PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 5, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: August 5, 2026

Wednesday on the News Hour, progressive challenger Abdul El-Sayed defeats moderate Haley Stevens in Michigan's contentious Democratic Senate primary. A Russian attack on Kyiv kills at least 17 and exposes major deficiencies in Ukraine's air defense systems. Plus, 150 years after the Battle of the Little Bighorn, we examine how the conflict reshaped government policy toward Indigenous people. 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. And I'm Amna Nawaz. On the news hour tonight, progressive challenger Abdul El-Said defeats moderate Haley Stevens in Michigan's contentious Democratic Senate primary. A Russian attack on Kiev kills at least 17 people and exposes major deficiencies in Ukraine's air defense systems. And 150 years after the battle of the Little Big Horn, we examine how the conflict reshaped government policy toward indigenous people. These are the most misunderstood subject of American history, and we need to understand them to understand ourselves more fully. Welcome to the News Hour. We begin tonight in Michigan, where a progressive who has never held elected office, defeated an establishment-backed Congresswoman in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Abdul El-S. Ayat won the Democratic nomination, defeating moderate Haley Stevens in a closer-than-expected race that exposed divisions within the party. Outside groups poured more than $60 million into advertising, backing Stevens, making it one of the most expensive primaries in the country.

El-Sayed made that spending a central issue throughout his campaign, casting it as a symbol of outside influence, and he returned to it in his victory speech today. What we showed is that the power of our many is greater than the power of their money. What we showed is that if you're willing to build a movement, brick by brick, if you're willing to go and try to, your state and have the conversations in rooms big and small, starting in moments when people aren't even paying attention to an election but are paying attention to the price of gas and the price of groceries and the price of housing and the price of health care, that you can build a conversation that builds into a movement that defeats Belias. El-Siyadh will face off against Republican nominee Mike Rogers in the fall.

To discuss those results and more, we turn now to Democratic strategist Liz Smith. She worked for the campaign of another Democrat, Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out of the race last month, Liz, it's always great to see. So let's start with the headline here. El-Sayed, he faced a nearly nine-to-one spending advantage held by his rival. He was opposed by the sitting governor, popular governor, Whitmer, and he embraced many positions that, until recently, Democrats considered politically toxic, and yet he wins this Senate primary in a swing state. What's the lesson from that? I think what it tells us is less maybe about the ideology and more about the mood of where Democrats are.

You know, after the 2024 election, Democrats are pretty angry at the establishment. They're pretty angry about what happened with Joe Biden, and they're really angry that we lost to Donald Trump a second time. And they want something different. And that was what Abdul Al-Sayed was offering in this race. And as much as we can talk about it as a victory for El-Said, I think we need to look at it as a massive loss for the establishment that, as you said,

went in with over $65 million in spending on Haley Stevens' behalf, tried to winnow the field for her, and picked her out because she had the traditional political biography, had been in Congress for a long time, could raise a lot of corporate cash, had all the right insider connections. 20 years ago, that type of candidate may well have won this primary. In this environment, it was the exact wrong resume. And El-Said, he also made U.S. policy toward Israel and the role of outside spending, particularly by APEC, a defining issue in this race. How much of his victory reflects democratic views on the war in Gaza and U.S. support for Israel?

That was definitely a big part of it. And 10 years ago, where Haley Stevens stands on the issue of Israel, which is giving them unconditional aid, was a standard position for people in the Democratic Party. But today, where Abdul Al-Sayette is, saying we should not be giving a blank check to Nanyahu's government. You know, he calls it a genocide. A lot of, not everyone does. But I think where he stands on this issue is much closer to, where the median Democratic voter stands. But another thing I would say is, yes, he went out and he attacked APEC regularly. But in some ways, in a lot of these Democratic primaries, an attack on APEC isn't really just a foreign policy conversation. It signals that you are willing to take on powerful interests. You are willing to take on the big money that can get behind sort of corporate establishment Democrats

and establish your independence. And that was a key part of his message, too. How can a message that won a Democratic primary also build the broader coalition needed to bring in independence and swing voters in November? Well, Jeff, that's a million-dollar question. And that is the hard work that Abdul al-Sayed needs to start today. Because I watched that campaign,

and I would have loved to have seen him close it on a broader note, a more conciliatory note. But instead, at the end, you know, he was still really running this very far-leftist campaign, inviting far-left members of the Democratic Party media into campaign for him. And that's going to have to change between now and November. Because the reality is this. Michigan's a purple state. And so he's going to have to figure out, how do I build the tent? And I would just say some of his tone in this campaign has been my way or the highway.

You're either with me or you're bought off. And I just don't think that's going to work if you want to win people over. And big picture, we should say that, yes, progressives scored notable victories last night. But elsewhere, you have establishment-backed candidates prevailing like Wesley Bell's win over Corey Bush in Missouri. So taken together, what do all of these victories see? about where the Democratic Party is headed? What it says is that the Democratic Party is in the middle of a post-2020-reckoning. Call it an identity crisis.

Call it an inner-party debate. And I think we're trying to figure out, do we move on ideology? How hard do we fight? How do we talk about the role of money in our party? Corporate money? You know, millions of dollars that organizations like APAC are funding. And how do we view the establishment and the leaders? of our party. Democratic voters have said post-20204 that the Democratic leadership is too old.

They are out of touch, and we want new leaders, and we want new leadership. So I think all of these right now are questions that are being litigated in this election, and we will have a better idea about all of these things after November. Democratic strategist Liz Smith. Always good to see you. Thanks for making time for us. Yes, thank you for having me, Jeff. In the day's other headlines, the Senate confirmed Dr. Erica Schwartz as the new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today. On this vote, the ayes are 51, the nays are 44. The nomination is confirmed. The former Deputy Surgeon General takes over at a delicate time for the agency as it grapples with political interference and low morale.

Last month, she faced questions from a Senate committee about her approach to vaccines and the ongoing cyclospora outbreak. The CDC said today that the outbreak of the intestinal illness has spread to six additional states, bringing the total to 15 states. Separately, Chipotle says it's removed halapinos from some of its locations as health officials investigate a possible link to a salmonella outbreak. In Washington, D.C., federal aviation officials are investigating an incident involving President Trump's helicopter and a commercial aircraft. They say a jet took off yesterday afternoon from Reagan National Air Force. airport just as Marine One left the White House with the president on board. The two aircraft did not come close to each other, and officials say Trump was never in any danger.

But the incident appeared to violate safety protocols put into place after last year's midair collision between an airliner and an army helicopter near the airport. Turning now to the Middle East, Iran says it's in the final stage of drafting a deal with Oman that would reopen the Strait of Hormoz. Regional officials tell the news hour that under the terms of the deal, ships would enter the Persian Gulf through Iranian waters and exit through Omani waters. Neither would charge fees. The U.S. and Iran would once again enter a ceasefire and restart larger negotiations, including

over Iran's nuclear program. Today, Iranian officials warned the deal would only go through if, quote, certain third parties do not interfere. The meantime in southern Lebanon today, officials said that Israeli strikes killed at least one person and injured roughly a dozen others. The Israeli military says the attacks were in response to what it called a blatant violation of the ceasefire by Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group based in southern Lebanon. They come as Lebanese and Israeli negotiators met for a second day in Rome.

Millions of people across parts of Europe and Northeast Asia are slogging through punishing heat waves. In Rome, the sun bore down on tourists as they flock to St. Peter Square. The Vatican moved Pope Leo's weekly general audience indoors to offer some relief. At least 25 cities in Italy spent the day under the country's highest heat alert. In the meantime in South Korea, the country's president has called a heat wave there a national disaster, with professional baseball games canceled for today and tomorrow after two fans fainted. Residents in the capital city of Seoul say the heat is taking its toll.

Every year I think this is the hottest summer yet, but I really do think that the hotest summer yet, but I really do think this year is the hottest. I'm just trying to get through the summer by staying in cafes as much as possible or coming out to places like Chunga's stream to cool off by dipping my feet in the water. Climate scientists warn that the worst could still be ahead. They say human-caused global warming combined with a strengthening Super El Nino could make 2026 the hottest year on record. In the UK, authorities arrested a woman after four people were seen. stabbed today in Covent Garden, a busy area in central London. Police say four men were injured,

aged 34 to 52, and were taken to a nearby trauma center. Two have since been discharged. The others are being treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Officials say the 47-year-old suspect was arrested on suspicion of weapon possession and assault. They described the attack as, quote, an isolated mental health-related incident, adding that scissors were recovered at the scene. On Wall Street today, stocks ended mixed after notching new all-time highs yesterday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added more than 250 points on the day, but the NASDAQ lost ground, giving back nearly 1%. The S&P 500 also closed in negative territory. And the boyhood home of astronaut Neil Armstrong is on the market.

The two-story structure in Wapakoneta, Ohio is where the first man to walk on the moon developed his early love of flight. launching model airplanes out of his bedroom window. Today, that same room is decorated with autographed photos of astronauts who visited the site over the years. A retired history teacher has owned the home for nearly 40 years. She hopes any buyer would then donate it to Armstrong's nearby museum. The listing price for this piece of American history, $430,000. And legendary Canadian broadcaster Lloyd Robertson has died.

And that's the kind of day it's been this Thursday, September the 1st for all of us at CTV News. Good night. He signed off with that signature phrase. And that's the kind of day it's been in September of 2011, after nearly three decades as chief anchor of CTV national news. Across generations, he chronicled the defining moments in history with authority, poise, and compassion. Robertson was consistently named one of Canada's most trust-torn. journalists and won numerous awards. CTV News confirmed his death yesterday.

Lloyd Robertson was 92 years old. Still to come, on the news hour, a SpaceX rocket unintentionally slams into the moon, why the event could be a gift to scientists. Tennessee's Secretary of State discusses election security ahead of the state's primaries. And new research offers a better understanding of the origins of ovarian cancer that may help reduce risk. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of PBS News. A massive Russian missile attack killed nearly two dozen people across Ukraine overnight.

Such strikes have become almost routine this summer as Moscow looks to exploit a critical air defense shortage in Ukraine. That shortage is of the U.S. made Patriot Interceptor, the only air defense weapon capable of shooting down a Russian ballistic missile. Stephanie Sy has our report. Overnight, a towering inferno. Firefighters worked all night long to put out the fires of Russia's latest deadly ballistic missile attack on Ukraine's capital city. Moscow says its targets were warehouses and businesses with military ties. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the sites had nothing to do with the war.

Sites like this train station platform now, streaming. with body bags. The UN said at least 20 people were killed across Ukraine, most of them in and around Kyiv. For many, it was yet another night of terror. We haven't slept for five years now. There's no sleep. People live in constant fear. Constant fear.

We live day to day. That's all. Ukraine has been launching its own strikes into Russia, long-range drones hitting warehouses belonging to wild berries, Russia's biggest online retailer. Ukraine targeted over a dozen wild berries facilities in just the last three weeks, accusing it of supplying the Russian military. Meanwhile, Russian state media says the director of one of its major drone suppliers was gravely injured in a car explosion.

In the past, Moscow has blamed Ukraine for such attacks. Welcome. Nice to see you too, sir. Meeting today with British allies, President Zelensky warned of Russia's ballistic missile capabilities. They don't want to stop, and I think that they want to continue and increase escalation using the ballistic missiles. The most recent missile barrage shows the vulnerability of Ukraine's depleted air defenses. None of the Russian missiles were intercepted overnight.

Ukraine's supply of Patriot missile interceptors has been especially tight this year. With the U.S. supplying only one-third of the Patriots it gave Keev last year. We'll give them the right to make patriots. We'll show them how to do it. And after promising Ukraine the ability to build Patriot missiles, President Trump backtracked on that last week. We have, in the case of President Zelensky, he'd like to have some. Patriots, they'd like to have some tomahawks. We have not agreed to that. We're talking about it, but it's a hard thing to give away that kind of technology. And I don't think this would ever happen, but, you know, those people that you give that technology, they can someday turn on you.

Reuters reports the Pentagon has exhausted virtually all of its long-range precision missiles, including nearly half of its tomahawks during the war with Iran. President Trump has said in the past that the U.S. needs to be judicious with its missile supplies, but forcefully disputed the Reuters report, saying with regards to munitions, the military has far more than we need. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Sy. Well, for more on the missile shortage in Ukraine and how it impacts the country's ability to defend itself, we're joined by retired Army Colonel Robert Hamilton.

He's now president of the Delphi Global Research Center. That's a military consulting firm. Colonel, welcome. Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me on. Good to be with you. So we've heard President Zelensky say that Ukraine cannot properly defend itself. It doesn't have enough of those Patriot defense missiles.

The U.S. has had to divert its own supplies because of the ongoing war in Iran. The big question we hear again and again is why can't the European allies step in? What do you say to that? Well, I guess there's two reasons. First of all, the Patriot really is the only system made in large numbers. It has the capability to knock down Russian ballistic missiles effectively. effectively at high rates. And then secondly, our European partners and allies, some of them have the Patriot, but they have even fewer remaining than the U.S. does because they have given

so many to Ukraine in the early years of the war. And when it comes to production models, what are we looking at there? So right now, the U.S. produces about 600 Patriot missiles a year. The U.S. is one of three countries that produces the Patriot. We've licensed it to Germany and Japan. They produce far less than we do. There is a $58 billion contract, to scale up Patriot production to 2000 a year, but the first missiles off that contract don't arrive until early 2029 and the contract is not fulfilled until 2032. So this is a six or seven year effort just to get from 600 a year to 2000 a year. So when it comes to what we've heard from President Zelensky after meetings with European

leaders, we saw his tweet today about the NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta. And he said in that tweak, what we coordinated our efforts regarding countries that have the necessary missiles and the capacity to help. What is you talking about there and how much of a difference can that make for Ukraine? Well, there is a program called the Pearl, the prioritized Ukraine requirements list that allows our NATO allies and partners to buy things from the U.S. on Ukraine's behalf and then give them to Ukraine. Patriots, I think, were arriving through that process. The problem, as you noted at the outset, is that the U.S. has expended so many Patriot missiles in the Gulf War and the war against Iran. The numbers I'm seeing are from about 2,330 before the war,

We're down to about 800 right now. So we've expended almost two-thirds of our patriots. We don't have them to give because we need them. The U.S. has got to preserve them for other theaters for the Middle East, for the Indo-Pacific, as well as for Europe. And our European – so therefore, we've even been diverting missiles that our European partners and allies had bought and paid for to restock U.S. supplies. So it's a supply chain issue more than anything at this point.

When it comes to how those patriots are being used, I mean, from our reporting and others, as we've heard in Ukraine, there's pretty much a one-to-one deployment when it comes to the Patriot defensive missiles. When you talk about the use of those same missiles by the U.S. and by Gulf allies, are they as judicious when it comes to the deployment of those defensive missiles? Well, the only real good evidence we have for this is the remarks of Ukrainian specialists who actually deployed to help our partners and allies in the Gulf shoot down Iranian missiles at the beginning of the Iran war. And short answer is it doesn't look at the war. like they are being as judicious. Ukraine only had, has only been given about 600 missiles total,

600 Patriots for four and a half years of war. So the Ukrainians have gotten very effective at one missile knocking down one missile. What we're hearing from Ukrainian specialists who've come back from the Gulf is that some of our allies and partners, because they had larger stocks and because they had less experience, we're firing four to eight Patriot interceptors at a single Iranian ballistic missile. For all the focus on the Patriot defensive system, are there other defensive systems? drone production or the like, that the U.S. or allies could also be ramping up that would step in to help Ukraine at this time? So there are a couple of initiatives underway that won't produce interceptor missiles immediately, but over time, months and years, they will help fill this

patriot gap. There's a joint U.S. Ukrainian effort going on to essentially retrofit or upgrade the old S-300 missiles or a newer variant of the S-300 and give it better capability. And so that should come online near the end of this year. But again, we're talking a hundred or a couple of hundred a year that could be produced. And then there's a French Italian system called SAMT that is patriot-like that the French have just announced they're going to give two batteries of those to the Ukrainians this year. So that'll help plug that gap. And then there's a longer-term project on behalf of France and Italy to give more of these SAMHT

launchers and missiles to Ukraine. I hear you largely saying, though, months or years. Months or years, yeah. ...production of these. While we have you, I want to ask you about something else, Stephanie Sye, reported there about the reporting this week about a different missile system. I want to be clear, the offensive, long-range precision missiles, like attackams, tomahawks, and the like,

and the headlines that virtually all of the army stockpiles of those have been depleted in the Iran war. We've heard from the administration, and they refute that characterization. But if that is true, how concerning is that? Well, it's not just attackums, and I'm reading and hearing the same thing, that the U.S. Army has expended essentially all of its attackums stockage. Those can be produced at greater rates than things like Patriot. And the Army actually has a follow-on mission to the attackam called the Prism, which is the next generation. It's a little more capable, but we've expended nearly half of those stockages as well. So it is concerning. What you'll hear people say is it's a theater tax. The war in the Gulf is imposing a tax on other. theaters where the U.S. may have to fight, like Europe, like the Indo-Pacific, because so many of these high-demand, low-density weapons are being used in the Gulf that they're just not available in the quantities we need them in other theaters. And 30 seconds or so we have left. Does all of that put the U.S. at greater risk of

defending itself if it needs to? It does. I mean, the U.S. military's nightmare, and the thing it's always prepared for is multiple simultaneous conflicts. What I think we can say is the usage, the expenditure rate in the Gulf has put us at risk if we get ourselves in the situation where we're fighting multiple simultaneous conflicts. All right. That is retired Army Colonel Robert Hamilton joining us tonight. Colonel, thank you so much. Thank you.

Scientists say a large piece of a SpaceX rocket today crashed into the moon. The four-ton upper stage of the rocket is believed to have hit the moon at more than 5,000 miles per hour. The SpaceX rocket launched a pair of lunar landers last year, but the company's scientists say a combination of solar activity and gravity put it on a collision course with the moon. For more on why scientists are paying attention amid larger concerns about so-called lunar litter, we turn now to our science correspondent Miles O'Brien. So Miles, tell us exactly what crashed into the moon and why? Well, Jeff, you're taking a look at a Falcon 9 rocket

on the launch pad. This is the one that was headed toward the moon launched in January of 2025. Two commercial lunar landers on board. And this is the portion right here. That's the one. is the upper stage, which lights after the rocket gets into orbit and takes the payload on its way to the moon. If they wanted to, they could have put a little extra bit of fuel on it to nudge it into a solar orbit, but they didn't do that. And that's why it is headed or has headed and plowed into the moon, or so we presume. So this rocket was on a collision course. What did scientists predict might happen. They expected it to arrive at the Einstein crater of the moon, western edge of the moon from our perspective. And what you're seeing is the location here.

The idea was that it would hit just on our side, the earth-facing side of the moon, and kick up a plume of dust on the order of 30 miles in height. Now, scientists really get excited about plumes, Jeff, because they can tell them, gives them an opportunity to see what the moon is made of, so to speak. And so what they did was they projected all of these plume heights and considered the possibilities. Now, what has happened, we haven't seen actually an image yet, but scientists tell us using spectrometry data that they have found traces of lithium and sodium in this cloud. But other than that, we haven't seen actual images because it's very difficult to get an image of something this small on the edge of the moon, which after all is

very bright. And that's interesting because as I understand it, NASA has done this deliberately in the past, and this would explain why. This is 2009. This is actually one of the cooler missions that NASA has ever done, Jeff. They flew a spacecraft and deliberately plowed in its upper stage into the moon, kicking up a huge cloud of dust. And then the instruments on board, the spacecraft that was flying along with it, captured all kinds of data as it flew through that cloud of dust and discovered, among other things, and this is very significant, water ice. And this is exactly how NASA has decided to fly its Artemis missions to the south pole of the moon because they discovered water ice. That was a big deal. And lots of other big rocket casings

have hit the moon, too, right? Yeah, that's Apollo 14. That's its Apollo casing. It's casing the upper stage, I should say, and this is what it left behind. And this is also interesting to scientists as well. Even if they didn't get a chance to see the plume in real time, as satellites fly overhead like this one did, this is ejecta, which came from deep inside the moon. They can analyze it. and also learn some things. So it's very interesting. When you start perturbing things, you're able to determine what things are made of,

whether they'll find any more water here, probably highly unlikely. But then again, you never know. Yeah, so I hear you say that there is scientific value to all of this, but as more space debris enters low Earth orbit, it seems like it doesn't really bode that well for the moon as more missions are launched.

Well, this is our planet. I mean, there are thousands and thousands of tracked pieces of space debris. This is a depiction from NASA, which shows just some of the debris that is swarming around our planet. It's a real problem in low-earth orbit, which needs to be addressed somehow.

And as NASA, as SpaceX, as humanity, starts thinking about flying many more missions to the moon, we should think about this. The consequences of not handling space debris well are this, and probably this is an opportunity now for the smart people who are designing all these missions to think about space debris around the moon now. Miles O'Brien, we learn so much when we speak with you.

Thanks again for your time. You're welcome, Jeff. Hundreds of thousands of voters head to the polls in Tennessee tomorrow, the only state in the nation to hold Thursday primary elections. This year's come after the Supreme Court cleared the way for Tennessee to redraw its congressional maps, which will be used for the first. first time statewide. But even as election officials are making final preparations,

President Trump continues to question election integrity across the country, potentially undermining voter confidence. Joining us now is Tennessee's Secretary of State Trey Hargott, who's overseen the state's elections since 2009. Secretary, welcome to the show. Thanks for being with us. Well, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you. So you've got big primary elections tomorrow for governor, one U.S. Senate seat, nine congressional districts, most of the state legislature. And as we noted, Tennessee quickly redrew those congressional maps after the Supreme Court decision.

So all nine congressional districts were redrawn. The map eliminated one Democratic district, I understand. And you have only had three months between the redrawing of those maps and these primary. So how do you know that voters have all the information they need about the maps and the precincts? Well, I would say it's probably been the most widely covered redistricting in the history of our state. Everywhere you look, we've been putting out information about where people could find what district they were living, what the district they now live in. You know, we provided maps. We have a go vote 10 app where you can look up your district information. And if you're voting

district changed, then you got a postcard from your local election commission letting you know you're a new congressional district. So every voter has been notified if their district has changed. So you're confident voters have the information they need for tomorrow. Is that right? Absolutely. If you don't have the information you need, it's because you haven't looked. There's another story that's been widely covered I want to ask you about. That's related to the Department of Justice suing at least 30 states that didn't share complete voter registration lists. That includes some Republican-led states, we should note. And your state did turn over your voter information willingly.

Were you behind that decision? And if so, can you tell us what the reasoning was for that? Well, we consulted with our counsel, and they told us that they believe that DOJ have a right to that information. And so I wouldn't say we willingly did it. I wasn't excited about it. But, you know, I tend to listen to my lawyers. When my lawyers say, you know, you need to give it to them, we did. I wonder how you look at that now, though, because as you and I speak, the Department of Justice is now zero for 19 in the court cases that have been decided on this so far. The judges have been calling some of these moves unprecedented and illegal in one case.

And another one, they called the move to get the voter rolls of fishing expedition. Was it, in your view, now a mistake to hand over all that voter information when judges are consistently saying the government doesn't have a right to it? Well, I relied on advice of counsel. You know, and at the same token, I'm not sitting here at Monday morning quarterbacking what the last Super Bowl looked like either. I mean, I'm looking forward and figure how we're going to run elections. We're number one election integrity now for five years in a row. And if every state did it like Tennessee did it, we'd have a much better electoral system. We're talking about very sensitive voter information here, though, right?

Last four of Social Security numbers, driver's licenses numbers. Now the judges are saying the government doesn't need to have that. Are you worried about how that information might be used? Well, no, I'm not worried about that. And frankly, you know, we have worked together with the federal government through the SAVE system to make sure that only U.S. citizens and Tennessee citizens are on our voter rolls. And those last four of the Social Security number we used as part of that. Can I ask you about that citizenship verification?

Because Tennessee is one of the strict estates in the nation when it comes to voter ID. You're one of only 10 states in the country that got a perfect 20 out of 20 score from the Heritage Foundation when it comes to voter ID law. And the studies have shown that non-citizen voting doesn't seem to be a problem in Tennessee. So why is that a concern for you? Well, maybe it's not a problem in Tennessee because of how we run elections here, you know, because of the photo ID law that we have, because of our work across state and federal boundaries to make sure that only Tennessee citizens and U.S. citizens are on our voter rolls.

So when it comes to elections in Tennessee, I'm sure you heard the president in his prime time speech last month talk about foreign interference and hacking in our election systems. I'm curious how many times you as a Secretary of State in Tennessee have heard from officials at SISA, the government agency responsible for securing those elections and protecting against that hacking. Have you had reach out from them, guidance from them, them calling you, or offering briefings? Well, that's a lot of questions to unpack right there. So certainly we've talked to SISA in the past. SISA has offered different recommendations at times. Doesn't mean we take all of those.

Some of them we may have already been doing to start with. So, you know, you've got a lot of questions right there. The bottom line is that we work very well with our State Department of Homeland Security. We work well with the United States Department of Homeland Security to make sure that we protect the physical and the cyber security of our elections here in Tennessee. Have you had any briefings from SISA? specifically related to the concerns the president brought up in his primetime speech related to this election? Well, I've not had one recently, no. No, and are there any plans to have one?

I don't have anything on my counter right now. Okay. Before I let you go, I want to ask about your voter turnout, because as you well know, Tennessee has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the nation, both in general and primary elections. I'm wondering what you think is behind that and how you can encourage more voter participants. patient? Well, you know, we are like the cooks. You know, we open the restaurant, we prepare the food, we can't make people eat it. And what drives turnout are competitive races, candidates and parties being competitive. And, you know, frankly, there's just not been a lot of competitive races here in Tennessee in recent years. But also, people have to be willing to talk about politics, you know. And what really drives turnout in addition to competitive races is having friends and neighbors who are willing to talk

to one another about politics and encourage people to go vote. You know, sometimes people will say it's hard to vote. And, you know, when they tell me that, I'm like, we've got 14 days of early voting. We've got, you know, 12 hours on election day, and they'll say it's not convenient for them. But if we tell people that there's a new iPhone coming out, then they're gladly going to stand in line for several hours to go get a new iPhone. So it's about what you prioritize. Mr. Secretary, we know it's a busy time for you.

You have a big day tomorrow. We're grateful to you for making the time. That's the Tennessee Secretary of State, Trey Hargott, joining us. Thank you, ma'am. New breakthroughs are changing how doctors understand one of the deadliest cancers affecting women. Researchers now know that almost all fatal ovarian cancers begin in the fallopian tubes, not the ovaries. Stephanie sigh's back now to tell us more about how this new understanding is impacting patient care. Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with most women finding out about it when it's already advanced.

Now, cancer prevention groups are touting a relatively new prevention, removing the fallopian tubes when a patient, who isn't planning to have more children, may already be undergoing surgery for something else, such as a hernia repair. One of the advocates of this approach is Dr. Rebecca Stone, a professor in the Johns Hopkins Medicine Department of Gynecology and obstetrics. Dr. Stone, thank you so much for joining the NewsHour. First of all, tell me how this works and why it's so important that doctors and patients are aware of it as an option. Back in the early 2000 was the discovery that the most common and deadly type of ovarian cancer actually by far and large

comes from the fallopian tube. And salpenectomy or fallopian tube removal decreases the risk of tubo-ovarian cancer then significantly. We know by at least 50 percent, and the data tracking out of BC, Canada indicate that it may be upwards of 80 percent risk reduction of the most common deadly type of ovarian cancer when you undergo fallopian tube removal. So my understanding of the way this works, Dr. Stone, is that a patient who may already have some sort of abdominal surgery they've plant, such as a C-section or a hernia repair, can then ask their doctor if they're done having children to remove the fallopian tubes, right? Why aren't more people doing this? There has not been mass public awareness about this discovery and about the role of fallopian tube removal in the

prevention of tubovarian cancer. And it is not a universally covered option on insurance health plans. So, you know, the average woman person watching this new segment can't be sure that their health plan covers fallopian tube removal, for instance, as an alternative to tubaligation, which is the most, you know, common scenario when a woman might consider fallopian tube removal. Given how much it can lower risk for women, which women really should be talking to their doctors about doing this? How do you know how great a risk you're at for ovarian cancer? The goal is universal awareness of this discovery and of the benefit of fallopian tube removal for tubovarian cancer prevention among women who have finished childbearing, family planning,

don't need fallopian tubes for future fertility, however you want to define it. And when you think about the everyone, I sort of think about two groups of women, people who have average risk, so average lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of 1 to 2%, that's the general population. And then you have people who are higher than average risk, so people who have a moderate to high risk, either due to a family history of tubovarian cancer or due to germline genetic testing that has revealed a genetic change that increases someone's risk for developing the cancer over the course of their lifetime to, you know, anywhere between 5 to 40 percent in the case of women who have a BRCA-1 genetic change.

What are the risks and or side effects of the surgery? When you choose to undergo fallopian tube removal at the time of another planned operation, you know, the risk and the time in the operating room is already attributable to the primary operation. So, you know, when you have this as an add-on procedure, for instance, to a hysterectomy or a hernia repair or a gallbladder removal, so, you know, this does not add substantial risk and takes, you know, on average, about eight minutes. And it doesn't change recovery. The recovery is related to the primary procedure. procedure as well. So that's why it's such a compelling prevention option for a cancer that is,

you know, in the top five to six most deadly cancers that we face as a human race, a cancer for which there is no screening and no reliable treatment or cure. That's why prevention is so important. We've really focused on ovarian removal for the prevention of tubovarian cancer, what we called ovarian cancer. But that's not such a great risk reduction strategy, the idea of removing the ovaries, because the ovaries are not only a reproductive or fertility organ, they are also an endocrine organ

that almost certainly have important function even after a woman goes through menopause. Whereas the fallopian tube doesn't affect how we look or how we feel and doesn't have any known function once its role in reproduction or fertility as over. Dr. Stone, how many lives might be saved if there was more awareness and insurance coverage around this option?

So if there was universal awareness and access to the benefit of fallopian tube removal at the time of hysterectomy, and as an alternative to tubal ligation, it's projected that we would save almost 2,000 lives a year from tubo-evarian cancer in the time. this country. And if you, you know, care about the dollars and cents of it, that is equivalent to about half a billion health care dollars annually. That is Dr. Rebecca Stone with Johns Hopkins University joining us. And for more information on ovarian cancer, you can go to outsmartovarian cancer.org. Thank you so much for caring about this on behalf of all women. It's been 150 years since the Battle of the Little Bighorn, one of the most famous and enduring events in American history.

While Native Americans were victorious, Judy Woodruff reports on how the battle reshape the government's policy towards indigenous people and why it still resonates so deeply for so many today. It's part of her series, Crossroads America at 250. Along this stretch of sweeping prairie on the Crow Reservation in Montana, members of more than a dozen Native American tribes have gathered for what's known as a victory ride. It commemorates the end of the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876, or what Native Americans here often refer to as the Battle of the Greasy Grass. I still look at it as a moment in history that we should be prepared. They're the last ones to surrender. They're the last ones to come onto the reservations and accept our new fate, basically. Trina Lone Hill, a member of the Oglala Sioux tribe in South Dakota, helped organize the Victory Ride.

She says she's been coming to this annual event for more than 30 years and hearing stories of her ancestor, Susie shot in the eye. My great, great, great grandmother fought here alongside her husband and her husband. her sons. And so I continue to tell that to my children. You know, this is why we're here. This is why we fight. This is 150th anniversary and it's good to see everybody here. 150 years later, it's an especially poignant moment for Native Americans as the nation celebrates its own anniversary. 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the founding document that culminates with a list of grievances against the

British crown and refers to Native Americans as merciless Indian savages. One of the things about the founding is that when you establish something, it creates enduring legacies. Ned Blackhawk is an historian at Yale University and the author of The Rediscovery of America, Native Peoples, and the unmaking of U.S. history. That grievance is something obviously that Native Americans have a lot of trouble with, myself included, because it is vilifying and homogenizing and representing Indigenous Americans as if they were other than American. It's a giant contradiction. It's a giant contradiction. It's an enormous paradox that sits at the heart of America.

These are the most misunderstood subject of American history, and we need to understand them to understand ourselves more fully. We're still here today. We persevered the Europeanism. and colonialism and we're adapting. Donovan Taylor is a Northern Cheyenne tribal member and a researcher for the history, they tell, an oral history project that interviewed hundreds of descendants of Native Americans and First Nations people who fought at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

This battle field is just a reminder of what we can accomplish if we all get together. Leon Eagle Tail and Chester Whiteman traveled from Washington State and Oklahoma to be here. They joined thousands of other Native Americans from across the country who set up camps and teepees along the banks of Montana's Little Big Horn River. We've always been like a second-class citizen. We weren't citizens until 1924, but we were here before anybody else came. We experienced a great genocide. We are recovering.

But a lot of times it takes things like this to help us remember what we went through. This remembrance includes a reenactment of the famous battle that started after the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry, under Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, attacked a village of mostly Lakota Sues. northern Cheyenne and Arapaho Native Americans who had gathered in defiance of orders to return to reservations. The military's goal to force these nomadic tribes back onto reservations as the United States continued to push farther west. The big thing was gold in the Black Hills. See, two years before this, Custer discovered gold in the Black Hills. So there was a push for to take that land. Donovan Sprague is a Lakota historian and a descendant of both Chief Hump and the legendary Native American warrior Crazy Horse, both of whom fought here.

We had a very big village just right over here that was just kind of like bursting at the seams. And then as soldiers came in and were detected, they come out to meet that resistance after that. It was a big turning point. The soldiers were dismounted and they're just running to Last Stand Hill. More than 260 U.S. soldiers were killed, including Custer, who is believed to have died here on what is now known as Last Stand Hill. But it was a victory that would soon bring devastating consequences. It's tragically ironic, but the defeat of this relatively small party,

in Montana will set in motion of policy reform that convinces the federal government that it has to do more aggressive intrusions into Indian country and it begins punishing these recalcitrant tribal members as it sees it in ways that are unprecedented the removal of children to the boarding schools, the subdivision of their lands and begin a process of what is known as Americanization that tragically dismantles

essential economies, often governments, and even family relations across Indian country. It's a history that many Native Americans say the nation has yet to fully reckon with. Declaration of independence, we're still classified as savages. You know, that needs to change. There's a lot of things that need to change because we're not savages. We're human beings. And this legacy of mistreatment. continues to cast a long shadow. Today, Native Americans have the highest poverty and lowest life expectancy rates

of any racial or ethnic group in the United States. From the Trail of Tears to being put on the reservation in Oklahoma called Indian territories, to where they put us on reservations here. That's the reason why this battle took place, took place because they had orders to put us back on the reservations. It's no different than the concentration camps that the Jews had to survive in Germany. No difference. After the Battle of the

Little Big Horn, more Western lands would be taken. And Ned Blackhawks says even in defeat, George Armstrong Custer would become an emblem of American identity, portrayed in countless advertisements. It's Errol Flynn in his greatest role. And in feature films like the 1941 Western, they died with their boots on, starring Errol Flynn. The West becomes after 1876 the most imagined region of the United States. And Custer becomes one of its most singular figures.

So this vision of Custer in many ways becomes a vision of America itself. But today, there are new efforts to begin changing that vision. Just talk to each other like you guys are at home, okay? Native American journalists urged tribal members to record their own family histories and stories of ancestors who fought here. And for those we spoke with, it was a time for reflection. I don't like that feeling of animosity. I want to be at peace.

Our ancestors already done that. Why should we have to do that too? And for many others, it was a moment to acknowledge both the pain of the present while remaining hopeful about the future. You know, I see so much despair on the reservation. We talk, you know, there's so much countless stories about poverty and alcoholism and suicide, all of these things that are modern problems. I want to see, I want to bring our kids out of that.

I want them to feel this pride. I want them to, I guess, get a different perspective. We are the survivors, him and me. We survived, but we want our children and grandchildren to thrive. So that's why I'm here. Everybody talks about healing and things like that, but both parties have to heal together. And for a long time it wasn't like that.

Nobody would stick the hand out to try to help the other side. And today it's starting to turn where everybody wants to hear our story, the real story. A story still being written as the nation marks its 250th anniversary. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Judy Woodruff in Crow Agency, Montana. Remember, there's always a lot more online, including a look at Haitians who've lost their temporary protected status in the U.S. but are unable to return to their home country. That is at pbs.org slash news hour. And that's the NewsHour for tonight.

I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Nawaz. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team, thank you for joining us.