially his hometown of Gloversville, once known as the glove-making capital of the world, before most of the manufacturers and tanneries left the country. Rousseau's mother, separated from his father, wanted out, and wanted him to see a bigger and in her mind better world. He did leave, but he says, I think it was particularly difficult for her to realize that, after those first few novels, that the place that she was so determined to escape from, somewhere along the line, I learned who I was, who and what I loved. That was the last piece of becoming a writer for me. me because I learned how to do the technical things at the University of Arizona and the MFA program

there. But I hadn't figured out who I was yet. That he would figure out in his fictionalized versions of Gloversville, calling it Mohawk in his first novel, Thomaston in Bridge of Size, North Bath in the Fool's trilogy. His Pulitzer Prize-winning Empire Falls, while set in a Maine mill town, also draws on his roots. If, for instance, You were to head up Route 29, not just north, but also west, into those same Adirondacks? What you'd find is a place called Stone Mountain. And now comes under the falls. Stone Mountain is yet another left behind, Richard Russo locale.

What does that mean? What is left behind? Well, left behind means people there don't have as many opportunities to make a decent living. A place, he told us, modeled on the real town of Coroga Lake. near Gloversville, with a once-thriving, now shuttered amusement park, which figures into Rousseau's story, in which a man named Tyler Sinclair, now a famous Nashville musician, returns to Stone Mountain after fleeing years before without a word to his closest friends. He has done what he thinks is a pretty incredible thing.

He has left this town with really nothing but his guitar, nothing but his talent. And he's made it. And made it. He's gone to Nashville and become amazing. major singer-songwriter. And he's done the thing that, I mean, every band he's ever been in has been called Stone Mountain. Right. So he's left, but he also hasn't left. He's left, but he hasn't left. Exactly. One thing new for Rousseau, this is a thriller. As Tyler gets caught up in violence, police corruption, the opioid epidemic that's ravaged so many parts of the

country. And his character is doing something like Rousseau himself, continuing to write of the place he left behind, telling its story, whether people people there like it or not. Part of your novel is clearly about who gets to tell the story of a place. Yeah. That's true for Tyler, I suppose, because it's been true for me. In his memoir elsewhere, Rousseau for the first time called Gloversville by its real name, Warts and All.

Not everyone was happy. And what happened was that people in town who had loved my writing when I was calling it Mohawk or calling it Thomaston, when I called it Gloversville, what I called it Gloversville, what was getting was an angry response that says, you know, Russo, you've done pretty well for yourself, haven't you? And the question that they were asking me is the same question that gets asked of Tyler. In the new novel. In the new novel. Where's our cut? And that's what Tyler is facing when he goes back to Stone Mountain.

He's a sissy. Rousseau has also had success as a screenwriter, including for the television version of Empire Falls with Ed Harris and Paul Newman. And under the Falls, in fact, he's in fact began as a TV script before being turned into a novel. He showed me a similar work now in progress. I'm taking this old screenplay. That's what a screenplay page looks like. Lots of white space on that. And eventually it's going to be a novel.

And of course, the pages are going to look more like that. That's actually what happened with Under the Falls. That's what happened with Under the Falls. I started out. You can't wait around for Hollywood to get its act together because who, who He knows. Meanwhile, the love of books and writing has been passed down. One of Rousseau's daughters, Emily, co-owns a bookstore in Portland, Maine, that carries

the works of another Rousseau daughter, Kate, herself a novelist and artist. And at 77, Rousseau keeps going. To me, after doing it now for my fourth decade, it seems absolutely necessary. And strangely enough, I think the worst times we go through, and I think we're going through some pretty awful times right now. more important in bad times than in good times. From Portland, Maine, I'm Jeffrey Brown for the PBS NewsHour. And that's the NewsHour for tonight.

I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS NewsHour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.