PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 26, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: August 27, 2025

Tuesday on the News Hour, President Trump tries to gain more control over the historically independent Federal Reserve by moving to fire a prominent member of its board. We speak with Baltimore's mayor after the president threatens to send in the National Guard. Plus, climate change and a dwindling water supply raise concerns for a California valley that helps feed the nation. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amman Abbas. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, President Trump tries to gain more control over the historically independent Federal Reserve by moving to fire a prominent member of its board. The president calls Baltimore a hellhole and threatens to send in the National Guard. We speak with the city's mayor. I would hope that the president would work alongside us instead of trying to treat myself. city as a political theater or political pawns in some game, because that's not something that we appreciate. And climate change and dwindling water supply from the Colorado River

raised concerns for a California Valley that helps feed the nation. Welcome to the News Hour. President Trump made it explicitly clear. today, he is seeking more control of the Federal Reserve. The president says he has fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook from the bank's board, but she says she's not leaving and will take the administration to court. Cook's departure would create two board vacancies in just the last month. What's at stake is the balance of power on the nation's top bank, which could potentially undermine its long-held independence. I want to thank you all for being here. President Trump today, doubling down on his fight to exert control over the Fed.

Repeating claims that he has the authority to fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, accusing her of making false statements to get a better mortgage. She seems to have had an infraction, and she can't have an infraction, especially that infraction, because she's in charge of, if you think about it, mortgages, and we need people that are 100% above board, and it doesn't seem like she was. Mr. Trump announced Cook's firing in a statement late Monday, writing, quote, I have determined that faithfully executing the law requires your immediate removal from office. What she did was a bet, so I'll fire her if she doesn't resign.

Trump vowed last week to remove Cook if she didn't step down. The law does allow a president to fire a Fed governor, but only for cause. Cook fired back in her own statement today, saying, quote, President Trump reported to fire me for cause when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so. will not resign. At the heart of Trump's justification to fire Cook are allegations that Cook lied on mortgage applications in order to secure more favorable terms. Bill Pulte, the Trump installed head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, posted on X two sets of signatures

that he says show Cook claiming both an Atlanta condo and a Michigan home as her primary residences. Cook, the first black woman ever to serve as a Fed governor, has maintained that the allegations are from before she was on the board. The Justice Department plans to investigate but has not announced any charges. Trump and the FHFA have leveled similar accusations of mortgage fraud against political enemies, New York Attorney General Leticia James and California Senator Adam Schiff. Schiff recently addressed the claims on NBC's Meet the Press. Are these allegations true? How do you respond to them? They're patently false, and the president knows it in the housing agency, president's person, Pulte, knows it.

He's essentially doing the president's bidding against me, against Letitia James, against this person on the Federal Reserve. Mortgage is their new weapon to go after their critics. Lisa Cook's lawyer has vowed to challenge her removal in court, and the Federal Reserve and the President said they'd abide by any court decision. If Trump succeeds in ousting Cook, he could dramatically. remake the board in his favor. Among its seven members are two Trump appointees from his first term, Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller. He nominated White House economist Stephen Mirren to replace Adriana Coogler, who left abruptly this month. Replacing Cook on the board would give Trump nominees a four to three majority. We'll have a majority very shortly, so that'll be great.

Presidents of both parties have largely respected the Fed's independence. But Trump has long complained about the independent federal agency and its chairman, Jerome Powell, for not cutting interest rates. Board governors serve for a 14-year term, and in a statement today, the Fed confirmed they may be, quote, removed by the president only for cause, also writing that the lengthy terms are, quote, a vital safeguard, ensuring that monetary policy decisions are based on data, economic analysis, and the long-term interests of the American people. With Lisa Cook's attempted firing, opponents of the move worry it could further erode the Fed's independence in a political battle for its control. For more, we're joined now by two guests who know a great deal about the Fed.

Lail Braynard was vice chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and a member of the board from 2014 to 2023. She also served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs under President Obama, among other roles. And David Wessel is Senior Fellow in Economic Studies. and the director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. Just to note, we did invite Bill Pulte to join us on the program, but the Trump administration declined. In the meantime, welcome to you both, and thanks for joining us. Lail, I'll start with you. You were at the Fed for nearly a decade, most recently under still Chairman Jay Powell.

How are he and other board governors looking at this moment, the standoff now between Lisa Cook and President Trump? and what does it mean for how they do their work? Well, this is an incredibly difficult move for the Federal Reserve to navigate. It really is an unprecedented attack on the independence of the Federal Reserve. It is an aggressive effort to seize control of the majority on the board.

And I think the risks here are really to the economy. If the independence of the federal government dependence of the Federal Reserve to fight inflation is seen as compromised, it actually will lead not to lower interest rates, but higher interest rates on things like mortgages and small business loans, because people will be anticipating that inflation will go up. That's what we saw in the 1970s, the last time this kind of attack took place, and that's what we're likely to see here again. David Wessel, what's your take? As Lale points out, this move is unprecedented in the 100-year plan. plus history of this institution. What are the risks? What are the implications? I think we're wearing out the word unprecedented in this administration.

This is just another move by the president to assert control over every single aspect of the federal government. He clearly wants to get control of the Federal Reserve Board, the seven governors in Washington, because he would like to see lower interest rates. Importantly, there are monetary policies made by these seven governors, but also. also the presidents of five of the 12 reserve banks. All 12 reserve bank presidents are up for reappointment at the end of February. They are subject to be removed by a vote of the Federal Reserve Board. And clearly, Trump is trying to get a majority before the board can reaffirm these people. We don't know what he'll do, but there's a possibility that they'll try and get

rid of some of the Fed Bank presidents who are not with the president's program. Lail, do you view, do you see that happening ahead? And also, if Trump's nominees do make up the majority, does it make it easier for interest rates to be lower? Does it make it easier for the president to fire Jay Powell, as he's threatened to do? Well, absolutely. Look, I think you have to ask yourself, why not go through an investigation, why not go through the facts, why not provide due process? It does suggest that the White House is in a real hurry to seize control of the majority of the board. And yes, if that results in a majority of the overall monetary policy setting committee being aligned with the White House, it becomes a political interest rate setting policy, which will lead, again, to higher inflation, bad for American households. and higher interest rates on mortgages and cars. And so it's very, very dangerous,

and it will take years to fix it. And would it make it easier for the president to fire the chair, Jay Powell, if he had a majority on the board? So I think the issue really has gone beyond that. This is really seizing control of the majority, which means that you have enough votes to push against interest rate policy

that you don't want. like one way or the other. And the other thing I think is really important to think about is if you are on the board or you are one of the Reserve Bank presidents, how fearful are you going to be by this kind of intimidation to state your views, your honest views about what's the appropriate course of policy to fight inflation and keep the labor market strong? David Wessel, as you know, the Senate would need to confirm anyone that Mr. Trump nominates to fill these roles on the board of governors. They need a simple majority.

They did block one of President Trump's picks back in his first term, but do you see that happening in a second term? Would Republicans push back on a nominee they view as partisan or someone who's not qualified for the role? Well, so far, the Senate Republicans have seemed pretty willing to confirm almost anybody that the president sends up. Now, there has been some reluctance on the part of some Republican senators to attack the Fed. Senator Tom Tillis is on the banking committee. He's been a defender of Jay Powell and the Fed. So there's a possibility there. But I think some of this

depends on how the Senate sees the markets reacting. And so far, the markets have been, to my surprisingly complacent yields on long-term treasuries have gone up a little bit. And I think that will encourage the president to think that I can get away with this. And so far, the Senate has let him get away with almost anything he wants. Well, we also know, David, that the president pays very close attention to the stock market. So far, it seems to be taking the news in stride. What do you make of that? I have a hard enough time for trying to figure out what motivates President Trump, understanding the markets is really beyond my competence. Clearly, they expect lower interest rates, at least in the short term. They seem to be euphoric about the possibility

that artificial intelligence will boost our prospects long term. And they seem to have this, the market seem to have this belief that somehow the stuff they like about Trump will prevail and the stuff they don't like, like tariffs won't. I just can't explain it. Lail, we know that Lisa Cook is challenging her firing. The case could make its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. But regardless of what happens legally, are we now just in this period where a U.S. president, at least this one, can and will try to influence economic policy decisions that were previously independent, that were nonpartisan, in much more aggressive ways? Have we just entered a new era? Yeah, we are absolutely in uncharted territory where every person has.

who is entrusted with setting monetary policy by statute, by Congress in an independent way, is now got to be thinking, what if the president doesn't like my position? Should I be continuing to talk about how tariffs lead to higher inflation? And should I continue talking about how, you know, it is difficult to be lowering interest rates in an environment where inflation is going up?

So I do think, again, this very unprecedented attack, lack of due process has to be giving everybody on that monetary policy committee pause about what that means for their own ability to conduct the responsibility of being independent from the White House in setting monetary policy. You're saying you're going to have a chilling effect, is that right? I think it would really undermine the independence and the quality of the discourse. You couple that with the fact that an official statistical agency head was fired for delivering bad news on the labor market, and it starts to really undermine the fundamental pillars of our exceptionally strong and dynamic economy. Lail Braynard and David Wessel, thank you to you both for joining us tonight. Appreciate it. Thank you.

You're welcome. We start the day's other headlines in the Middle East. The Israeli military says it was targeting a Hamas surveillance camera when it struck a hospital in southern Gaza yesterday, killing 20 people, including five journalists. As part of an initial inquiry into the strike, the IDF says the camera was being used to observe the activity of IDF troops in order to direct terrorist activities against them, but did not provide evidence.

It also says that six of those killed in Monday's attack were terrorists. Meantime, Israel's security cabinet met to discuss the military's expanded offensive in Gaza City, but reportedly did not address ceasefire talks. Across Israel, protesters held a day of disruption to pressure Israel's leaders to negotiate a hostage deal with Hamas. Today is a day of resistance calling the Iran government to steal the deal that's now on the table and to bring all the hostages home and to end the war in Gaza. Meantime, more Palestinians are trying to leave Gaza City after the latest strikes killed at least 18 people there. That's according to local officials who say that all-told overnight shelling killed at least 34 people across all of Gaza.

Here at home, a federal judge tossed out the Trump administration's lawsuit against Maryland's entire federal bench today. U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, himself a Trump appointee, called the case potentially calamitous, writing that this concerted effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate. The Trump administration had filed the lawsuit after a top Maryland judge moved to block the immediate deportation of migrants from the state back in May. The government had argued that the pause infringed on President Trump's authority to enforce immigration laws. In Arizona, thousands were still without power around Phoenix today after a massive storm battered the area.

It began late yesterday when wind kicked up a huge wall of dust. Time lapse video shows it plunging downtown into darkness and reducing visibility to almost zero. Okay, so we are in the middle of a Haboob is the technical term for that type of dust storm. Many drivers were left stranded as the wind rattled their cars. The storm also caused major disruptions at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport where hundreds of flights were grounded and part of the roof was damaged. Monsoon rains, thunder, and lightning followed. The weather phenomenon is not uncommon in the southwest this time of year,

but experts say this storm was especially strong. The Trump administration says it will withhold federal funding from California, Washington, and New Mexico if the states don't enforce English language requirements for truck drivers. The warning is part of a broader investigation into the enforcement of President Trump's executive order from April on English proficiency. It comes after a foreign-born driver in Florida made an illegal U-turn earlier this month, killing three people. This is about keeping people safe on the road. Your families? Today, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the states have failed to ensure that drivers can read signs and speak to law enforcement.

He's giving states 30 days to comply. And Cracker Barrel is sticking with its controversial new logo despite a fierce backlash, including from President Trump. He took to social media today to say that Cracker Barrel should go back to the old logo, admit a mistake, and manage the company better than ever before. It follows a statement yesterday in which the company admitted that we could have done. a better job sharing who we are and who will always be. The old logo featured the restaurant's Uncle Herschel leaning against a barrel with the words Old Country Store underneath. The new logo strips all of that away. It's part of a broader rebrand, widely criticized on social media as soulless and bland. On Wall Street today, investors largely brushed off concerns about President

Trump's moves to fire the Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 130 points on the day. The NASDAQ added nearly 100 points. The S&P 500 also ended higher. And it certainly hasn't been a cruel summer for Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey. The pop superstar and the Super Bowl champion announced their engagement today. In a five-photo joint Instagram post, they're seen in a fairy tale garden with the caption, your English teacher and your gym teacher are getting married. It's amassed 18 million likes and counting. The pair started dating nearly two years ago, and their relationship has captivated millions, with Swift attending Kansas City Chiefs games and Kelsey cheering on her eras tour last year. Looks like Taylor found her endgame

after all. Congratulations to the both of them. Still to come on the news hour, we've backchecked the many claims made during today's White House cabinet meeting. President Trump authorizes a rapid response National Guard force to stop what he calls civil disturbances. And an invasive species of insect threatens vineyards on the east coast. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubinstein studio at WETA in Washington and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. President Trump spent more than three hours touting what he sees as his administration's achievements at his cabinet meeting today. He weighed in on everything from crime rates to Taylor Swift to

prescription drugs. But it was his comments about reinstating the death penalty for murder cases in Washington, D.C., that we will start with tonight. Political correspondent Lisa Desjardin joins us now. Good to see you. You too. So we should note that this comes amid his larger proclaimed crackdown on crime in Washington, D.C. But what did the president announce when it comes to the death penalty in D.C.? Let's start with exactly what the president said. This announcement came during an unrelated part of this meeting, which was about education. But during that, the president interjected this announcement. Capital punishment. Capital capital punishment.

If somebody kills somebody in the capital, Washington, D.C., we're going to be seeking the death penalty. And that's a very strong preventative. A lot to pack in those 18 or so seconds, unpack, rather. And let me start backwards. First of all, this idea that the death penalty itself is a deterrent. There has long been debate about that, but the scholarship in the last 30 years has moving away from the idea that it is a deterrent. And there is certainly not evidence that it is any way a strong preventative, as the president says. No evidence for that.

Now, let's talk about what exactly is happening here. A lot of people are scratching their heads. A very serious thing the president is saying here by saying that he can make all murder cases, capital punishment cases in the United States capital of Washington, D.C. Now, the issue here is that, of course, Washington, D.C. does not have the death penalty right now. The city abolished it in the 1980s, and in the 1990s, the citizens of Washington, D.C. also voted to keep it abolished. But it's a federal city. And the prosecutor there is the U.S. attorney who works for the Department of Justice and works for President Trump. He hasn't given details here, but the thinking is that that is somehow how he hopes to get this accomplished. So the president's clearly saying what he would like to see happen, but can the president unilaterally decide that this?

death penalty would be the punishment for those crimes. This is the question here. When you take apart his words, he does seem to be indicating that all murder cases in the city would become death penalty cases, even though that is not part of D.C. law right now. So how would he do that? Talking to experts, perhaps he would have to try and apply a federal standard somehow to city crimes. But there's an issue there not only with D.C. law, but with U.S. law. The Supreme Court in the 1970s ruled that mandatory death penalty is sentenced.

sentences is unconstitutional. We talked to the death penalty information center, and they said that not only would this be breaking a precedent for Washington, D.C., but in that way, for the nation. The Supreme Court said that juries have to first consider the individual characteristics of a defendant before they make this incredibly important decision about whether they will live or die. So if what President Trump is talking about are mandatory death sentences, that would be unconstitutional. Now, it comes back to what you said at the beginning, Omna, this is part of President Trump's pushing his authority on Washington, D.C., at first on law enforcement and now over the legal system itself, and of course we don't know what he intends to do, but there are many questions about whether he can. There's a lot that cap up in the cabinet meeting. There's another topic I want to ask you about, and that is autism and this administration's ongoing push. They say to investigate its causes. What did the president say about that?

This really caught our attention here. An exchange between him and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has promised he says he's been working on trying to find the underlying cause of autism. He himself has said he thinks there may be a link to vaccines. There is no study that has proven that. Dozens and dozens of studies have disproven that. But I want you to pay very careful attention to the words between him and President Trump today. We will have announcements as promised in September. We're finding interventions, certain interventions now that are clearly

almost certainly causing autism. So there has to be something artificially causing this, meaning a drug or something. All right, nothing definitive here, but a very important thing to watch. The president himself implying that there might be a drug-related, which we don't have any proof of that, and RFK saying he's found something,

and he's going to announce it in September. This raises many more questions, but we wanted to put this on the radar because it is a very serious indication of where HHS may be going. A lot more reporting on this. ahead. Lisa Desjardin. Thank you so much. You're welcome. The demand for water from the Colorado River is of paramount importance out west and the focus of

some big battles. It's been especially critical for farming and agriculture. And in California's Imperial Valley, there are growing questions over the use of that resource and whether bigger changes are needed. Our science correspondent, Miles O'Brien, has this report. All right, well, let's try one. It was a cool, clear morning in the citrus grove when Gina Dockstatter sliced open a Mineola orange for me, flooding my taste buds. Oh, that's delicious. And blowing my mind. Oh, my gosh. It's almost magical when you consider where we are, the middle of a blazing hot, low desert, where Southern California meets northern Mexico. a place that gets unlimited sunshine,

but only two to three inches of rain each year. Here we are standing in this lush orchard in the middle of the desert. It's amazing. Welcome to the Imperial Valley, a half million acres of highly productive, irrigated farmland, America's winter salad bowl.

If the Imperial Valley didn't exist, what we would see in produce sections in the winter would be entirely different, wouldn't it? Entirely different. with salads, with the lettuce, with broccoli. I mean, we just wouldn't have the vegetables. We wouldn't have the fruit that we have now. About two-thirds of the nation's winter vegetables are grown right here,

and it would not happen without water from the Colorado River. This is Imperial Dam. We're straddling the Colorado River right now. J.B. Hamby is California's Colorado River Commissioner. This is one of the final stops on the Colorado River, and one of the lowest stretches here in the desert, originating all the way up in the rocky mountains as snowfall makes its way here to this liquid gold, which is water,

that supports our farms and communities all throughout this region. Hamby is also a director of the Imperial Irrigation District, a powerful and controversial water agency that controls the single largest entitlement to Colorado River water, about 3 million acre feet, that's about a trillion gallons, a year. It's 70% of California's share. The doctrine of prior appropriation, first in time, first and right, putting water to use first, secures your ability to use it.

It all began in the early 1900s when private developers dug the first canals to divert Colorado River water into this desert valley. Despite the arid climate, the land is astonishingly fertile. Thousands of years ago, the river flooded through here. leaving behind rich alluvial soil, more than 150 feet deep in some places. Much of the valley lies below sea level, so no pumps are needed. Gravity does the work. When a farmer requests irrigation, a Zanheiro, or ditch rider, simply opens a gate to let the water flow in. And so how long will this gate be open today?

Well, this gate, it'll probably run until morning to irrigate that whole field. Farmer John Shields show me how it works. Smaller canals fill up, more gates are opened, and the field is flooded. You can see that water's running out nice and even out there. It's simple and cheap, but with so much loss to evaporation, hardly efficient. And the cost of water here provides little incentive to conserve. It's only $20 an acre foot, six one-thousand-a-cent-per-gallon. For all practical purposes, it's free.

But this free resource is becoming more precious. Since 2000, persistent record-setting drought fueled by climate change has cut the Colorado's flow by 20%. The result, a growing fight over water, and many eyes fixed on the Imperial Valley and its outsized share of the pie. With that water right comes certain obligations and lots of targets on your back,

because you are the solution to everybody else's problem. Tina Shields, John's wife, is a water department manager in the district. Our goal really is to keep our community whole, keep food and production to feed the nation, but we know that we have obligations in stewardship roles as the largest irrigation district to keep California on solid ground from a water supply perspective. So the district has struck a series of deals

with Southern California's municipal water suppliers. The cities pay hundreds of dollars per acre foot for water. The revenue helps fund local infrastructure upgrades and advance conservation practices, everything from laser-leveling fields to drip irrigation and micro-sprinkler systems, like the ones Gina Dockstetter now uses. The perception in cities sometimes

is that farmers have senior rights and don't want to share. Is that accurate? No, I don't think that's accurate at all. There might be a little resentment when you're going to go put in another golf course using that water. The resentment runs both ways when the talk turns to alfalfa. The Imperial Valley may be known for growing winter produce, but its dominant crop is alfalfa, spreading across about 120,000 acres. Grown mainly to feed livestock, the perennial requires a lot more water relative to

its value. What we need are, first of all, moratoriums on the expansion of alfalfa farms. Amanda Starbuck is the research director for the Environmental Advocacy Group Food and Water Watch. And we need resources to help farmers shift to farming systems that are more in line with the climate reality. As global demand for beef and dairy rises, increasing amounts of alfalfa are shipped overseas. In the past decade, California exported between 20 and 40 percent of its alfalfa hay production, primarily to Asia and the Middle East. Some of it grown right here in the Imperial Valley. George Frisvold is an economics professor at the University of Arizona. That's been a source of controversy because people are looking at, well, water is being used.

It's exported embodied in the crops that we're exporting. There are ways to grow alfalfa using a lot less water. In the summer, when temperatures often reach 120 degrees, alfalfa grows more slowly and requires twice as much water. We have to stop growing alfalfa during the summer. Robert Glennon is a professor emeritus at the University of Arizona Law School. If you turn off the irrigation systems in June, you can turn them back on in August or September,

and the alfalfa plants have simply gone dormant. They haven't died. The Imperial Irrigation District is trying to implement that idea. John Shields volunteered for a deficit irrigation program that paid him to stop watering some of his alfalfa fields in the summer. But his yield losses were higher than he anticipated. The fields just didn't come back as good as I wanted them. Every single one of them I've had to come in and replant.

It's not like the old days where we could just water. it will. John Shields is a fourth generation farmer. Like so many here, his roots are as deep as the alluvial soil. But without the Colorado River, the fertile ground is only desert. So farmers here are scrambling for ways to save their liquid gold and their way of life. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Miles O'Brien in the Imperial Valley. President Trump is threatening to send National Guard troops into other Democratic-led cities after ordering the Guard into Washington, D.C. One of his main targets is Baltimore. The president has repeatedly described the city as crime-ridden, and today suggested the Guard could, quote, clean it up. Maryland's Democratic governor, Wes Moore, called the threats inappropriate, and he invited the president to visit Baltimore to see firsthand the progress.

The city and state leaders say they've made in driving down crime. The president pushed back during a cabinet meeting this afternoon. Wes Moore was telling me he wants, I want to walk with the president. Well, I said, I want to walk with you too someday. But first you've got to clean up your crime because I'm not walking in Baltimore right now. Baltimore is a hellhole. For more, we're joined now by the mayor of Baltimore, Brandon Scott. Mr. Mayor, thank you for being with us.

Thank you for having me. And I know you say you welcome support from federal law enforcement when it's coordinated, but what's your response to what you heard there from President Trump and his threat to send National Guard troops into Baltimore? How seriously are you taking that threat? Well, we take it very seriously, but first and foremost, I just think that to have the president of the United States, the person is supposed to be a leader of the free world, one, talking about their own cities that way, but two, more importantly, not acknowledging that the city of Baltimore we're safer today than it has been in my lifetime because of the leadership of myself and

others here from our police department, our state's attorney, our attorney general, our violence intervention workers who work at hard each and every day. We're safer now than even in his first term. It's just very disrespectful and it's unfortunate, but we still welcome that support, if done the right way, because we work with our federal law enforcement partners each and every day here in Baltimore. And I don't, I'm not, there's never been one, the political dog and pony show or the gotcha in the back and forth, that's never been my style. My style is to focus on what matters the most to me, and that's continuing this historic reduction and violence in Baltimore, because as you and I are talking right now, we have the fewest amount

of homicides through this date on record, and that's something that the president or anyone else can take away from us, but we're not celebrating. We're acknowledging that and saying that we can go further and would hope that the president work alongside us to do that instead of trying to treat my city as a political theater or political pawns in some game because that's not something that we appreciate. Well, to your point, Baltimore has seen real progress. Homicides are down by more than 20 percent over last year, non-fatal shootings down nearly 20 percent. But the city is still battling one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. What more needs to happen to sustain the gains that you're seeing? Yeah, I think that we have to

continue the strategy. And I think that what your viewers have to understand is that when you're talking about a Baltimore crime rate, right, you're talking about us having years of having 300 plus homicides. We broke that with an historic reduction in 20, in 20, 23. And then we've had another record-breaking year in 24, and we are now down 30% this year so far on that record reduction. Everyone understands that this is an issue that we need to tackle. It's actually the reason why I got into public service in the first place. I decided when I was seven years old that I wanted to be the mayor of Baltimore because I saw someone be shot in my community and no one cared. Right?

We are talking to someone who also was the co-lead of the 300 men march, the largest anti-violence movement that the Baltimore city has ever seen with me and 30 of my closest friends would walk around the toughest neighborhoods in the city, ones that were experiencing that violence every Friday night, no guns, no vests, none of that. This is an issue that's very personal to me in so many different ways. And what we need to see happen is continuing investment. We need the president to restore cuts to federal grants for programming that is around community violence invention. We need him to send more FBI, DEA, ATF agents to work alongside our police department on their predetermined already missions in cases, not taking them off of these cases to roam around D.C. or any other city or to do

immigration, but allowing them to continue to go after gun traffickers, violent offenders, drug organizations. That's what we need to have happened to continue this because you don't see me celebrating. We are safer than we've ever been in my lifetime, and that's still not enough for me. It has been more than two weeks since President Trump deployed the National Guard in Washington, D.C. D.C., as you know, is unique and that it falls under federal authority, whereas Baltimore does not. But what lessons do you take from how it has played out so far? Well, that one, it's a very real thing. And two, that we have to be making sure that we're communicating with our residents and other folks about that this is a possibility for us.

We hope that the president hears that we will like to see public safety investment done the right way, but that also we have to be prepared for if this does come. And I think that we think that that's the conversation that I'm having, that may as around the country are having, and that we have to realize that even amidst all of this progress of reduction in violence in Baltimore and D.C. and Chicago, all these other cities, this is a real threat to our communities and that we have to also not be fooled, stay focused on our mission here, not allow these distraction taxes and this flooding zone to distract us away from the things that matter here at home. Yeah. You know, I have spoken with Democrats who say that Donald Trump is using crime as a wedge issue to portray democratic black-led cities as lawless, Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, Baltimore. How do you see it?

You can see that. The proof is in the pudding, right? All of the cities called out are places that have black mayors that are Democrats and many of them have governors that are the same way or states that are that way. It's unfortunate, right? This, for me, violence, gun violence, it's not a partisan issue. It shouldn't be a partisan issue, all right? It shouldn't be a partisan issue when we're asking for things like ghost guns to be banned or Glock switches to be banned because those bullets that are coming out of that Glock that is now an automatic thing. weapon, doesn't care if somebody's Republican and Democrat, doesn't care if they're a grandmother or a police officer, it's just literally taking people away from their families. These things should not be a partisan issue. And my time, as an elected official, I've worked with Republicans, Democrats, whoever, who want to work on this most important issue. And it's unfortunate that, yet again, it's being used to draw a wedge, but also to distract people from other things, and also to just not tell the truth. The truth is that these cities are safer

than they were in the president's first term. They're safer in many cases than they have been in decades, and we should be acknowledging that while focusing in on continuing to see the reductions, not this dog and pony show that we are seeing right now. Brandon Scott is the mayor of Baltimore. Mr. Mayor, thank you for being with us.

Thank you. Well, part of the administration's efforts to be able to send National Guard troops into cities is a new order by President Trump to modify the Guard's organization and training and create rapid response units. Our Nick Schifrin is here with that part of the story. Nick? Jeff, yesterday President Trump signed an executive order that each state's National Guard units would be, quote, resource, trained, organized and available to assist federal state and local

law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances. And the Secretary of Defense will create a, quote, standing National Guard quick reaction force that shall be resource trained and available for rapid nationwide deployment. For perspective on this, we turn to retired Army Major General Randy Manor, the former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau. General Manor, thanks very much. Welcome to the NewsHour. What's your reaction to the president's order,

both this quick reaction force as well as the Guard's priorities? I think this is unneeded and also very dangerous. It's setting a new precedent. This is something where when I was the acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, we absolutely already put into place the ability of having quick reaction forces, in every state, depending on the size, but also the state would depend on the size of these quick reaction forces.

They were at the time, of course, targeting the ability to respond to emergencies in the state, such as floods, hurricanes, forest fires, earthquakes, and so on, to be able to save lives. The difference here is that it's focused on, quote-unquote, public order. That's very disturbing. And also the idea of creating a unit whose primary mission

is to deploy anywhere in the country to deal with potentially demonstrations or civil disorder as the president sees fit out of the D.C. Guard, that is not in keeping with the mission of the National Guard as a strategic reserve for our military and for our nation. But if I may ask, one of the missions of the National Guard is it not to be able to help with law enforcement? So what's so wrong if this vision is to have the National Guard, in fact, help with law enforcement? The key difference is that the governors control the National Guards whenever they are not deployed by the president.

As we have seen, not the mayor of D.C., the mayor of Los Angeles. No one is requesting this additional assistance. This is something where the president is imposing the armed military to go into American cities. That is the most significant difference. And it's very important to remember that civil disturbance deployments by governors is actually the smallest amount of missions that have ever been, that are done by the National Guard. It is a rarity, whereas now the President is elevating it to be a significant capability for the National Guard. So let's just step back. This focus on resourcing training,

organizing to quell civil disturbances. How different would that be from how the National Guard is currently organized? All our young men and women signed up for perhaps three reasons, to serve our country to defend our citizens overseas against threats. And number two, to be able to save our citizens in times of natural disaster. And the third objective, of course, which, by the way, it's been a very distant third, but it's on the list, is to be able to, as needed by the governor or mayors, to back up their local authorities, their law enforcement authorities as needed, to back them up if perhaps they are overwhelmed with some kind of an emergency that occurs.

It is not the predominant mission of the National Guard to do this. If the president is concerned about law enforcement, then what he should do is restore the $800 million to law enforcement for community engagement to recruit and train officers in that capacity. Are guardsmen on the streets of D.C. right now, which I was at D.C. guardsmen for 13 years, they are not trained in law enforcement, whereas law enforcement officers receive four to six months of training, our young men and women receive three or four hours of training, not months. Let's talk about the impact on the guards men themselves. Defense officials tell me that

the quick reaction force would be able to cover the entire continental U.S., which would require splitting up a quick reaction force, a few hundred in the west, perhaps Arizona, a few hundred in the south or east, perhaps Alabama. Could that work? And what would be the impact on the guard's overall staffing, the ability to perform those other functions if this quick reaction force were created like that. First of all, the use of the National Guard in all of these deployments, 4,000 down in Los Angeles, over 2,000 into Washington, D.C., are decreasing military readiness because those soldiers are no longer training for their combat operations missions.

That's very important for your viewers to understand. They are not doing their principal job. We should not be using the military against our own people in any capacity. This is not the history of our military, and we should not go there. And finally, sir, the guardsmen who would be part of a quick reaction force would be on perhaps a one hour or two-hour time frame to be able to deploy. It means, for example, soldiers couldn't drink. They couldn't travel very far with their families. They would have to be close enough to the base to be able to respond that quickly.

What is possible under the current level of National Guard staffing, and is that vision something that the National Guard could even execute today? I was a member of the 82nd orborn Division. We rotated readiness, and we had anywhere between four to eight hours whenever we were on Division Ready Brigade status. The National Guard does not operate that way. These are part-time citizens' soldiers. It is something where this is not physically possible to have a unit of any size ready to go,

with 400 people in that way, unless, of course, you were to triple or quadruple the size of the unit and rotate people through. This is not thought through. This is not representative of a good thorough mission planning. Even within when I was in charge of Army operations worldwide on the Army staff, we obviously had to rotate units through Iraq and Afghanistan, both from the point of view of those that were in the combat theater, those that were training up for the combat theater and then those that were returning from so that they could focus on getting individual training as well as, of course, have some time with their families. It is not possible and it is not thought through the way that it is being talked about at this time. Retired Army

Major General Randy Manor. Thank you very much. Thank you. They're on pavements, in gardens, and in our local parks. If you're in the Northeast, you've probably seen a spotted lanternfly this summer. The invasive species has now spread to 19 states devouring dozens of plants, most notably grape vines, as correspondent Dima Zane reports. In the foothills of Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains, Loving Cup Vineyard buzzes with life. There's just a host of tiny little insects that you would never know we're there, but they're constantly working for you.

But this year, owner Carl Hamps says it's crawling with a new unwelcome visitor. This is a spotted lanternfly adult. The bug doesn't feed on grape leaves or fruit like other invasive species. It sticks a straw into the vine and it sucks the sap from the vine, the energy out of the vine. So it's like a little vampire. As Virginia's only certified organic vineyard and winery, Loving Cup can't spray conventional insecticides to kill.

kill the little freeloaders. So Hampt has taken a drastic step, removing about 15 to 25% of the vineyard's fruit. We removed all the clusters off of these vines to allow them to bank the extra energy just to grow leaves and to prepare themselves for infestation by spotted lanternfly. Young spotted lanternflies feast on more than 70 plant species. But when they mature into adults, they become pickier eaters and mainly focus on two plants. Tree of Heaven, another invasive species, and grapevines. Every invasive that has come into the vineyard has ultimately been absorbed by nature,

but this is one that we might lose the vineyard for. Virginia's wineries are just the latest targets of the spotted lanternfly, which first arrived in the country about a decade ago on a shipment of stone from Asia to southeastern Pennsylvania. They hit the Keystone State's wineries hard, says entomologist Doug Pfeiffer. When it was first introduced, before people really knew what it was or how to handle it, there were actually entire blocks of vineyards that were killed by the feeding of spotted land and fly. These bugs have made a slow, destructive rampage south, hitchhiking on trucks, trains, and cars.

After arriving here in Virginia in 2018, spotted lanternflies exploded across the region. And experts say, they're here to stay. So in the near term, near to midterm, we can have high numbers because of, the lack of natural enemies to provide natural control. While they're now part of the landscape across much of the Northeast, Virginians are adjusting to the state's new red and polka-dotted residents. I've seen them everywhere. They make me extremely angry.

They're all over our deck. We can't even enjoy spending time on the deck as a family. They'll like randomly fly on my face when I'm, you know, walking back from work or something. It's kind of funny. And some have taken up the call from state and local governments to kill the bugs on site. I heard they're, like, pretty invasive, so I do kill them. We squish them.

But not without some hesitation. There are fellow mortals, so I do have mixed emotions about it. But does squashing lanternflies actually help? Bug expert Doug Pfeiffer says it depends. In those early stages, in the very beginning, you could possibly slow things down that way. But once it's in an area, that's really not going to retard the population growth very much. They've been spotted as far south as Atlanta and as far west as Chicago. And studies show they could eventually make their way to California, home to the nation's largest wine region.

Good job. But scientists are researching how to enlist other species in the effort to stop the spread. Yes. One recent study found that dogs can be trained to sniff out lanternfly eggs. Good boy. And another is looking into bringing its natural predators from over. overseas, two types of parasitic wasps. Back at Loving Cup Winery, Carl Hampst hopes nature will rebalance soon.

Every other invasive that has come through the vineyard seemed really scary at first. And once we learned about it, we understood what we could tolerate. And also to a certain extent, nature has adjusted itself to absorb the new invasive. It takes time. once nature gets moving, it can do quite a bit. For now, local wine drinkers are hoping that Mother Nature gets a move on. For PBS NewsHour, I'm Dima Zane in Northern Virginia. Finally tonight, a brief but spectacular take on digital equity. Matthew Rantan shares his insights from his decades.

long work expanding broadband in Indian country. You're watching this today, you're probably looking at it on a mobile device, and you're very fortunate to be able to do that, that you have streaming capability to be able to watch something like a video where Indian country still does not have this access. I grew up in Washington around some tribes, the Nespers, the Cordillane, the Colville, the Spokane. I got to see what reservation life was like. We'd play soccer over there and, you know, they didn't have the same resources.

As soon as you drove onto the reservation, things seemed different. During the Obama administration, I worked with the CTO of the United States to identify the missing link, right, between why do tribes not have access to broadband? 25 years ago, when fiber optic networks were laid across the United States,

they were doing it at a fast pace. They did not know how to navigate a tribal government. So they built around the reservation border and kept going. The benefits of a broadband coverage in the tribal space is that telemedicine, education, access to job search, vocational training, e-commerce. Without broadband, you don't have access to any of that.

I created the tribal broadband boot camp with Christopher Mitchell. It was in direct response to an outcry from tribes for information and access to funding and access to resources around broadband. They get in there and they had one solution and they've solved their problem, one way when they don't know that another tribe has done something differently and there's an alternative solution to be able to do that. They've become each other's resources. They don't

have to rely outside of India and country to solve problems together. My vision for the future is all the tribes that can manage and operate their own communications networks and get funded to do so and then those tribes that don't have the opportunity have the ability to work with tribes that do and scale up tribal companies that would support those smaller reservations that don't have the capacity to do it themselves. Indian Country supporting Indian Country. A cyber warrior to me is, it's me. I'm doing policy work in D.C. with the Federal Communications Commission with Congress.

I'm liaising between the California Department of Technology and all 109 tribes in California to get them access to broadband. I'm certainly shaped like a warrior, six foot four, like 270, and ready to go. My name is Matthew Ann Tannen, and this is my brief but spectacular take on the power of connection. And you can watch more brief but spectacular videos online at pbs.org slash news hour slash brief. And that is the news hour for tonight. I'm Amna Navazz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us. Thank you.