PBS News Hour - Full Show - August 8, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: August 8, 2025

Friday on the News Hour, Israel moves to take over Gaza City in the latest escalation of the war with Hamas. President Trump says he will meet with Russian President Putin soon, as a deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine passes. Plus, recent natural disasters highlight FEMA's changing role under the Trump administration. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. Amna Nawaz is away. On the news hour tonight, Israel moves closer to take over Gaza City in the latest escalation of the war with Hamas. President Trump says he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin soon as the deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine passes. And recent natural disasters highlight FEMA's changing role under the Trump administration. FEMA help is getting to places much slower than it was under the previous administration and even under the first President Trump administration. Welcome to the News Hour. Israel, Gaza, and much of the world are reacting to a decision by Israel's security cabinet to take control of Gaza City. The move comes nearly two years into the war sparked by Hamas' attack on Israel, a conflict that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, leveled large parts of the territory,

and left starvation rampant across the strip. President Trump has not commented on today's announcement, but it drew swift condemnation from the U.K., Saudi Arabia, Germany, and others, and sparked protests inside Israel. Stephanie Syne begins our coverage. Outside of the defense minister's home today, family and friends of Israeli hostages gathered in protest. A long table was set up with empty seats and uneaten bread, a symbol of the many Shabbat dinners missed. They worry the Israeli government's decision to take over Gaza City will further put the living hostages at risk.

We just want this government to listen to us, to listen to the families, to listen to the people who do. demand returning everybody. Until they return, our table cannot be full. At the UN, there was clear condemnation, including warnings about how the decision would affect Palestinians. The decision marks a dangerous escalation and risks deepening the already catastrophic consequences for millions of Palestinians. In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Mertz said his country will suspend exports of military equipment to Israel that could be used in Gaza. Some 86% of Gaza is already under Israeli military control or under displacement orders. Most of the enclave's 2 million people live in Gaza City, Dar al-Bala, and in tent camps in the Muwasi area along the coast.

Experts warn a takeover of Gaza City would squeeze the population into an even tighter area and further complicate the distribution of aid. Ahead of the security cabinet meeting yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister, Dr. Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News that he wants to take over the whole strip. Will Israel take control of all of Gaza? We intend to. Netanyahu followed up in a post on X today, writing, we are not going to occupy Gaza. We are going to free Gaza from Hamas. Gaza will be demilitarized, and a peaceful civilian administration will be established. On the ground in Gaza City today, people cleaned up after an Israeli strike overnight, followed by evacuation orders from Israel this morning.

Why do you want to do a ground invasion? Where? I want to understand. There is nothing left that you did not wipe out already. There is nothing left. Many in Gaza City are taking shelter in tent camps after they were displaced from other areas within the strip, including Sabrina Na'em and her family. Where should we go? We are 21 people. How will I carry the tents or the children or the pregnant women or those breastfeeding? What should I do? Where should I go? Meantime, food security experts continue to warn a famine in the territory. The Hamas-run health ministry says some 200 people have died from malnutrition since Israel imposed a near complete blockade starting in March. Israel has allowed some aid trucks into Gaza and airdrops from foreign countries in recent weeks. But those on the ground say it's not enough.

Meanwhile, Egypt and Qatar are reportedly working on a framework for a deal to permanently stop the fighting and release all the hostages at once. The last round of negotiations involving the U.S. failed last month, with Israel and Hamas blaming each other. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Tsai. For perspective, we turn now to Aaron David Miller. He's a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former State Department official. Welcome back to the program. In your view, are the stated goals of this upcoming military operation, the gradual takeover of Gaza's city? Are they achievable?

Look, I think they're as elusive as the prime minister's earlier conception of total victory. The reality is the Israelis have achieved a good. good deal. They have hollowed out Hamas as a military organization. They've got the Egyptians and the cutteries involved in trying to negotiate. And let's be clear, the 252 hostages that Hamas took amidst the willful and indiscriminate murder of men, women, and children, the sexual predation, the mutilation and the taking of hostages, 100 plus have come back through negotiation. So I think that in the prime minister's conception, frankly, he's more interested in avenging the dead and keeping the war going, then he is about redeeming the

living. So I think the answer to the question is, no. I don't think that a takeover occupation, the Israelis don't want to use that word, of Gaza City, is going to somehow magically produce the victory of ending Hamas' influence in Gaza and somehow creating a post-day-a-day-after. that's conducive to the Prime Minister's gold. He doesn't have a strategy, and he hasn't been willing, not that it's easy, to lay out the elements of what you and I would describe as a sort of rational approach to try and end the war,

and we're two months away from marking a two-year period. And the war strikes me as no closer to ending. It's going to expand. And this plan calls for the forced evacuation of tens of thousands of Palestinians. What do you see as the administration? immediate and long-term consequences of that, the humanitarian consequences, on top of the famine that's already playing out?

Look, I think that part of the sort of unsaid objective here is not just to destroy a Masa as a military organization, but to hollow it out and deny it governing capacity. It's still paying salaries. It still has its probably Palestinian authority paid officials. basically on the ground. And look, the Israelis have, what, taken over 75% of Gaza, the 25% that they have not taken over is the 25% where the vast majority of Palestinians

are now living, in what? Anywhere from 12 to 20% of an already one of the most densely populated areas on the planet? So I think the idea is to separate the fighters from the population have a clear, field to either lay siege to Gaza city and the Hamas elements inside, or to begin operating inside Gaza city proper, and then expand to the central refugee camps. And look, let's be clear, in May of 2024, the Israelis ended up one way or another moving

almost 800,000 Palestinians out of Rafa before they began their military operations. So can they move the population? Yes, but at a frightful cost. You pointed out the humanitarian issue here. Whether it's malnutrition, starvation, food insecurity, large numbers of Palestinians are dying for lack of adequate food. And once you get to malnutrition, you're talking about systemic illnesses that require access, predictable and regular access, to medical care. So no, I think that this plan won't work. And we're going to find ourselves on October 7, which is the date that the Israelis are now using to complete the evacuation of Gaza City, of civilians.

We're going to find ourselves in an even more fraught and tragic position for the hostages, their families, and for the residents of Gaza. Meantime, you've got IDF leaders warning that expanding operations could stretch reservists. It could add and create new burdens for governance. And the minute we have left, what does that reveal about the internal dynamics within Israel's security establishment? I mean, it's rare to have this kind of controversy between the prime minister and his chief of staff, Ayal Zemir, erred so publicly. Should Zemir resign, I think the government would be faced with a political crisis. He probably won't. But I think it's a testament to the reality of the degree of difficulty that IDF faces in prosecuting a war where its adversary embeds its assets around below and within civilian populations. Last point, you know, Sharon, Ariel Sharon, the bill of their settlements in Sinai and in Gaza, in 2005, withdrew IDF forces, ended the Israeli occupation, as well as the 8,000 settlers in large part because he was concerned about the impact of those forces in terms of their morale, their esprit of core, as an occupying power.

Aaron David Miller, thanks again for your time. We certainly appreciate your perspective. Thanks for having me. The day's other headlines start in Los Angeles, where thousands of residents have been forced to flee a massive brush fire. The canyon fire is roaring in the mountains north of L.A., not far from Santa Clarita. and near the southern edge of the Los Padres National Forest. The fire erupted yesterday and quickly grew to cover more than eight square miles.

As of this morning, firefighters were able to stop its spread, and at last check, it was 25 percent contained. On top of those who have left, another 14,000 were under evacuation warnings. For some, the flames have come practically to their doorsteps. She said, we got to go, we got to go. And as long as it was a couple hundred yards or a hundred yards, I don't think it was more than 300 feet away in back of this house and back at Dean's house. It was that close. Meantime, the largest fire in California has now spread to 155 square miles in the center of the state.

The Gifford fire has injured at least four people and is still burning. August and September are typically the most dangerous months for wildfires in California. The U.S. Justice Department subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James today as investigators look into whether she violated President Trump's civil rights. The subpoenas reportedly seek records related to two lawsuits James filed against Mr. Trump, one from a civil fraud case, she won, which led to a half a billion dollar penalty. The other involved the National Rifle Association. In response, James' office issued a statement saying in part, quote, any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American. It's the latest instance of the Trump administration investigating perceived enemies of the president. President Trump is removing IRS commissioner Billy Long after less than two months on the job.

The former congressman was confirmed by the Senate in June, despite having no experience in tax administration. During his time in Congress, the former auctioneer and staunch Trump ally had sponsored legislation aimed at getting rid of the agency. No reason has been given for his removal. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will reportedly serve as acting commissioner until a permanent replacement is found. The IRS has now had six different people in charge this year. At the White House today, President Trump hosted the leaders of Armenia in Azerbaijan for what was billed as a peace summit following decades of conflict between the two countries. The party signed a deal aimed at creating a trend. transit corridor connecting Azerbaijan and its autonomous region located inside Armenia.

It's long been a sticking point in reaching a lasting peace. The White House says it'll be called the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. The two countries separately signed economic deals with the U.S. that the officials say will boost cooperation in energy and technology. In China, state media is reporting that floods have killed at least 10 people with another 33 missing. Heavy rains yesterday triggered the flooding and landslides in the mountains of China's northwestern Gansu province. The house collapsed, all collapsed, the stove was there, so many things, all smashed. Residents could only pick up the pieces of what wasn't swept away.

President Xi Jinping has urged an all-out rescue operation to find those who are missing and evacuate those still left in the affected villages. The storms dropped nearly eight inches of rain in some area. knocking out power and stranding more than 4,000 people. On Wall Street today, stocks ended the week on solid footing. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added more than 200 points on the day. The NASDAQ rose more than 200 points as well, closing at a new all-time high. The S&P 500 also ended in positive territory.

And the Hubble Space Telescope has captured the sharpest picture yet of a comet visiting from another solar system. NASA and the European Space Agency released the image released the image of the interstellar object called 3-Eye Atlas as it traveled at a staggering 130,000 miles per hour. That is the fastest ever recorded. Thanks to the image, astronomers were able to narrow down their estimate for its size, saying its icy core is around 3.5 miles across. NASA says the comet will make its closest approach to the sun in October, but poses no threat to the Earth. And a passing of note, astronaut James Lovell has died, as commanding.

of the Apollo 13 mission in 1970, Lovell helped turn a near catastrophe into a triumph of human ingenuity. It was a tale meant for Hollywood. This is Houston. Say again, please. Houston, we have a problem. Tom Hanks famously played Lovell in the hit 1995 movie Apollo 13.

He also joined Lovell when then-President Clinton awarded him the Congressional Space Medal of Honor back in 1995. Even before Hollywood made him famous, was a legend in his own field, flying more than 700 hours in space during four separate missions. He was meant to be the fifth man to walk on the moon and said that missing the chance was his one regret. Lovell retired from the Navy and the space program in 1973 and went into private business. NASA said in a statement that he died yesterday in Lake Forest, Illinois.

Jim Lovell was 97 years old. Still to come on the news hour, President Trump proposes changes to the U.S. census to exclude undocumented immigrants. Scientists desperately try to stop the country's largest wetland system from disappearing. And David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the week's political headlines. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. President Trump said today that he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next Friday in Alaska. Speaking at the White House this afternoon, the president also said he's talking to Russia and Ukraine about swapping territory as part of a settlement to end the war.

You're looking at territory that's been fought over for three and a half years. We're actually looking to get some back and some swapping. It's complicated. It's actually nothing easy. It's very complicated. but we're going to get some back. We're going to get some switched. There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both. Today was Mr. Trump's initial deadline for Russia to agree to a peace deal or face new U.S. sanctions, including secondary tariffs on China

and other nations that buy Russian oil. But as of this evening, it's still unclear how or whether President Trump intends to follow through on his threat. For more and all this, we turn to Thomas Greta. He served on the National Security Council staff during the George W. Bush administration and at the State and Defense Departments. He's now a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Graham, thank you for being with us. Good to be with you. So let's start with this meeting.

When this happens next Friday in Alaska, President Trump and President Putin, under what circumstances could it be constructive? Well, it can be constructive if the two presidents, I think, agree on. a way forward towards an enduring ceasefire in Ukraine and chart a pathway towards an enduring settlement. Those, I think, are what is possible at this point. It'll take a lot of, I think, very careful planning in the coming week, but that is something that we could hope for next Friday. And how far apart right now are Washington and Moscow on the core principles for a settlement? I think they are extremely far apart. There may be some compromise on the territorial issue.

The president has talked about that. But obviously, Ukraine has a say in that. There are questions about NATO, NATO security guarantees for Ukraine. We have different views on those matters. But I think the toughest issue is really one that concerns the status of that part Ukraine that's not controlled by Russia at the end of this conflict. Kremlin, President Putin, clearly wants a Ukraine that is subordinate to Russia that has a relationship that is akin to the one that Belarus has with Russia today.

The United States should be, and I believe is indeed interested in the preservation of a sovereign and independent Ukraine, a Ukraine that can decide its own foreign policy. decide how to orient itself geopolitically. President Trump was not specific when he said that there will be a swapping of territories, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly offered the Trump administration a ceasefire in Ukraine, but only in exchange for major territorial concessions, including handing over eastern Ukraine's Donvoss region. You see the map there on the screen. What would accepting that mean for Ukraine's sovereignty? Well, if it were recognized,

de Jura, that would be a tremendous blow to Ukraine's sovereignty. Ukraine still wants to regain its borders of 1991. I think the belief in Kiev at this point is that you can't do that through military means, but there's a hope that over time you could achieve that through diplomatic means. So this would be a significant blow to Ukraine's sovereignty and something that I am absolutely certain Kiev would not agree to. President Zelenskyy is not expected to attend this meeting. next week, there could potentially be others. But how big of a problem is that? And how should

the U.S. manage Ukrainian and European concerns about being sidelined? Well, the first thing to note that this is not simply about the Ukraine conflict of the Russia-Ukraine war. There are broader issues in U.S.-Russian relations, European security, strategic stability, the conversations about the Middle East and the Arctic that we need to have. So not all of this is about Ukraine. And I think for that reason, it is reasonable that Ukraine not be present at the upcoming meeting. That said, the administration really does need to make a concerted effort to keep the Ukrainians informed of their discussions with Russia, to make sure that they understand what the United States is going to say to President Putin, and that the administration conveys back clearly what they are. told by the Russians. The Ukrainians have to be part of the deal at the end of the day.

It is their territory. It is their country. The conflicts being fought on their territory. So this is not a situation where the United States and Russia can come together, reach an agreement, and oppose it on the Ukrainians. Ukrainians will resist, and many, if not most of our European allies, will also resist. Given the battlefield realities, what would a least bad settlement look like from Kyiv's perspective right now? Well, I think freezing the battle lines where they are at this point, with no de jure recognition of Russians' occupation of Ukrainian territory, I do believe that a final settlement will preclude Ukraine's membership in NATO, but in exchange, Ukraine needs to get solid security guarantees

from the United States, European allies, promised to continue. the type of financial and military support that Ukraine needs to sustain itself as an independent country. That, I think, would be the best outcome of the Ukrainians could hope for at this point. Retaining their sovereignty, their independence, retaining the possibility of joining the EU is actually a good position for Ukraine to be in and can lead to a very sort of prosperous and secure future for Ukraine. Thomas Graham, great to speak with you. Thank you so much for your insights. We appreciate it.

You're certainly welcome. Since taking office, President Trump has called for the elimination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, suggesting it could be dismantled as soon as December. Lately, his team has backed away from that idea, but there are still major changes underway. and serious concerns that FEMA's response is at times politicized. Stephanie Sye is back with our look at the changes so far and what it could mean for disaster preparedness. President Trump has signaled in the past

that major changes would be coming to FEMA after this hurricane season. But last month, he had praise for FEMA's work after the deadly July 4th flooding in Texas, saying his administration had, quote, fixed it up in no time. Even so, the Trump administration is attempting to reallocate some $4 billion in funds

meant to help local communities protect against natural disasters, a move of federal judge blocked this week. So what has the turmoil at FEMA meant for people affected by natural disasters? Sarah Labowitz, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has been looking into just that. Sarah, thanks for joining us. So I understand you and your team track

how much federal spending is going to disaster recovery. What does the data tell us about disaster response under this Trump administration? And what stands out to you when compared to previous administrations? Well, one thing that's really standing out to me is how long it's taking to approve disaster declaration requests. When a disaster hits, a governor typically makes a request

to the federal government for help. And what we're seeing is that those requests are really stacking up. so that FEMA help is getting to places much slower than it was under the previous administration and even under the first President Trump administration. The other thing that we're seeing is that the administration is no longer approving requests for mitigation funding. And that's the funding that jurisdictions use to anticipate the next disaster to make themselves more resilient for the future. And that funding has really dried up.

I know that the Trump administration has attempted to sort of consolidate decision-making at FEMA. Is that behind this backlog in requests for help from governors? I don't know what's causing the backlog. What we do see in the data is that there's a bunching effect so that when a disaster happens, it sort of joins a queue, and the queue gets longer and longer as time goes on, and then the administration is approving those requests in a big batch. And there's some real downsides to that. One of the benefits of FEMA is that it's got a nation's wide disaster force that can deploy. And it makes sense to deploy those resources along with the pace as disasters happen. And when you wait to approve them all at once, that means that

those forces have to deploy all together to a large number of places. So there's some real downsides to the way the administration is bunching these requests. There have been a number of natural disasters in several states since the spring. There have been tornadoes. There's been major flooding. Can you give some examples of how these delays are manifesting in the communities that are being affected by natural disasters? Yeah, you know, I've been paying a lot of attention to St. Louis in the last few weeks. They had a tornado that killed five people May 16th. And it wasn't until June 9th that the administration approved their request for FEMA help. And that three weeks really makes a world of difference. It means that your local first responders are just

stretched really thinly. It means that people who, you know, had the roof blown off their house, they can't apply to FEMA for help for three weeks. And so everything is slowed down. The local jurisdiction has to bear all of those costs while they wait for FEMA to show up. And you lose the benefits of early response in jumpstarting that recovery and the coordination that has to happen to help a place recover its economy, its schools, its housing, all of those things. In Texas, the request was approved within about a day for major disasters.

That's a pretty typical response time. At the same time, the Texas response, I think we still have a lot to learn about that, the delay in deploying FEMA's best-in-class search-and-rescue teams. So I think in some ways, the Texas response reflects a more typical, historical way of FEMA doing business. And in other ways, there were some real missing capacities in the Texas response. Is there any indication that there's a political bent to any of this?

And I ask that because we've seen the Trump administration use the threat of withholding funding to different agencies and institutions based on politics. Is that something that is affecting FEMA? Or is there more a general sense of uncertainty? because of the president's previous threats to entirely dismantle the agency and gut its staff? Well, I will say that, you know,

I haven't talked to anyone who's a professional disaster or emergency management person who thinks that eliminating FEMA is a good idea. Everyone acknowledges that there are ways that FEMA could improve. We could certainly improve the experience of disaster survivors,

the customer service experience, lots of efficiencies to be gained in how the federal government supports local government, state government. In terms of a political bent, I don't know yet, but what I will say is that, you know, disasters are chaotic. And what you want in the response is to introduce as much reliability and predictability as you can.

You know, the administration has talked a lot about how states need to bear more responsibility for their own recoveries. Well, what does that mean in practice? For what kind of disasters? Will the federal government still jump into it? to action for large disasters? Do states need to establish their own emergency funds? There's a lot of open questions and a real lack of predictability about what the federal

government is going to do. That is Sarah Labowitz at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace joining us. Thank you. Thank you. President Trump's call for a new census is foreshadowing a potential constitutional clash. The pronouncement came in a social media post in which he added that, quote, people who are in our country illegally will not be counted. John Yang explores what the president hopes to achieve and how his requested recount aligns with another of his priorities, redrawing congressional maps. Jeff, excluding those without legal status from the census would mean millions of people living in America go uncounted.

reshaping the contours of the country's congressional districts. Opponents argued that it would violate the 14th Amendment's requirement that the allocation of congressional seats be determined by counting the whole number of persons in each state. Hansi Lo Wong covers the census for NPR. Hansi, the Constitution makes the census a congressional responsibility. How much say does a president have? The president has some say that Congress could delegate to his administration and what the Commerce Secretary who oversees the Census Bureau then has to carry out the census.

This is codified in federal law. But like you said, I think we have to go back to Article 1 of the Constitution gives ultimate authority over the census to Congress. Congress has passed laws with directions on how presidential administration should carry out census seats. And using the authority that they do have, how might the Trump administration try to get around that the congressional requirement? There is a federal law that says there could be a mid-decade census, but a lot of caveats to put there. It's a mid-decade census that right now that's really outside the time frame.

That can't really be carried out at this point. But there is a bill that President Trump says he supports. It's a bill, a proposal by Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor-Green of Georgia, and this bill would exclude any U.S. resident without citizenship. So not just the people without legal status that President Trump is calling for to be excluded. And it would also call for a new census, a new round of redistribution of house seats, and a new round of congressional redistricting all before the 2026 midterm election. Redistricting and reallocation is a long process. Would there be enough time to do this in time for balance to be printed for election officials? to be ready for the 2026 midterms?

The census experts I talk to say no. Not the kind of census that most of us are used to, which is like you said, there are paper forms, there's door knocking. It's a months-long process to do the counting because you are trying to count every person living in the country. It's a big country. There's a lot of people. And it usually takes more than a decade of planning,

of research, of testing. It sounds impossible to a lot of census experts. of census experts to have that kind of a census before the midterm election next year. How does this fit in with the Republican strategy of getting Republican states to redraw the districts now to try to pick up seats in the House? It's really not clear. I think we should go back to what President Trump has said so far, calling for a new census. We're not sure if he's talking about the 2030 census. We're not sure if he's talking about this census before a 2026 midterm election that a representative green is calling for.

And so there's a lot of confusion there, a lot of questions, but it is happening at the same time, this call for a new census as well as this push in Texas as well as other states to redraw congressional maps. And if there were to be a new census, there would be a lot of legal questions, there will be lawsuits, but it would theoretically come up with a new set of numbers that could theoretically shift congressional seats among the states. But there are a lot of legal hurdles, there are a lot of practical hurdles that have to overcome before we ever get to those type of, to get to that point. Do we know which party would

benefit if you exclude people not in the country legally? One thing to keep in mind is that the formula used to redistribute house seats is a very sensitive formula. Small changes in populations can make a difference between whether that last seat, those last few seats go to this state or the other state. And so with so many changes in immigration patterns, with increased immigration enforcement, it's hard to predict by the time there is a census what the country, what those dynamics look like. And so it's really hard to say. Hansi Lo Wong of NPR. Thank you very much. You're welcome. More than 2 million people live near that part of the Delta.

It's an economic engine home to tourism, fisheries, and a shipping gateway to North America. And it's also a key wildlife habitat. Nearly 40% of the coastal wetlands in the contiguous U.S. is found in the Delta in Louisiana. But it's shrinking considerably due to a number of factors, including engineering done some decades ago. Our science correspondent Miles O'Brien looks at those problems and efforts to prevent further loss. All right, ladies, let's get ready for our coring. In the place where the Mississippi River drains into the Gulf. We don't actually know what we're going to get here.

Scientists are waist deep in a desperate effort to stop the largest wetland system in the U.S. from vanishing. All right. Do us the honors. Great job. 25, 27. Great. Edimentologist Carol Wilson is an associate professor at Louisiana State University.

I've been doing it for 25 years of my life now. More than half of my life I've been down here playing in the mud. She and her team are studying the mud in the place they call the bird's foot, so named because of the way the Mississippi River spreads out into three channels at its mouth. By the time the river wends its way here to its marshy mouth, where soil, river, and sea mix in a swampy gumbo. The Mississippi is depleted of much of its famous mud. It's really strangled the delta, like this natural wetland.

They're starved of sediment that they used to receive. So this area since the 1950s has been deteriorating. River deltas grow and shrink naturally over time. But the mouth of the Mississippi is disappearing at an unnaturally rapid pace thanks to the way humans have engineered the river to answer their bidding. The engineering of the river over the last couple of centuries has had several unintended consequences. Marine geologist Sam Bentley is a professor at LSU. The trouble begins in a big tributary, the Missouri River.

In the mid-20th century, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built six major dams there to control floods, ensure navigation, and general. generate electricity. The construction of dams for water control in the Upper Missouri Basin cut off sediment supply to the lower river in the first half of the 20th century. That essentially lowered the amount of sediment that's carried by the river by at least 50%. The Corps has built and maintains about 3,500 miles of levees and flood walls along the Mississippi from Cape Girardo to the bird's foot.

The structures are there to prevent floods and keep. commerce flowing. Those levees and those hardening structures have prevented sediment to go from the river to the Deltaic wetlands which require sediment to sustain themselves. The oil and gas industry is also to blame locally and globally. Sea level is rising more than three-quarters of an inch a year here due to the climate crisis and all the fossil fuel extraction that occurs in the region leads to the dredging of deep channels and the construction of pipelines. It all hastens the sinking of the Mississippi River Delta, so-called subsidence.

On average, the Delta loses about a football field of wetlands every 100 minutes. The combination of these factors has driven the entirety of the Delta, not just the bird split, but much of the Mississippi River Delta, into a catastrophic state of decline. Carol Wilson is part of a multidisciplinary team led by Bentley that is studying this catastrophe on multiple fronts. The work is funded, ironically, by the $20 billion settlement from BP to atone for its deep water horizon oil spill in 2010. What we are out here to study is the natural dynamics, but also is it keeping pace or not with that relative sea level rise. So think about, you know, the land surface is going down. can the marsh fill in that gap in that space.

Nearby, her colleague's coastal hydrologist Matt Hyatt and river scientist Corey Konsor are gathering data to better understand how the river delivers sediment from the channel to the marsh. They use an acoustic instrument that measures the speed of small particles suspended in the water. We can make a prediction of how much sediment is actually moving through the river channel and into those wetland environments through small secondary channels that connect to the main channels.

When the water is too shallow to use the acoustic device, they release photo-degradable dye and measure its spread with a drone. What's really important about that is it not only gives us the water velocity through the wetlands, but it shows us how that water

and sediment interact with the vegetation vegetation within the wetland. The challenge is to find ways to divert Mississippi mud into the marshland without affecting navigation on the river. The idea that the Mississippi River could be unleashed and magically nourish all these areas sounds very romantic. It just doesn't work that way in practice. Biologist Jeff Corbino is an environmental resource specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers.

He helps manage a complex dredging campaign. to keep the river channel 50 feet deep from Baton Rouge to the mouth year round. Mother Nature is always gonna win. We're in no way controlling the Mississippi River. We react to it. We are playing the cards that we are dealt. Right now, the Corps is dealing with orders

to save as much of the dredge sediment as it can to nourish and sustain healthier wetlands. Scientists on Sam Bentley's team are also hoping their data will inform efforts to design and build diversions, to reroute and spread Mississippi sediment throughout the dying wetlands. They're controversial in many ways,

but the science supporting diversions as a tool for coastal restoration has been very solid for many decades. So why would a diversion project be controversial at all? Let's take a look at one of them to try to understand why. This is New Orleans here. Here's the bird's foot and the river. which runs between the two of them.

In 2023, construction began on the $2.9 billion mid-Berataria sediment diversion project. The idea, when the Mississippi had enough water to spare, water would be diverted into Barataria Bay right about here to make these wetlands more healthy. But the problem is down here is a big oyster area, and the salinity of the water for oysters is very critical. This would have a great impact on those businesses.

The oyster industry led the charge of opposition. Governor Jeff Landry withdrew state support, and the project is now dead. In order for our wetlands to have a chance, they've got to have some kind of supply of sediment to them. If a diversion is not the exact mechanism, then let's come up with another plan. Over the past century, Louisiana has lost a landmass, roughly the size of Delaware. Without a viable plan to restore balance between nature and navigation, between ecology and economy, the next hundred years could erase what's left. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Miles O'Brien in Venice, Louisiana. You can see more of Miles' reporting on the Mississippi and the threats it faces from his recent special live stream.

and you can find that at pbs.org slash news hour. While Israel plans to exert more control of Gaza, those plans have been criticized by global leaders. The Trump administration response has been notably more muted. For that and more, we turn to the analysis tonight of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MSNBC. It's great to see you both as always. So David, we'll start with you, your reaction to Israel's security cabinet,

now approving this plan to occupy Gaza City, potentially extending control over the entire strip? Yeah, well, there's a third on the right of Bibi Netanyan's governing coalition who are basically settler parties who really want manifest destiny to take over Gaza. They think it's written in the Bible, and Bibi needs them to stay in power, and so he's trying to have it both ways.

Oh, we'll take over Gaza City, that leaves it open. I could take over all of Gaza, maybe, but maybe I won't, and he's been prevaricating on what he actually wants. It's, and it should be said, this is opposed by large majorities of Israelis. This is opposed by the Israeli defense forces. The last thing they want is policing settlers in occupied territory. It's also just complete make-believe. It's like people who aren't willing to deal with reality.

There are Palestinians in Gaza, lots of them. They're not just going to somewhere vanish. They're not going to self-deport. And so it's just make-believe. to think you could create a new place there without the people who are there, without some massive ethnic Clinton campaign. And then it's even more make-believe

that Bibi Netanyahu thinks he's going to rule out Hamas rule, which is the right policy, but also rule out Palestinian authority rule, the people who control the West Bank. And he's going to pick the Palestinian leader. Any Palestinian leader that Israel selects is not legitimate. And so they imagine they can have it all.

And they've got catching plans where they imagine plans where they imagine they can have it all, and that's just not possible. Jonathan, what about the U.S. influence? How much sway does President Trump have right now, and is his influence helpful or harmful to ending the war? It doesn't seem like President Trump has any sway. Actually, you could say that pretty much no president of the United States that Prime Minister Netanyahu has dealt with during his time as leader of Israel has had any sway over him. Maybe President, Trump comes a little closer.

But as we have seen, Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't listening to the president. And the big problem here, and this is where it would be great for American leadership to be a part of the process, Prime Minister Netanyahu has not articulated a day after strategy since the justified reaction to October 7th. We don't know. I mean, I think David ticked through a lot of things that a lot of questions that sort of of hang out there and that there aren't real answers to. And last week I interviewed former Prime Minister Ehud Olmer about, well, who would the Israelis negotiate with in order to bring about some sort of resolution to Gaza? And he said, basically, in an ideal world, that would

be the Palestinian Authority. But in a tweet today, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that, no, it's not going to be talking to Hamas. We're not going to be talking to the Palestinian Authority. to amplify David's point, what's going to happen to the Palestinians? What is Prime Minister Netanyahu's plan for the day after? What is going to really happen in Gaza? I don't know if he even knows. I want to shift our focus now to domestic politics and the redistricting fight. You've got more than 50 Texas Democratic legislators who left that state to block a GOP effort to redraw congressional maps.

Governor Abbott said that, They won't be able to wait out this redistricting push, and this is escalated to the FBI agreeing to help chase down the quorum-breaking Democrats. David, at the center of this, as you will know, is this effort to stall this mid-decade redistricting plan aimed at giving Republicans five additional seats in Congress. Democrats say this amounts to cheating. What do you make of this effort by Democrats to flee the state? Is this a bold defense of Democratic rights, or is this just a real provocative escalation? Well, the fleeing is just a shtick they've done before and hasn't actually worked too well in the past. The thing here is the corrosion of democracy, and this is how slow it is.

And maybe this is why the streets aren't erupting in America, because there's always been gerrymandering. But usually there was some sense of shame. Like, we're not going to totally rig the game completely. And so even in Texas, there were Democratic seats, even in California, there were Republican seats. But now the shame is gone. And so what we're seeing is people just becoming nakedly partisan. And it's people deciding, not even pretending we're going to put democracy about party. We're going to put party above everything.

And that is what's happening in, I guess, about to happen in California as well. And so it's funny how much of our system required some sense of you would feel ashamed of betraying your democracy. You would have thought they would have rigged all the seats already. So there'd be no seats to get through redistricting. But there was some sense of shame. But now it's gone. And when you destroy the norms that people feel responsible to something higher than party, when you destroy that norm, it turns out there's still a lot left to destroy.

And Jonathan, to David's point, we learned tonight that Governor Newsom is going to put this question on the ballot in November to basically redistrict and redraw those maps in California. We spoke to Republican Congressman Mike Lawler on this program this past week. He's a Republican in New York. He opposes this redistricting. And he says that it will result in mutually assured destruction. of Democrats and Republicans both move forward. Is he right?

Can we just go back to why we're having this conversation? Because the president of the United States said to Texas, redistrict so we can get five more seats, five more seats so that Republicans can maintain control of the House of Representatives. This mutually assured destruction that Congressman Lawler talks about was initiated by the Republican President of the United States. And so I don't think it's a schick that Texas,

Texas state Democrats have left the state in an effort to deny them a quorum. Sure, this, the special session, they'll call another one, and eventually this sort of cheating by legal means that the Texas governor is trying to, is trying to accomplish. This is not a, this is not a stick. This is Democrats standing up for small D Democratic values. If this were, you know, at the 10-year mark of doing redistricting, this be a whole different. from conversation. This is mid-decade that they're doing. It's cheating by legal means. And I think that, you know, Governor Newsom from the very beginning when Texas was making

noises about this, that he was going to do something about it. Well, now he's going to do something about it. And I am all here for it. Democrats cannot stand by while Republicans pervert the Constitution, pervert the will of the people, prevent the people from choosing their own elected officials. And I know that both parties are guilty when it comes to gerrymandering coming up with these crazy ketchup-like districts. But this, what is happening in Texas at the behest of the President of the United States is a whole other thing. Lastly, interior design is not typically a topic of conversation in Brooks and Capehart, but we've got to talk about these design changes at the White House. David, President Trump has radically designed the Rose Garden.

You see the before and after there. Those yellow umbrellas are supposed to be evocative of the design at Marilago. He's paved over the historic lawn there, as you can see. You've got the sweeping gold ornamentation in the Oval Office. You see it there, the before and after. And that's to say nothing of the huge flagpoles that are now on the both lawns of the White House and this $200 million dollar ballroom coming to the East Wing. Is this purely personal branding, or does this reflect a deeper shift in how he tries to project his authority? Well, I think it's a little too restrained. There's not enough guilt. I want the full Baroque, you know, the Versailles, maybe. And so it's Donald Trump's taste, and he wants to, he thinks this is what I'm good at. I'm good

at designing things. People love my designs. The more gold the better. Personally, a little vulgar for my taste, my kitchen actually does not look like that, believe it or not. But I have to say one thing contradictory, which is I actually support the ballroom. You go to the east room in the White House where a lot of the bigger meetings are held. It's a small room. The White House is a small place. And so for the, and when they have state dinners, they've got to have a big ten out back. And so for a White House, which is now the center of a great global power, which was built hundreds of years ago, obviously, to have a ballroom the size of your random hotel ballroom strikes me as a convenient thing if you want to have good meetings.

And so you put on my interior design hat, I'm not qualified. But if you want me to redesign a hotel ballroom, I'm all for what Donald Trump's doing. There you go. Jonathan? I don't want him doing it. Donald Trump putting a ballroom great, but not with this guy in the White House. And what he's done to the lawn in the Rose Garden, when I saw it, the first thought I had is, what in the Holiday Inn Express is this? Has anyone ever been in Washington in the heat of summer? Who's going to be sitting out there on that patio? At any point during the summer in Washington, it's just, it's wasted money, even though it's foundation money. Jonathan K. Part, David Brooks. We covered a lot of ground tonight. Thank you, gentlemen.

Be sure to watch Washington Week with The Atlantic tonight here on PBS. Jeffrey Goldberg and his panel examined President Trump's dramatic and possibly destabilizing approach to the U.S. economy. And on the next PBS News weekend, scientists in South Africa give endangered rhinos radioactive horns to help save them from poachers. You won't want to miss that. And that is the News Hour for tonight and this week. I'm Jeff Bennett for all of us here at the PBS News Hour. Thanks for spending part of your evening with us. weekend.