PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 6, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: August 6, 2025

Wednesday on the News Hour, the health secretary pulls hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the kinds of vaccines that were critical during the COVID pandemic. The standoff over redistricting in Texas continues as Republicans escalate their threats against absent Democrats. Plus, Judy Woodruff explores whether artificial intelligence could help Americans find common ground. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. I'm the Navaz is away. On the news hour tonight, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pulls hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the kinds of vaccines that were critical during the COVID pandemic. The standoff over redistricting in Texas continues as Republicans escalate their threats against absent Democrats. And Judy Woodruff explores whether artificial intelligence could help Americans. find common ground. We probably should be judging ideas on their merit, not who said them. Welcome to the News Hour. Many public health experts and scientists say they are stunned by Health and Human Services Secretary

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s latest decision to cancel nearly half a billion dollars in federal funding for future vaccine development. The latest move comes after the Trump administration already withdrew a multi-million dollar contract with the biotech company, Moderna, to develop a bird flu vaccine using what's known as MRNA technology. MRNA vaccines work by using a single strand of genetic code to create a fragment of a virus that sets off the body's immune response. The technology was central in the battle against COVID and can be developed more quickly than traditional vaccines. But anti-vaccine communities and skeptics don't trust its safety, and that includes Secretary Kennedy who canceled more than 20 contracts.

For more on the implications of all this, we're joined by Michael Osterholm. He's the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He's also the co-author of the book The Big One, How We Must Prepare for Future Deadly Pandemics, which will be out in early September. with us. Thanks, Jim. So I want to start with your overall reaction to this. How critical is MRNA technology? And what does the loss of this funding mean for a future vaccine development? Well, let me just set the stage. I've been in this business for over 50 years on the front lines of public health. I have served seven different presidential administrations advising them, and I've been through several pandemics. And I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public

health decision I've ever seen made by a government body. It's really a very, very significant challenge for us. Why is it important to have MRNA vaccines? Where else do they show promise? Well, first of all, we've all just been through a pandemic, and we did see what, in fact, the COVID vaccine could do to reduce serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths. But the other kind of pandemic that we're very concerned about, and you noted in the lead-in with regard to bird flu and the possible that it could be the next influenza pandemic virus. Right now, globally, we have the ability to make enough vaccine in about 15 months after an influenza pandemic started to actually vaccinate only about one-fourth of the entire world. We're still using the 1950s

process using imbriated chicken eggs to grow the virus in. That would be an utter failure. Now, with the MRNA technology, we believe we could probably have enough vaccine. for the whole world within a year, and it would make a big difference. This is a vaccine that would surely be every bit as equivalent of what we currently have, if not better. So there's just one example of where MRNA technology can be helpful. We have a number of other infectious diseases right now, including some cancer vaccine work that is being done with MRNA technology. And I think the thing that was most challenging yesterday with regard to Secretary Kennedy's announcement was how he just blatantly said the risks outweigh the benefits without providing

any of those data or providing who it was that actually supported that within the administration or in the in the scientific community. Well, on that point, Secretary Kennedy said that the MRNA vaccines don't work against respiratory viruses. Here's a bit of what he had to say. Most of these shots are for flu or COVID, but as the pandemic showed us, MRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract. Here's the problem. MRNA only codes for a small part of the viral proteins, usually a single antigen. One mutation and the vaccine becomes in effect.

So what does the science actually show? Well, what happens is Mr. Kennedy continues to use words that make it sound like he knows what he's talking about, but in fact he doesn't. We know in the pandemic that the COVID vaccines were good, but not great. No, did they stop everyone from getting infected? No, did they stop everyone from transmitting the virus? No. But did they, in fact, greatly reduce the number of people who got seriously ill, people who had to be hospitalized or people who died?

They were outstanding in that regard. But that's the same way it is with our current flu vaccines that we have. Even though they're not MRI, we have the same thing with seasonal flu. So any respiratory virus is going to be a chance. and not based just on this technology. And as Mr. Kennedy also alluded to that somehow these vaccines drive the virus to change, again, simply not true. So, you know, to the average citizen hearing this, they're going to say, wait a minute, maybe I shouldn't get that. And remember, we know very well. Vaccines are important, but there are nothing until it become a vaccination.

So what he also did yesterday, besides cutting this research out, he just created more doubt in the minds of the public about these vaccines, which is absolutely. a horrible, horrible situation. Well, you and other public health leaders, as I understand it, are launching an organization called the Vaccine Integrity Project. What's the goal? Are you trying to create an alternative framework by which to inform the public about vaccines? Well, typically what happens in a given seasonal vaccine recommendation, such as we see in the fall with COVID, RSV, and influenza, the medical societies, those in the American Academy of Pediatrics, the infectious side of America, et cetera, take the information that the advisory committee organization practices has generated, extensive work to go back and to look at all

the studies that have been done from the previous evaluation point to the current time. And they're not doing that this year. And so what our project is all about is we have 25 of the best and brightest minds from people from around the country. And we've now come together, evaluated over 17,000 abstracts of information, put this together, And we will be issuing in the next several weeks a full report showing what do we now know from a scientific standpoint about the safety, the effectiveness, the overall ability to use these vaccines that won't be based on this kind of misinformation. Based on that, then the societies that will then make their recommendations surely have a database now upon which they can rest their case and say, this is why we're making this recommendation. You know, these cuts add to mounting evidence that Secretary Kennedy is pursuing an aggressive anti-vaccine agenda. What are the risks?

Well, they're incalculable just because of the fact we're talking about potentially not just a few deaths. We're talking about many, many, many deaths that would occur. We worry desperately about his ongoing legacy of just unilaterally deciding. I'm going to know more than you. Therefore, I'm telling you this is what will be available and what it will not be. And you may recall in the hearings that they had for his confirmation, he promised, you know, Senator Cassidy, he would not take vaccines away from anyone. And he's doing that already. You know, he's already taken him away from pregnant women for COVID, which we know is a very high risk period for severe COVID.

He's taken it away from young children. So this is a systematic move to just continue to erode the availability of these vaccines. This is not about politics. This is about people's lives. This is about our kids and grandkids. Every grandparent, every parent in this country right now should be absolutely alarmed by what's happening and whether or not their children or their grandchildren are going to have access to these vaccines in the days ahead. I think it's an open question.

Michael Ulsterholm, the forthcoming book, is the big one, How We Must Prepare for Future Deadly Pandemics. Thank you for being with us. Thanks a lot, Joe. Today's other headlines start with a shooting at one of the country's largest army bases. Officials in Georgia say an Army sergeant opened fire at Fort Stewart this morning, shooting five soldiers and prompting a brief lockdown. The base is about 40 miles southwest of Savannah and is home to thousands of troops in the Army's third infantry division and their family members. Authorities say 28-year-old Cornelius Radford started shooting before 11 a.m. Eastern and was quickly subdued by his fellow soldiers.

All five of the victims are recovering in stable condition. At a briefing today, the division's commanding general said Radford used a personal handgun, which are not typically allowed on military bases. As you can see here at our gates, we have armed guards in protective equipment. This one's a bit difficult, and we're going to have to determine how he was able to get a handgun to his place of duty. Officials also say Radford had a DUI on his record, which was not previously known. known to his chain of command. He's now in custody, and authorities say they're looking into possible motives for the shooting. In Russia today, U.S. envoy Steve Whitkoff met with President

Vladimir Putin for what a Kremlin aide called useful and constructive talks. The meeting comes just days ahead of President Trump's deadline for Moscow to stop the war in Ukraine or face severe tariffs and other economic penalties. Afterwards, President Trump said, great progress was made, but did not signal whether he would call off his planned sanctions. Meantime, on the ground in Ukraine, officials say Russia struck a recreational center overnight in the southeastern region of Zaporicia. At least two people were killed and a dozen others injured. Also today, President Trump said there's a, quote, good chance that he could meet with President Putin soon that comes amid media reports that such a sitdown is in the works,

though no meeting has been scheduled and no location has been made public. In Gaza, local health officials say at least 38 people were killed last night and into today while trying to get aid. A relative of one man killed said he was shot in the head while trying to get flour for his parents. The Israeli military said it fired warning shots at crowds that approached its forces. Beyond that, hospitals in Gaza reported an additional 25 deaths from Israeli airstrikes since yesterday. It comes as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be ready to announce further military action in Gaza, including a potential plan to fully reoccupy the territory.

Japan has been marking 80 years since the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima during World War II. At a ceremony today, a moment of silence signaled the time of the blast eight decades ago. The U.S. ambassador joined representatives from 120 countries as Hiroshima's mayor warned of nuclear threats that still exists today. The bombing back in 1945 flattened the city, killing some 140,000 people. The U.S. dropped another bomb when Nagasaki three days later. Japan soon surrendered. Today's anniversary could be the last major milestone for many survivors as their average age is now over 86 years old. Here at home, a massive fire in Central California is now the state's largest blaze of the year. The Gifford fire has scorched some 131 square miles and was less than 10% contained as of earlier today.

It's just one of dozens of large wildfires burning across the west, including the Dragon Bravo fire, which has burned more than 200,000. square miles in Arizona's Grand Canyon. Wildfires are also raging overseas. In southern France, a blaze that started Tuesday has claimed one life and injured more than a dozen others, including firefighters. The country's Prime Minister visited the scene, calling it an unprecedented disaster and saying that climate change is to blame. Today's event is linked to global warming and drought.

We need to think about this with local elected officials. and professional leaders with parliamentarians and the government. We need to think about what tomorrow might bring. That fire in southern France has now burned an area larger than the entire city of Paris. Clairs filed for bankruptcy protection today as the retailer known for its ear-piercing services and teen-friendly jewelry battles massive debt and rising competition. Analysts say Clare's is also struggling with higher costs

related to President Trump's tariffs. It's the second time in seven years that the company has sought bankruptcy protection, and it follows a similar move by teen retailer Forever 21, which filed for bankruptcy protection back in March. Clare says its stores will continue to operate as it looks to reorganize and possibly find a buyer to keep the business running. The NFL says it has a preliminary deal to sell its NFL network and other media assets to ESPN.

Under the framework agreement, the league would sell the NFL network, NFL fantasy, and the rights to distribute the Red Zone channel to cable and satellite operators. In exchange, the NFL would get a 10% stake in ESPN, but it's not a done deal. Both sides still have to hammer out a final agreement and will need approval from NFL owners and regulators. As for viewers, they're unlikely to see any changes until at least next year. A spike in Apple shares fueled gains on Wall Street today on news that it'll invest an additional $100 billion in manufacturing in the U.S. That helped offset the latest tariff concerns

after President Trump threatened to double tariffs on India to 50% in part as punishment for continuing to buy Russian oil. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added roughly 80 points on the day. The NASDAQ surged more than 250 points. The S&P 500 also ended firmly in positive territory. And actress Kelly Mack has died. She was best known for her role as Addie on the acclaimed zombie horror series, the Walking Dead. It was one of her many TV credits.

Please take him. Tell me what's wrong. It's me. I'm what's wrong. She also landed parts on hit dramas like Chicago Med and 911, among others. In January, she posted on social media that she had been diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. Her death comes as rates for some cancers are rising among young people, especially women, even as cancer deaths overall are on the decline. Kelly Mack was just 33 years old.

Still to come on the News Hour. The Justice Department reportedly orders a grand jury probe into allegations over Obama-era officials and Russian interference in the 2016 election. And the creator of an opera about the slain civil rights icon Harvey Milk sees in his story relevance to events today. 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.

The Republican Governor of Texas is asking that state's Supreme Court to remove the legislature's top Democrat after Democrats left the state to block proposed changes to its congressional map. And Democrats in blue states are threatening to redraw their own maps if Texas moves forward. William Brangham is here with how this is all unfolding as the country marks a voting rights milestone, William. That's right, Jeff. Today is the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, which ended the era of Jim Crow voting laws that blocked black Americans from exercising their right to cast a ballot. But 60 years after its signing, there is renewed effort to give parties greater control over the process by giving politicians more ability to pick their voters. Joining us now are Tony Plahetsky of the Austin American statesman and Rick Hassan, professor of law and political science at UCLA and author of A Real Right to Vote.

Gentlemen, thank you both so much for being here. Tony, I want to start with you first with what's happening in Texas. Democrats have fled the state to try to stop the Republicans from redrawing these new maps, which they argue would unfairly tilt the state's congressional district. to the Republicans. You went with some of those fleeing Democrats to Illinois. What is your sense about how long those Democrats can hold out?

William, they say they are deeply committed to remaining outside of Texas, outside the state lines, until at least August 19th. That is an important day because that is the last day of the 30-day special session that was called by Governor Greg Abbott. This was one of the number of things on the agenda, a number of items, including William flood relief. Keep in mind that, of course, Texas had those devastating July 4th floods. And Democrats say that that is what should be taking precedent over any of the other issues on that legislative agenda. In terms of what happens after August 19th, that is one thing that they say they are continuing to examine among themselves.

because it's important to note that the governor could easily call another special session. So, Tony, staying with you, though, Republicans, the governor and other members of the legislature, have really ratcheted up their efforts to try to force the Democrats to come back. Tell us a little bit more about what they have done and whether you think that'll work. Well, one of the things that has occurred is that the governor has actually filed a lawsuit with the Texas Supreme Court. arguing that the leader of the Democratic caucus in Texas should be essentially thrown out of office. That suit was filed, and it is now making its way through the Supreme Court. There is a big legal question about the legal underpinnings of the governor's petition.

But at the same time, there are also a number of other conversations that Democrats believe really don't hold a lot of ways. For example, this idea that the FBI could potentially become involved and arrest them and bring them back to Texas. We've seen Republicans really sort of make those points, but all of the experts we talk to say that much of what they are saying really is just seemingly political rhetoric that has no real basis in the law. Rick Hassan, let's say that the Republicans succeed in their efforts and do redraw these maps. What is your sense of what the practical implications that would mean for Republicans in Congress? Well, right now, of course, Republicans have a very narrow majority in the House. This would be an attempt to try to keep that majority, despite the fact that we're going to be going to a midterm election. We're usually the party out of power, in this case the Democrats, would be able to gain seats.

Five seats might not be enough, but we're hearing that there may be movement in other states, including in Missouri and Indiana, to try and do the same thing. This has prompted a kind of tit for tat from Democrats, from California to New York, to other states, looking to do their own maximal gerrymandering. It's kind of a race to the bottom. Looks like Republicans probably have more seats that they could squeeze out if they pursue a maximal strategy than Democrats, but it's really hard to know because every state's story is different. terms of how easy it would be to change the maps and how dangerous it would be for drawing maps that would, you know, maybe have very slim majorities for the majority party. In case there's a miscalculation, that that could mean actually helping the other party do better in the election. I mean, as a scholar of election law, is it your sense that this really is the beginning,

as you're saying, of a gerrymandering tit-for-tat war nationwide? I think you have to understand this in the context of what the Supreme Court has done over the last few decades. So for many decades, it was unclear if the Supreme Court would police the most egregious of partisan gerrymanders. When Justice Anthony Kennedy was still on the Supreme Court, he left the issue open. And so from 2004 until 2018, there were a number of cases brought where the Supreme Court basically said not yet. We're not sure what the rule is going to be for partisan gerrymandering. Justice Kennedy retired. Justice Kavanaugh replaced him. And in 2019, the Supreme Court said partisan cherrymandering presents such difficult issues for courts that federal courts are not going to police it. And so this is, if not a green light, it's at least an indication to states that they have a lot more leeway. They're still bound by the Voting Rights Act. They're still bound by the Constitution in terms of certain other requirements for fair districts. But not the best way to defend you. yourself in court is to say, we are trying to maximize partisan advantage. And it creates a really

perverse incentive for really a race to the bottom where the more politically you are, the better the chance you are to have your maps upheld by the federal courts. Tony, back to you. Typically, redistricting happens every 10 years. So what's happening in Texas is somewhat irregular in that time schedule. I want to play a very sharp criticism by a Democrat in Texas. of what the Republicans are doing. This is Democratic Texas State Senator Boris Miles. Here's what he had to say. All it is is another poll tax,

another way to discriminate black and browns from voting in the state of Texas. But I want you to understand something. It's not just Texas. After Texas, it will be your state. After your state, it'll be this entire country. I mean, this is a very sharp criticism, basically arguing that what Republicans in Texas are trying to do

is to go back to that era of the Jim Crow laws that blocked black Americans from voting. How do Republicans in Texas respond to those allegations and what do they say is the rationale for this redrawing? They've not truly been very specific. They point to, for example, a letter that the state received from the Department of Justice raising questions about, the current districts and the drawing of the current districts.

But at the same time, Democrats point out that that letter could and perhaps should be litigated. And furthermore, they say the letter has no real findings to it and no real legal weight. And so what they say is that Republicans have essentially gotten in a hurry improperly to redraw these district maps. And William, it's important to note that until now, Republicans in Texas have steadfastly defended the current districts that are in place. And there is this now about face that is not fully or wholly explained, frankly. Rick Hassen, I want to, the same question to you. We are, as I mentioned, the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. And Democrats are making this argument that you just heard from that Texas State Senator,

that Republicans are trying to roll the rights of voting Americans, particularly minority Americans, back. Is that a fair criticism? Well, if you go back and look at the earlier litigation in Texas, over the last few decades, in every set of redistricting, there have been findings that Texas has discriminated against black and Latino voters. The current maps, as we just heard, are being changed. challenged on that basis. And now there's going to be a further diminution of power of Democrats.

And we have to understand is that minority voters, especially black voters, still overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party. So when you discriminate against a Democratic district, you're almost always going to be discriminating against minority voters in Texas. And so if this map gets passed, there's going to be a challenge claiming that it violates Section 2 of the voter. Rights Act. This itself is now going to be questionable because just last Friday, the Supreme Court put into play the possibility almost on the exact anniversary, the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, that it might strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which is the part of the Voting Rights Act that remains standing after the Supreme Court killed off the other part.

So we're coming into this maximal political power coming from these state legislatures, and we don't know if the Supreme Court is going to protect minority. voters the way it has over the past few decades. All right. That is Rick Hassen and Tony Plehetsky. Thank you both so much for joining us. Thank you. Attorney General Pam Bondi this week directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation

into accusations that members of the Obama administration manufactured intelligence about Russia's 2016 election interference. That's according to multiple press reports. It's the latest development in a lengthy saga which has reopened the door into one of the most contentious elections in American history. Stephanie Sye has more. On CNBC yesterday, President Trump lauded his Attorney General's latest reported move.

The Justice Department now tapping a grand jury to look into the intelligence community's assessment of what was happening with Russia. Is that you have nothing to do with directing the Justice Department? No, I have nothing to do. Pam is doing a great job. I have nothing to do with it. I will tell you this. They deserve it.

I was happy to hear it. Multiple reports say Bondi has directed DOJ prosecutors to present evidence to a grand jury, evidence that allegedly shows Obama administration officials politicized intelligence reports about Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. The implications of this are far-reaching. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard last month released a series of documents. She claimed they prove that the 2016 intelligence assessment had significant tradecraft failings and was unnecessarily rushed and subject. to inadequate review and coordination. They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election

to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn't. The they, Gabbard references, includes former CIA director John Brennan, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and former FBI director James Comey. In a New York Times opinion article last week, Clapper and Brennan pushed back, writing that is patently false. In making those allegations they seek to rewrite history, we want to set the record straight, and in doing so, sound a warning. Gabbard's conclusions seek to cast doubt on previous findings that were reviewed and accepted by Democrats and Republicans, including Trump's current Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who was then vice chair,

of the Senate Intelligence Committee. All of this evidence that's been hidden and buried from the American people is finally coming to light. The current CIA director, John Ratcliffe, in a Fox News interview, also questioned the consensus that Russia wanted Trump to win in 2016,

suggesting it was all a conspiracy. Pam Bondi does have a strike force. It is a different Department of Justice, a different FBI, and an opportunity to look at how these people really did conspire to run a hoax, a fraud on the American people and against Donald Trump's presidency. But if it was a conspiracy, his own first-term attorney general, Bill Barr, didn't uncover it, a point made by the CNBC host.

Independent sources, even your Justice Department, but then I'm bringing up Bill Barr, but even they decided that there wasn't, there were, you know, things that happened, but nothing that would have swayed it. Well, they were wrong, and Bill Barr was wrong, and Bill Barr didn't investigate, and he should have. Meanwhile, Trump's current Attorney General's latest move enables prosecutors to issue subpoenas and potentially indict the Obama-era officials. Last week, an Obama spokesperson called the claims outrageous, adding, these bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. In the background of all this, the storm over Trump's former relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney General Bondi and the DOJ are under renewed pressure from Republican lawmakers

to hand over documents related to the case. So far, they've had no comment. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Sye. For perspective, we turn now to Stephen Cash, a former state prosecutor and veteran of the intelligence community with experience at the CIA on Capitol Hill and at the Department of Homeland Security. He now serves as executive director of the steady state. It's an organization of more than 300 former intelligence and national security professionals who are sounding the alarm about threats to American democracy. It's great to have you here.

It's great to be here. Thanks for having you. You have called this latest DOJ effort profoundly concerning. You say it's a hallmark of autocratic regimes. What specific red flags are you seeing in terms of how this investigation is unfolding? Well, most importantly, and the flag that is most notable, is that what we see is turning our security services and our law enforcement services, inward, focusing on what appears to be enemies of the president to accomplish personal goals of the president. We hear a lot, and we just heard now about fraud and conspiracy. A lot of documents have been released, but there doesn't appear to be anything there that makes sense.

Bizarre is probably a pretty good word that the Obama office used in describing these. But what's so scary is what's happening here is what my organization and what intelligence officers and diplomats have seen overseas, which is a democracy sliding into an autocracy, and it slides in part on skids of using whatever the Department of Justice is, the Ministry of Justice, the Internal Security Services, the Intelligence Service. All of that is terrifying. What do you say to critics who argue this is simply a long overdue accountability effort? How do you distinguish that from politicized retribution? Well, it's not long overdue.

We had a tremendous amount of accountability. As was just mentioned, there was a special prosecutor, a formidable and very experienced prosecutor who spent literally years and millions of dollars investigating of these allegations found nothing. That was signed off on by former Attorney General Barr. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence put out a report five volumes, probably 15 pounds of paper. extensive investigation, extensive interviews also found nothing. So this isn't long overdue.

What's the level of concern that analysts might start self-censoring or try to avoid altogether politically sensitive subjects like Russia, China, Iran? What are the risks to national security if that happens? There's very significant. First of all, if you're a decent analyst, everything you work on is important and politically important. There are no countries in the world that you would be wanting to write on that nobody cares about. So it's everything. And everybody's watching this. If an analyst sits down to write about something that the White House has already voiced its opinion on, they're already seeing what happens if your analysis comes out different. We saw members of the National Intelligence Council fired because they came out with a report on

Venezuela that differed from what the president had said, and it seems wanted to hear. Same with Russia. It is terrifying. And many of the analysts were talking about they're in their late 20s, mid-30s, they have mortgages, they have children. They're worried. This is terrifying. And this level takes it up one level. It's not only that you may lose your job. It's that you may find yourself on the receiving end of a subpoena or a visit from the FBI or in a grand jury. Is there any institutional safeguard either inside the IC or within the broader government that can withstand this kind of political pressure? I certainly hope so. What do I think could withstand it? One, there's a remarkable amount of resilience inside the intelligence community.

People don't really understand, I think, or have intimate understanding of how deeply people in the intelligence community care about the Constitution and civil rights and civil liberties. liberties. They are totally bought in. So there's going to be a, there's going to be what is sometimes called the steady state. That means people on the inside who are going to adhere to the law and follow it. There's you and the media who are covering these stories and hopefully educating Americans. This is a little bit of inside baseball, which is now sort of spilled outside the beltway, and now everybody in the United States needs to know what the nick is. I just threw out that acronym before. You've got to know what the nick is if you're going to follow

this story. So there's an educational process here. We have the courts, and hopefully we'll have the Congress. We don't seem to right now. We don't see aggressive oversight by a Republican-dominated House or Senate, but we need that. That's what those committees are for. I almost always resist the urge to speculate, but in this case, since we have you here, if indictments emerge, what precedent does that set for handling politically charged investigations into intelligence operations? Well, What we could end up is what we have seen in other autocratic countries is when the power center shifts through an election or a coup, what often happens is the new leader takes out his national security people and they get purged. In some places, they get perched and shot.

It transforms the institutions that are here to protect us, the CIA, the FBI, the entire intelligence community, the Department of Justice. it transforms it into tools of who's ever sitting in the Oval Office. And that means when the Oval Office chair changes, those tools change the direction for which they're used. But it doesn't seem, or it could be difficult, to get out of a cycle where those tools are always pointed inward. They're designed to protect us from outside adversaries, other countries who could do us arm, terrorists, not political enemies.

Stephen Cash, thank you for this conversation. for your insights. It's a pleasure. Thank you. The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has sparked concerns across sectors from employment to education to national security. But one Kentucky County is taking a different approach using the emerging technology. to boost something far more human civic engagement. Our Judy Woodruff reports on an AI experiment that during these divided times revealed surprising levels of agreement.

It's part of her ongoing series, America at a crossroads. About an hour north of Nashville, Bowling Green is Kentucky's third largest city, home to more than 76,000 residents, Western Kentucky University, a strong agricultural tradition, and many large manufacturers, like GM's Corvette Assembly line. For years, those opportunities have drawn new residents from near and far, and that, in turn,

has led to some growing pains. Three-bedroom, two baths, can go anywhere from $1,300 and up. I would say the first thing would be transportation, because those are common issue all the time. Meanwhile, some long-time residents worry that the pace of growth is threatened. what's made this place special. We have all of these little houses that are being built right up against I-65. So when you come through Bowling Green,

what do you think? Was it home of the starter home? Like, are we home of the, you know, chain food restaurant? In order to have more cows, to have more milk, we would obviously need more land, and that's not available to us because it is so competitive in our area. Growth is either going to happen to you or for you,

and I didn't want to be run over by it. by it. Judge Executive Doug Gorman is a Republican in charge of Warren County, which includes Bowling Green. In 2017, he was shocked to learn that over the next 25 years, that city was expected to double in population. Bowling Green was founded in 1798, and we are adding the equivalent of a population of Bowling Green in 25 years.

Well, with that kind of growth, it's everything from housing to schools to daycare. We want to make sure, though, that people are successful here. In order to do that, we have to do a lot of planning. After his election, Gorman convened around 100 community leaders to think through how the county should plan for the coming growth. He wanted those leaders, in turn, to reach out to four or five people in their own circles for input. That's when Jigsaw, the tech incubator at Google, reached out to him.

Its team had developed a new AI tool called SenseMaker that could analyze vast quantities of information quickly. They asked Gorman, what if you could ask the whole county what it wanted for its future? With Bowling Green, for the first time we turned our attention to conversations between policy makers and their constituents. Yasmin Green is the CEO of Jigsaw, whose mission is to research and develop tools to confront the world's greatest challenges. In Bowling Green, her team saw one confronting many local governments, lack of civic participation

When most of us don't participate, then the people who do are usually the ones that have the strongest opinions, maybe the least well-informed, angriest, and then you start to, you know, you start to have a caricatured idea of what the other side thinks and believes. It's one of the most consequential things we could do with AI is to figure out how to help us stay in the conversation together. You can let your voice be heard. Earlier this year, the county launched a marketing campaign to ask residents. ask residents, what could Bowling Green be? On a website, people could add their own ideas and vote proposals up or down. Over 33 days, nearly 8,000 residents participated, about 10 percent of Bowling Green residents, casting more than a million votes on ideas like more parks, schools, entertainment, affordable

housing, and public transit. With jigsaw's help, the results were synthesized, categorized, and then shouts. shared with the public. You know, Judy, if I have a town hall meeting on these two topics, 23 people show up and I can promise you 20 of them aren't happy, which is fine. It's okay to have a different, but they're motivated because they don't want this new thing or they don't want this. What we just conducted was the largest town hall in America.

Look up, look up, look up. We spoke to just a few participants who filled out the survey. Calm down, calm down. Daniel Tarnagda was leading soccer practice with his under 18 team, which included players from five countries who settled in the area and were still struggling with English. More than 100 languages are spoken in the county's public schools. You all need to be able to talk to each other. Tarnagda himself immigrated here in 2013 from Burkina Faso.

Through soccer, he connected with other immigrants, which led to refuge BG. I know you don't speak English, but you can try. A nonprofit he started to help newcomers adapt to life here. Great job today. I'm proud of you all. He says the BG 2050 survey made his community feel included. I knew that people want to be part of something, but if you don't ask, you don't know. So those questions that start to ask people really, I think it is one of the best way to bring

people more together. Three bedrooms, two bath. A year ago, Laura Torres and her kids moved into this new home, built by Habitat for Humanity. She says more affordable housing and public transit are key to meeting the demand for workers. And while there are lots of ideas in her community, people struggle to attend county meetings. You were able to fill out the survey, you know, before you went to work, while you were on break, while you were on lunch, while you got home from working where, you know, you were

just winding down. So I think that's what made the difference, is that you didn't have to physically be somewhere to have your voice heard. 12 weeks. Farther out in Warren County, Dory Hunt is a six-generation farmer who raises dairy cows, whose milk then goes straight into the premium ice cream made right up the road at her family's business, Cheney's dairy barn. Yet even as that business grows, she worries about the future of farming here as more and more productive land around her gets claimed by new housing developments, roads and schools. Going to those planning and zoning commission meetings and seeing the results and then

watching the dirt being moved and the houses going up or the apartments going up, I really did disengage. I knew that it was going to happen with or without my involvement. And so it was with the BG 2050 initiative, it got me re-involved and wanting to share my voice again about my concerns. It's kind of what I thought Bowling Green needed. Laura Gilbert's family also goes back generations in Kentucky. She recently opened a new business, the Penny Royal Market, to celebrate the area's food

and culture. It's just one thing she's doing to push back against the pressure to grow so quickly that the community loses what makes it distinct. I'm afraid that if we don't intentionally bring. bring our bits and pieces of Kentucky to Bowling Green and set up shop and share it with people. I'm afraid that we're going to be, we're just going to, we'll lose our soul. Some of these priorities are in tension with one another and with what might even be possible.

But on over half the proposals, there was 80 percent agreement over what the community wanted. A reminder to many here that people aren't as divided as they might seem. I do think we sometimes get the sense that the whole country is 50-50. And, you know, 50-50 really doesn't work too well because no one's really wanting to give an inch. So when it comes out and, you know, we have all these ideas with 80% approval, they didn't know if the idea was from their neighbor who they didn't get along with politically, or whatever the disconnect is. They just like the idea.

And I think there's something to be said for we probably should be judging ideas on their merit, not who said them. The next step, Gorman says, will be putting as many of these ideas into practice as quickly as possible. His constituents will be watching. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Judy Woodruff in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Harvey Milk's name returned to the headlines this past summer after Defense Secretary Pete Higgseth ordered the name of the slain gay rights advocate who served in the U.S. Navy removed from a naval ship. But Milk's legacy lives on in other ways, including an opera about his life

that carries a powerful story of its own. Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown reports from San Francisco for our ongoing coverage of the intersection of health and arts, part of our Canvas series. Remember this moment. This one night in June. It's the story of gay rights activist and politician Harvey Milk. His sexual and political awakening.

His impactful life is the first old. openly gay man to be elected to public office in California in 1977, serving on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors. And his violent death, along with Mayor George Moscone, assassinated by former supervisor Dan White. The opera Harvey Milk was first performed in 1995. Many years later, composer Stuart Wallace took it on again. I rewrote the whole thing from the first page, from the blank page. So while it is the same opera, in a way, there's nothing to say.

Harvey Milk reimagined also with the libretto by Michael Coory was presented earlier this summer by the San Francisco group, Opera Parallel. In the new version of the opera, the story and number of characters are slimmed down, the pacing faster, changes Wallace says he'd long wanted to make. We all look for that in our lives to get a chance to to redo things. And, you know, I was, when we premiered Harvey Milk, I was 34 years old. I'll be 65 this year. So hopefully I've learned a few things in the interim. But I also experienced something in the interim that makes this an unusual kind of redo. In 2010, Wallace was in a bicycle accident that led to a traumatic brain injury or TBI. It left his life in shambles and took away his

ability to write music. So this led to years and years of of what? I mean, of... Struggle, depression, yeah. Lack of ability to really do much of anything. I mean, there was a period where I was practically comatose and just kind of staring off into space, unable to do anything.

So it was pretty shocking. The loss of your ability to write music was... Catastrophic, and to have that sort of stripped away in a way that I couldn't really even understand was devastating. Also devastating, a sense that his doctors had nothing to offer. do offer. The experts failed me. And so...

Is that how it felt? Oh, sure. Sure. And I come from a medical family and in which medicine was revered. And so it was a great disappointment, I have to say. But I think this is true. Brain science is in its infancy. And people just don't know.

That's a totally common sound history. As it turns out, even a leading neurosurgeon, Dr. Jeffrey Manley of the University of California, San Francisco, shares that view. It's completely understandable. And, you know, I feel embarrassed and ashamed as part of the medical community that we really haven't done a better job here. But I think if you go to any large metropolitan area and you say, where's the cancer clinic? They'll say, oh, it's over there.

Or where's the heart clinic? They'll say it's over there. And you say, well, where's the TVI clinic? And everybody's like, I don't know because it doesn't yet exist. Dr. Manley didn't treat Stuart Wallace, but his experience, he says, rings true. 5 million Americans live with some kind of long-term disability from a head injury, but distinguishing and diagnosing different kinds of injuries and applying treatments for them remains little understood. Too often, Manley says, a traumatic brain injury is seen as a one-off

event rather than a process requiring care over time, even years. If you think about a concussion in a sporting event, it was like, oh, well, the person got their bell rung. And it was like, oh, well, that just happened, right? And I think we didn't stop to think about, well, so what did the person look like on day two or day five or a week later? It was just an event. This wasn't something that led to a process, which for some results in disability. Now, Manly and nearly 100 experts the world over have proposed a classification system to evaluate specific head injuries, and they hope develop targeted treatments. So better diagnosis, better prognosis, better treatment, and ultimately better outcome.

Stuart Wallace's comeback took years. He credits acupuncture for a first boost, and later he says microdosing psilocybin also helped. But he readily admits he doesn't know exactly how those affected him. What he is sure of, the act of writing music again, in fact rewriting this piece from his past, made an enormous difference to his recovery. I was just then taking baby steps back to working, to really making music. And I thought, well, if I can't, nothing lost. But I did it because I felt music holds memory.

And maybe, really maybe it was a kind of experiment on myself. Maybe I could find my way back by diving back into Harvey Milk and finding those memories that would propel me back to my work. And I have to say, it worked like an explosion. I asked Dr. Manley what he takes from this part of Wallace's story, finding his way back through music and memory. I think this is a phenomenal story because it shows you the ability of the brain to recover from more significant brain injuries. I think that those of us who are in the field are quite open to look at any means possible to restore function and to allow somebody to be able to return to what they did before, because that's what makes life meaningful.

I am Harvey Milk reimagined, a deeper personal saga for its composer, but also again, part of a national conversation involving its subject. The very week it was performed in San Francisco, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegesith, ordered the Navy to rename a ship that bore the name of Harvey Milk, himself a Navy veteran. A young man died here. Baritone Michael Kelly, who played milk and as a gay man, sees him as a hero, says the administration's moves show how relevant milk and his legacy remain. It feels like a message that they are

they're foreshadowing what they intend to do, which is to continue to suppress our voices and to erase our existence. And the opera in that context does what? It revives the voice of Harvey Milk and his efforts to ensure that all people, no matter what their sexual orientation or position in society is, that the Constitution works for all of us. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Jeffrey Brown in San Francisco. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour,

thanks for spending part of your evening with us.