PBS News Hour - Full Show - February 20, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: February 21, 2026

Friday on the News Hour, after the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump's global tariffs, he pledges to keep most of them in place through other means. In the midst of a military buildup, the U.S. considers a limited strike on Iran, but many fear this could lead to an all-out war. Plus, the EPA loosens restrictions on coal-burning power plants, allowing emissions of hazardous pollutants. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Nawaz on the news hour tonight. After the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump's global tariffs, he pledges to keep most of them in place through other means. In the midst of a military buildup, the U.S. considers a limited strike on Iran. But many fear that, too, could lead to an all-out war. And the EPA loosens restrictions on coal-burning power plants, allowing emissions of hazardous pollutants, including mercury. They claim affordability, but in the fine print of their own document, they admit that this repeal will have no impact on electricity prices. Welcome to the News Hour. The Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump's global tariffs today in a six to three decision that is a major blow to his economic agenda. The court ruled that President Trump did not have the authority under a 1977 economic emergency law to issue such sweeping tariffs. The president responded forcefully, using sharp language to criticize the justices who ruled against him,

calling them unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution. At a press conference, he said he would move forward regardless, vowing to impose a global 10% across-the-board tariff under a different law. The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court. absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They're against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our

nation. Although I firmly disagree with the court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constraint a president's ability to order tariffs going forward. That's because numerous other federal statutes, which is so true, authorized the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case, even more tariffs, actually. And we start our coverage tonight with the NewsHour's Supreme Court analysts and Scotist blog co-founder Amy Howe. Amy, it's always good to see you. I'll read part of the Chief Justice's opinion in this case, where he challenges the president's decision to impose the tariffs. He says in part, quote, the president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs.

In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. So what are your key takeaways from today's ruling and this rebuke of the president's approach? So this really didn't come as much of a surprise after the oral argument. It seemed like the Supreme Court was likely to strike down the tariffs. The real question was how many justices would join to strike the tariffs down and would they be able to coalesce around a particular rationale? I think probably from the justice's perspective, it's not a personal rebuke as much as it's a legal rebuke under the court's precedent for the president to exercise. this kind of sweeping power, they're saying Congress needs to be really clear before it hands over that power. And they're saying, we just don't see it here this time. Well, the president, as we saw in that press briefing, he attacked the justices personally. And he also criticized the way they wrote the decision, saying they invalidated the tariffs, but didn't clarify what should happen to the revenue already collected. I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't

discussed. Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence? in there saying that keep the money or don't keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. So what do you make of that? And earlier this evening, you have the governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, demanding a $1,700 refund per family for the people of his state. The only real reference to it is in Justice Brett Kavanaugh's opinion for the three dissenting justices. The lack of reference to the refunds is complicated by the fact that the litigants who were actually before the Supreme Court in these cases had been promised immediate refunds by the federal government if they prevailed. And it wasn't actually part of the question before the Supreme Court.

The only question before the Supreme Court was, does this federal law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, authorize the tariffs that the president imposed? Could the Supreme Court have said something about the refunds? Maybe, but it wasn't entirely surprising that they didn't do it. The way the president attacked the justices, what does that reveal about the relationship between the president and the Supreme Court in this moment? Well, in this moment, clearly it's not good. The Trump administration, particularly on the court's emergency docket, had been on a long winning streak in the Supreme Court for basically all of 2025.

There was something like 24 straight victories on the emergency docket. The Trump administration is likely to prevail in some other important cases involving executive power, including the question of whether or not the president has the power to fire the heads of, independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission for any reason at all. In the past, he has referred to the justices that he has appointed as my justices. And so, you know, he feels, I think, betrayed by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney-Barritt, who were in the majority today and who he appointed. So I think he, you know, feels like the Supreme Court possibly is there to rubber stamp his policies. And

And with Justice Barrett and Justice Gorset, perhaps a bit transactional that they are there because he appointed him and they should support him. Amy Howe, thanks as always for your analysis. Thank you. For more on what today's ruling means for the economy, we're joined by Natasha Sarin, Professor of Law and Finance at Yale University and president of the Budget Lab at Yale. Good to see, and Natasha. So we got this Supreme Court ruling at 10 o'clock Eastern. By 2 p.m., the president had announced a new slate of tariffs.

help us understand which of the tariffs are now gone and which are in place. So I will say it is a bit of a whirlwind. And the nature of what happened this morning was you basically had the president having effectuated across the board tariffs on allies and adversaries alike at levels that we haven't seen in the last century. The Supreme Court said that about two thirds of those tariffs, the tariffs that had been issued under this particular authority called Aipa, were invalid. as a result of their decision. And then, as was widely expected, as a result of a decision like this, the president said he plans to use other authorities like Section 232 or Section 122 of the Trade Act in order to be able to essentially keep in place tariffs that were at levels that were

dismissed by the Supreme Court earlier this morning. That's actually a harder thing to do in practice than you might think having listened to the president this afternoon because there are more rules and process requirements associated with the other authorities that he's trying to deploy, which is why his preferred authority was one that the Supreme Court said simply couldn't weather the burden of tariffs as broad-based as those that this administration has pushed for. And you just heard a little bit about this in the previous conversation. What about those billions in tariff revenue? Could retailers and manufacturers see some kind of a refund? Could consumers as well?

You know, what's so interesting is that in oral argument, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, won't it be a mess with respect to trying to think about what to do with the fact that about $140 billion of revenue have already come into the Fisk as a result of these tariffs that were at play in the Supreme Court case? Justice Amy Coney-Barrant ultimately ruled to invalidate those tariffs along with the majority. But just as Kavanaugh said explicitly, this is in fact going to be a mess, recalling her an oral argument. And the decision, says literally nothing with respect to what is going to happen with respect to those refunds. One reason why that really matters to consumers is a large chunk of those $140 billion

that have already been paid into the FISC as a result of these tariff levels have actually been passed through in the form of higher prices. We estimate my colleagues and I have budget lab that that cost the average American household around $2,000 a year in higher prices. But if there are any refunds, they're going to go to the first. the importers of goods. And so how that ultimately plays out with respect to the consumers seeing these dollars, that's an open question.

How these refunds would even work in practice? Big open question that this decision says nothing about. Natasha, what about this new 10% global tariff that the president also announced, given how the Supreme Court just ruled, does he have the authority to do that or does he need Congress? You know, part of what I'm worried about

with respect to these alternate trade authorities is you're almost in this tariff legal uncertainty doom loop, where he's effectuating these 10% across the board tariffs that were in place this morning before this decision landed through this alternative authority. I'll note that this alternative authority only gives him the capacity to keep those tariffs in place for 150 days.

What happens after those 150 days? Who's to say? But even for those 150 days, does he have the power under this authority to levy tariffs like this? It's never been tried before, and it's ultimately something that is likely to reach the Supreme Court in some capacity over the course of the months and years ahead. And so I think tariff uncertainty is here with us to stay for quite some time.

And I suspect this is not the last time that the highest court in the land is going to be weighing in on these questions. You look at the economic impact of all of these things. In a minute or so we have left, with the existing tariffs that are still in place, with this new 10% global tariff, what's the economic impact you're looking at there? So what we know is that tariffs are at their highest level that we've seen over the course of the last century. As a result of today's Supreme Court decision, tariff rates fell from something like an effective tariff rate of 16% to around 9%, but they rose way back up as a result of these 10% across the board tariffs that the president announced this afternoon, that basically held in place a large chunk of his existing tariff agenda.

And all that is to say, these are the most inflationary policies in our lifetimes. Tariffs are attacks on the American consumer to the tune of several thousand dollars of increased prices every year. And at a moment when the American people are still grappling with post-pandemic inflation, higher prices for literally everything that they consume than they remember just a few years ago, it is striking that we are pursuing these types of inflationary policies and really to no economic end. that has been clearly articulated from this administration. Natasha Sarin, president of the Yale Budget Lab. Thank you so much for your time. Thanks so much for having me. And turning now to one of the plaintiffs from today's case,

that's Rick Waldenberg, owner of the Chicago-based small toy manufacturer learning resources. Welcome back to the NewsHour. Thank you for having me. Rick, last November, you told us your tariff costs had risen sixfold, more than sixfold, in fact, in a single year, So what was your reaction when you heard the Supreme Court decision today? Well, obviously we were very gratified to have the support of Supreme Court.

We felt vindicated in our assertion that the tax that we were paying was unlawful. I can also tell you that it was a demonstration of the rule of law and action. And so I was comforted by the fact that I felt that the court was impartial and applied the laws written. That's important to everybody. The taxes you describe at the added cost. How much of that did your company absorb and how much did you have to pass on to customers? Well, it's an interesting question. You know, I took a look at it and our tax rate, federal plus state plus IEPA tariffs,

was in excess of 100% last year. And so you can't stay in business if you make a dollar and you pay more than a dollar in taxes, you will eventually have no dollars. So we had to pass it on. you exactly why other companies had to pass it on too. You can't have a marginal tax rate that is greater than your earnings. So we passed on some of it. We passed on as little as we felt we could manage. And in heading into 26, we already decided we were going to win the case. And so we decided to treat our financials as if we weren't going to pay tariffs and we didn't

raise our prices. So we're actively trying to average our price down to where we think it would have been. The president today, in railing against the Supreme Court, announced a 10% global tariff. So in practical terms, what actually changes for your business tomorrow? Well, at least our tax rate went down because most countries were being taxed at 18, 19, or 20%. And when I say the countries were being taxed, I mean, we were being taxed to the tune of 18 or 19 or 20. So now at 10% that's about a reduction in half. It didn't go to zero. And 122, Section 122 can only impose a tax for five months. So I guess we'll see what happens after that.

As we were discussing earlier, the court in striking down these tariffs didn't spell out what happens to the revenue already collected. What's your hope and expectation? Well, they did say that the law does not provide for tariffs. So the tariffs were unlawful when imposed. That means that the government took money from us. They had no right to take. And just like paying too much in taxes, they have to give it back with interest. That's what the law provides. So it was never anyone's expectation. I don't think that the Supreme Court would fashion a remedy. They will send it down below. But having for the remedy to be created, but they also said quite clearly these tariffs were collected unlawfully. That means they have to be returned. And lastly, Rick, I'm not sure if you were watching the press conference with the president today, but he resorted to name calling when talking about you and the other plaintiffs. I won't repeat what he said, harsh language, choice words to be sure.

I wonder if you have a response to that. Somebody told me he said I was good looking. He didn't say that. You know, I don't think that these issues are solved by pointing fingers, and I've not allowed our case to become political. So I don't have to take the position that we are against an individual like Mr. Trump. We were against the misapplication of law, and that's what we said. And so I'm not sure that any reply is necessary. Our company is located in Chicago.

We make educational products that go into schools and schools. homes. I don't know why anyone would be angry at us. Rick Woldenberg, owner of the small toy manufacturer learning resources. Thanks again for joining us. Thank you. Today, President Trump suggested he was considering a limited strike on Iran, while Iran's foreign minister said he was drafting a new diplomatic proposal as part of ongoing negotiations. The public statements come as the United States continues to deploy a large number of military assets in the region. Nick Schifrin's been following this all and joins us now. So Nick, what did we hear from the president today?

Well, as you said, the president suggested that he was considering a limited strike on Iran in order to try and convince Iran to accept a diplomatic deal. That seems to confirm a report in the Wall Street Journal, but he said it with a smile in a chaotic room. So let's take a listen to the question, to the answer, and also what he said about the nature of the deal this afternoon. President, are you considering a limited military strike to pressure Iran into the answer? Thank you, Press.

Thank you, Press. Keep moving. Thank you. Are you concerned about a limited strike, sir? Thank you. Thank you, President. They better negotiate a fair deal. President Trump also said today that Iran's crackdown of an unprecedented number of protests last month killed 32,000 people.

That's a number I've heard some activists use, but the U.S. government has never used before today. Remember, Amna, the crackdown was what started this round of threats. President Trump warned that if Iran killed protesters, he would respond. protesters, he would respond. Iran crossed that red line by the thousands, but other than Starlink's, the president never enforced his red line. Nick, is it fair to say with the president's statement, the number of military assets in the region, the threat, military threat, has gone up in the last few days? Yeah, I mean, this is one of the largest deployments to the Middle East in decades. You know, let's take a look at the map, and I want to point out a few things. You see the green triangles there.

Those are the dozens of bases that the U.S. has access to, that Iran is threatening to target. the red triangles, right, two carrier strike groups, one south of Iran, the other entering the Mediterranean sailing east. And all of those yellow dots, more than a dozen ships, those can fire missiles toward Iran, but also contribute to air defense. In addition to all of that, there are dozens of additional fighter jets that have been deployed to the region. And officials tell me this, all of this gives the president a range of options for military strikes. What do we know about what Iran's saying, how they would respond to even a limited strike? So a regional official told me and other reporters last night that Iran would respond to even a limited strike by walking away from the negotiations. So the idea of a limited strike producing a better result in negotiations, he said, was not true.

And that was echoed by every expert I talked to, and these experts have a range of opinions. It was also echoed by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aranqi speaking on MSNOWs. Morning Joe. military option would only complicate this, would only, you know, bring about disastrous consequences, not only for us, perhaps for the whole region. If you talk with the Iranian people with the language of respect, we respond with the same language. But if they talk to us with the language of force, we would reciprocate with the same language. Iran, she also said that Iran would finalize a new offer to the U.S. for diplomatic talks in the next two to three days. But he said that the U.S. had not asked Iran to freeze enrichment or to go down to zero enrichment, which is the administration's public position.

What we are now talking about is how to make sure that Iran's nuclear program, including enrichment, is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever. A whiteout official tells me tonight, quote, Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or the capacity to build them, and they cannot enrich uranium. That seems to me, I'm not a declarative statement against Iran. She's claim, and again, all experts saying right now that it's pointing to some kind of U.S. military strike in the near future. All right. Nick Schifrin. Thank you very much. Thank you. We start the day's other headlines with the latest fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files. Police searched the former home of Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, located on the grounds of Windsor Castle west of London.

The King's brother had lived there for decades until his eviction earlier this month. The search comes a day after he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office related to his friendship with the late-convicted sex offender. The former prince was released after nearly 11 hours. Separately, the lobbying firm, co-founded by Peter Mandelson, has halted operations. The former British ambassador to the U.S. has come under increasing pressure due to his ties to Epstein. And in this country, Bard College in New York has opened an independent review into the relationship between Epstein and the school's longtime president, Leon Botstein. The Trump administration is requiring all truckers and bus drivers to take commercial driving tests in English. The move was announced today by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who said it would get unqualified drivers off the road and improve safety.

Just because you're a foreigner, that doesn't mean that you can't drive a big rig. You can't drive a truck. Well, what's happened that we've had so many unskilled, unqualified, untrained drivers on American roads? Many states allow drivers to take license tests in other languages, but still require that they show proficiency in English. Today's announcement is part of a broader crackdown on the industry since a fatal crash last August involving an immigrant driver who officials say was in the country illegally. In New York, the largest nursing strike in decades is close to ending after thousands of nurses reached a tentative agreement with management today.

More than 4,000 nurses at New York Presbyterian Hospital had been on the picket line for more than a month. The union says today's deal includes staffing improvements, a 12% pay raise, and safeguards against the use of AI. If approved, nurses could return to work as early as next week. They would rejoin the nearly 11,000 other New York nurses who ratified contracts with two other hospitals last week. In Venezuela, opposition groups say a new amnesty law that could lead to the release of hundreds of political prisoners does not go far enough. Acting President Delci Rodriguez signed the measure yesterday.

It signals a broad shift in policy toward such prisoners, but has upset some families by excluding certain groups like detained military members. Opposition leader Juan Pablo Guanipa had been under House arrest. The bill granted his freedom, but speaking to reporters, he warned of a long fight ahead. The important thing is not the law. The important thing is political will. I am sure that all those who are outside will be able to return and that we will be able to have all political prisoners released. That is what has to happen, and that is the pressure that we have to exert.

A Venezuela-based rights group estimates some 600 people remain in jail for political reasons. House Speaker Mike Johnson's office denied a request for the late Reverend Jesse Jackson to lie in honor in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. Jackson's family and some House Democrats had filed the request for the civil rights icon who died earlier this week at the age of 84. In rejecting the request, the Speaker's office cited past precedent. Most recently, a request to honor slain conservative action. activist Charlie Kirk was also denied. But there have been some exceptions, including civil rights icon Rosa Parks in 2005 and the Reverend Billy Graham in 2018. Even before today's tariff announcement, a pair of economic reports raised new concerns about the health of the U.S.

economy. The Commerce Department said today that the fourth quarter GDP rose just 1.4 percent when compared to the year before. That was due largely to the effects of the government shutdown and was less than economists had expected. A separate report showed a vital gauge on inflation rising 2.9 percent in December, well above the Fed's preferred target of 2 percent. On Wall Street today, stocks posted decent gains following the Supreme Court's tariff decision. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 230 points on the day. The NASDAQ rose 200 points, or nearly 1 percent.

The S&P 500 also ended in positive territory. And tributes have been pouring in for actor. Eric Dane, the Grey's Anatomy star who passed away yesterday. McSteamy! Woo-hoo! Is that what you call me now? McSteamy? Dane made his first appearance as plastic surgeon Mark Sloan, also known as McSteamy, exactly 20 years ago to the day of his passing. He played that role from 2006 to 2012. Dane also portrayed the troubled Cal Jacobs on HBO's Euphoria, among other TV and film appearances. Last April, he announced he'd been diagnosed with ALS, a progressive disease also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and became an advocate for the illness.

After his diagnosis, Dane recorded this video message speaking directly to his teenage daughters. I hope I'm demonstrated that you can face anything. You can face the end of your days. You can face hell with dignity. Fight girls and hold your heads high. In a statement, his family said, quote, he will be deeply missed and lovingly remembered always. Eric Dane was 53 years old. There are just two days of competition left at the Winter Olympics, and the U.S. is looking to lock in a few more medals before the games wrap up.

There are spoilers ahead, so fair warning. 31-year-old U.S. skier Alex Ferreira finally got a gold in the men's free ski halfpipe. He's won silver and bronze and passed Olympics. The U.S. men's hockey team dominated Slovakia today, winning 6 to 2. They will face arch-rival Canada in the gold medal match on Sunday, the last day of the games. U.S. women's curling came up short against Switzerland, so they'll vie for the bronze tomorrow. Looking at the overall medal count, the U.S. remains in second place with 29. Norway maintains the lead with 37 medals, and with 17 golds broke its own record for most golds at a single winter games.

Still to come. On the News Hour, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon discusses key issues facing states in this politically fraught time. David Brooks and Jonathan K. Part weigh in on the week's political headlines. And Palestinians in Gaza observe Ramadan despite enormous destruction and loss. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of PBS News. The Environmental Protection Agency is scaling back limits on toxic emissions from coal-burning power plants, clearing the way for them to emit more hazardous pollutants like mercury. Stephanie Sy has more on these changes. That's right, Omna.

In a statement today, the EPA said the deregulatory action will ensure affordable, dependable energy for American families and restore American energy dominance. Public health advocates are warning that rolling back limits on mercury and other hazardous air pollutants would harm human health and ultimately drive up health care costs too. To get more on that and the environmental perspective, I'm joined by John Walk from the Natural Resources Defense Council or NRDC. John, thank you for taking the time to join the news hour. As you know, the administration can't really roll back all the mercury restrictions, which courts have upheld under the clean air. since 2012, right? So what is the Trump administration doing exactly? And what do you think is the ultimate goal? The Trump EPA today rolled back safer limits on mercury pollution by 70 percent.

They rolled back safer limits on toxic soot pollution by two-thirds, and they rolled back any need for continuous emissions monitors. They claim affordability, but in the fine print of their own document, they admit that this repeal will have no impact on electricity prices. And indeed, the safer limits and better monitoring would have had no impact on electricity prices. Now, we did ask a representative with the Trump administration's EPA to join us. They declined, at least for today. But they pretty much share the power industry's perspective on this, which is that the additional regulations Biden's EPA put forth were harmful to the coal industry and energy security. The head of America's power issued a statement today that stated that, quote,

repealing the 2024 rule helps prevent premature retirements of coal plants and strengthens grid reliability at a critical moment. John, how much of a lifeline does this rule change give to the coal industry, which has been on the wane for many years? And what are the greater repercussions of that? No lifeline at all, actually. EPA, again, in the fine print, found that this would have no impact on coal plant retirements. And the Biden EPA, when it strengthened, the standards also found it would have no impact on retirements. The truth is that the coal industry has faced headwinds from competition with cleaner, renewable

energy from plants that burn methane gas. And there has been a steady downward spiral of electricity generated from coal over the past decade, and that will continue notwithstanding this attack on health safeguards and clean air protections. We've seen the Trump administration strip away greenhouse gas emission limits as well. But what makes this EPA rule different from what I understand, John, is this directly impacts human health. Remind us what the science tells us about exposure to mercury. It's impacts on the human body, particularly babies and developing fetuses. and what you see as truly at stake here?

What's at stake is more mercury emissions that are a brain poison, and they poison and harm the developing brains of the fetus, of young children, babies, children all the way up to 12 or later, actually. So it is causing learning deficiencies. It is causing IQ lost. And that's in addition to all the other health hazards from rolling back the toxic soot pollution limit, which contributes to cancer and birth defects and infertility miscarriages and much more. You mentioned that the amendments put forth by the Biden administration included a requirement

for so-called continuous emissions monitoring at power plants. That goes away with this rule change under Trump. Talk about the significance of that. I was even floored by this when I read EPA's documents today. They emit in the fine print that eliminating a continuous emissions monitor at a coal plant, and they're about 200 in the United States, will save that coal plant $14,000. Now, coal plants and coal companies in this country have revenues of tens to one hundreds of billions of dollars, and they are saving coal plants $14,000 per year.

for each monitor. The truth is that Americans would have gotten far more benefit and transparency from requiring continuous monitors that show hourly emissions of toxic pollution, which in turn drives better reductions in pollution and better compliance. The Trump administration wanted to eliminate all of those goods in order to save $14,000. That is John Walk with the NRDC. John, thank you for joining us. Thank you, Stephanie. President Donald Trump welcomed both Democratic and Republican governors to the White House this morning for a bipartisan meeting. As that gathering was underway, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its major ruling on tariffs,

a decision that could affect a number of states, including Wyoming, where trade and energy production play an important role in the state's economy. Wyoming's Republican Governor Mark Gordon attended the morning's gathering of governors and joins us now. Thanks for being here. Wonderful to be here. Thanks so much. I want to start with trade since the Supreme Court, as you know, struck down the administration's tariffs. How does that decision change the outlook for Wyoming producers and exporters, especially

ranchers, energy companies, for instance, that rely on global markets? Well, I think that's a good question. What I would say is that we had already started some work with Japan and other countries in Asia to talk about getting our natural gas off the West Coast, be able to get our coal on off the West Coast. It's not really clear to us exactly how this trade decision will change that. I think Japan, for example, was very high. Governor Lujan Grisham and I were in Japan last year,

and they were very high on the notion of being able to buy American energy. We hope this continues, and that trade deficit is able to be decreased. What are you hearing from industry in your state? We were all beginning to adjust to it. You know, our... Our ability to, first off, beef is a big part of our economy. Our concerns were domestic consumers, the market's been really quite good. As far as energy is concerned, our interest is being able to get that offshore.

We have tremendous amounts of energy and we're really looking at AI as being a boon to us. So we're going to adapt kind of however it comes best for us. Right now it's a little hard to know if it's going to change our manufacturing any of that stuff. On energy, President Trump pledged to expand domestic energy production. What specifically has the administration delivered for Wyoming, and where do you still want action? Well, I think we're very excited about this administration because we are not constraining what we can produce. So we have Wyoming's powerhouse. We have tremendous amounts of fossil fuel. We've led the nation on carbon capture and other things that can make sure that we can

both address climate issues and produce more energy, energy that's available and can be produced easily. We have tremendous resources of wind and solar. And then we've also built up our nuclear industry, Terra power and BWXT are both doing work in Wyoming now. So we're very excited about this administration, kind of opening that up. There's still some legacy pieces that we're working through.

The last administration had put some constraints on some of our ability to develop, and we're hoping that those can be done away with fairly quickly. Let's talk about that, because there's news on environmental regulation today, too. The administration announced that's rolling back some clean air regulations for power plants, including limits on mercury and hazardous air toxins. Wyoming has taken steps to regulate methane and wildlife conservation. So how do you balance environmental stewardship with economic competitiveness?

Well, I think one of the most important things for Wyoming has been, if we do it locally, we have stakeholder engagement. The people that work in the energy business are also hunters. They love the outdoors. They love taking their family fishing. So they care a lot about what we're able to do, which is why we have tried to balance how we develop our energy in a way that preserves our migratory game pathways, make sure that our sage grass populations are protected. And the state has done that, and it has done it very successfully. I think when we look at what we can do, as opposed to telling us what we can't do,

and we say we want to balance environmental protection with development, we don't want to hold back the energy this nation needs, I think you look at the people who can solve those problems on the ground, and this administration has allowed us to do that. do you think this has been controversial at the federal level where it seems like you found a strategy for success in the state level? Yeah, that's a good question. You look at the results that we have, and generally speaking, people are saying, gosh, that's

working with sage grouse, that's working with migratory game animals. There may be just this notion that Washington can cure everything. If we do it here, we can make it happen elsewhere. But the real resistance I have to that is that we have private property interspaced with state and federal lands. And when you try to impose the federal will on that, you don't have stakeholder engagement. You don't have stakeholder belief in the outcome. And that's the difference. Wyoming is one of the most reliably Republican states in the country.

Does that free you up to govern pragmatically? Yeah, I think it does. You know, I think what Wyoming is really focused on is sensible solutions to making sure that we can still power our nation. We're the nation's first national park. That's deep in our DNA. And so I think what has given us is the ability to kind of work carefully with,

property owners and others to find the best solutions. We've worked also with Democrat administrations as well. And I think one of the friendships that I treasure most is my relationship with Governor Lujan Grisham. We both are energy states. We are not going to agree on everything, but we realize that together we can probably do a better job of representing what's important to America if we do work together. William and Governor Mark Gordon. Thanks for coming in.

Thanks so much. The Supreme Court's tariff ruling in President Trump's response topped off a week that saw key developments on the international stage. For more, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and K-Part. That's David Brooks of the Atlantic and Jonathan K-part of MS Now. Good evening to you both. So, David, we'll start with you. Jonathan, feel free to take a sip of water if you need it. The key takeaways of this Supreme Court tariff ruling as you see them. Well, it'll make tariff issuing harder. Certainly we're not making them go away. Trump has made that perfectly clear.

But just on the substance of it, it's become clear that this tariff policy is a gigantic economic failure. It was designed to reduce to increase manufacturing jobs in the United States. Manufacturing jobs have continued their decline, maybe at an accelerated rate. At the same time, according to a Fed study this week, 90% of the costs are passed on to American consumers, so it's a tax on Americans. And then it's, so it's led to inflation. But the big picture here is that the Supreme Court has had a pretty consistent line on federal power. They've given Trump a lot of broad latitude to run the executive branch.

But they have not given him broad latitude to run the legislative branch. They've said this is a clear legislative thing. It's in the Constitution. Taxing and spending, tariffs, it's right there. And they are trying to draw a line around the presidency. Back in like 1973, 74, a historian named Arthur Schlesinger wrote a book called, the imperial presidency about Richard Nixon. That wasn't even close to where we are today. This is the most imperial presidency in American history. And the worst part is it's accompanied

not only by a president who wants to grab every power, but a Congress whose power is imploding voluntarily. And so part of the problem here is the unwillingness of Congress to do their job. And that leaves a vacuum that Trump can fill. Jonathan, I wondered about that. President Trump has for years now pushed the boundaries of executive authority in his first term and in the first year of his second term. How significant is it after years of the Supreme Court really reinforcing his expansive view of executive power, two of the justices he appointed effectively broke with him today? It's a good sign that the Supreme Court isn't as in lockstep with the president, as a lot of people feared. The other thing,

excuse me, it says to me, never swallowed just before your own saliva, just before you go, my apologies. But the other thing about the ruling is to David's point, the justices basically said in the ruling, you know, Mr. President, there is a way to do what you want to do, and it's by doing it with the legislative branch. So as much as it was a smackdown of the president and his overreach, it was a reminder to Congress that basically, yo, you guys have a job to do. The Constitution lays it out. Get to work. whether this Congress, with this Republican majority, and particularly with this Republican Speaker,

whether they will take the Supreme Court up on its opportunity to do its job remains to be seen. Well, after the ruling, the president took to the White House briefing room, he spoke for 45 minutes, and he escalated his attacks against the court and the justices themselves. The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court,

absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. Disloyal to our Constitution, is there a point at which the president's rhetoric, maybe we're already there, becomes corrosive to the institution itself? Well, Donald Trump has never had an honest disagreement. somebody and we're saying, oh, I disagree with you and without him going ad hominem. And that is just his nature. It is the nature of somebody with a narcissistic personality disorder to think I am the center and everything that's an assault on me cannot be anything but a shameful

attack on all that is right and good. And so it's very hard, you know, we travel around the country, we meet people trying to heal America, trying to build conversations. And it's just frustrating that all these people are doing this work around the country, at the same time, the government, day by day, there's a shredding from the top. And so there's these forces of humanization that are trying to have a decent country. And then the shredding from the top is just a constant battle of forcing dehumanization. As we've been speaking, the president signed the executive order establishing this 10% global tariff. It expires in 150 days unless Congress extends it. That, though, Jonathan, set up a trap for Republicans in Congress.

Given how unpopular tariffs are, they're certainly going to be pressured by President Trump to fall in line. And they're going to be pressured by Democrats who want to do something about the president's tariff regime. So, yeah, they're in a trap. They're in a quandary. They're in a bind. Just as they are in a trap, in a quandary, and a bind, let's not forget, there's still a partial government shutdown. And we haven't heard, at least I haven't heard anything about any kind of. of negotiations to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. And on the president's remarks, going after the Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court that gave him immunity for official acts, and he was all happy about them, about them then. But of all the shameful remarks he gave in

that press conference, when he said not only that he thought that those justices should be ashamed, but that their families would be ashamed of them. And that to me, just when I, just when I, thought he couldn't get any lower. He gets lower. And I don't know why I keep thinking he won't go any lower, but he does. But that, I thought, was really shameful on the part of the president. Let's shift our focus to the president convening this past week, the first meeting of what he's calling his Board of Peace. Dozens of international leaders, you see them there, discussing ongoing conflicts, including Gaza, the rising tensions with Iran. David, we've spoken on this program about U.S. retrenchment. Is this a reassertion of American leadership, or do you see this as executive

overreach in the foreign policy sphere? Yeah. It's not ideal what he's doing. And I'd say it's not ideal for a couple of reasons. One, there's really no recipe for how you're going to get Hamas to disarm. And unless you do that, there's going to be no investment. And so unless you have a strategy for that, you really don't have a plan. Second, there's not enough Palestinian input there. This is their place, and eventually we hope their country. And they should be beginning the redevelopment of their own country with outside assistance. Nonetheless, I think this is worth a shot. I think America has led international development programs for, you know, all through the 20th century.

And some of them worked and some of them didn't. But I don't see anything else on offer to get Gaza's made. The UN has totally morally bankrupted itself in that region. They're not going to do anything. they don't have the trust of the Israelis, let alone other people, and they shouldn't have our trust, at least on this issue. I'm not a big UN basher, but on the Middle East, they've sacrificed their moral authority. And so I don't see anybody else doing it. And so if Trump wants to lead an international coalition to do international development in Gaza, I don't see anything better on offer.

Here's my question, though. In Nevada, an opportunity to ask the president questions, this is what I would ask him. Mr. President, two-part question. One, where is the $10 billion dollars you committed yesterday, where's that money coming from? And two, into which bank is it offshore bank is it going to? A bank that you, as the leader of this board, gets to decide where this money goes and you decide how that money is spent. Why should the American people think that the money that you are using, taxpayers' money, isn't going to end up in your own pocket or the pocket of your family and not make it to Gaza. That is the question that I would love to ask.

And the time that remains, I want to get your reflections on Jesse Jackson, the civil rights icon, two-time presidential candidate who passed this past week at the age of 84. Reverend Jackson, historic figure, and I think of it in terms of what Ambassador Young said to me in an interview years ago, that Dr. King said to them, most of us won't live till 40, but if we live past 40, we'll make it to 100. And he felt an obligation if he lived past 40. Reverend Jackson ran for president the first time when he was 42 years old. And ever since that first run in 84 and 88, he has been, you could see it in his works, an obligation to try to make the nation better. And I think he did. David?

I began my career as a columnist south side of Chicago, and Jefferson Jackson, the Rainbow Coalition, was there. Harold Washington was mayor of the time, a great politician, Jackson, a great rhetoricition and those two were sort of rivals because they were very sort of different kinds of people but think of it Jackson was instrumental to the civil rights movement but he also really was a formative influence on the modern American progressive movement and so he did two big things in his life and that's aside from his nice personality and his rhetorical style that's a life of accomplishment David Brooks Jonathan Capehart always great to speak with you

have a good weekend the holy month of Ramadan is celebrated by over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. For Palestinians in Gaza, Ramadan is defined by hope amid destruction and loss. We were able to speak with people in Gaza, in part with the help of our News Hour videographer and producer Shams Odei to get a closer feel for their celebrations and their sorrows. Bright lanterns line the stalls of this bustling Al-Zawiya market in the heart of Gaza's old city, marking the beginning of Ramadan. A stark contrast to the gray destruction just beyond the corridor. The market is one of Gaza's oldest, more than 700 years old.

Part of it was destroyed in an Israeli air strike in November of 2024. The Ramadan staples sold here, from dates to olives and decorations, have been centerpieces for the Muslim Holy Month for generations. This is the first Ramadan since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in October, though So Israeli strikes have killed more than 600 Palestinians since. This market is one of Gaza's oldest, despite the destruction and despite the war that has come to Gaza. We still rebuilt much of it and brought back the lively Ramadan atmosphere. During this month, Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset and immerse themselves in religious practices.

But this year, the high cost of living and the shadow of the war have taken a toll. Shopkeepers like L'Oye al-Gamasi know this all too well. People have been deprived of Ramadan decorations today because they don't have electricity. The cost of lanterns is also high because goods have not been allowed to enter. This lantern is now double the price. Saeed Al-Saga has been selling pickles at the market for 20 years. This year, he says the vibrant Ramadan atmosphere is also heavy with grief. We are working hard to restore our smiles here and bring Ramadan.

back to its celebratory form, but the pain remains. I mean, Ramadan comes and you've lost most of your family members, your neighbors, your friends, and your relatives. So Ramadan comes with the taste of loss. Families that once filled multi-room houses with laughter and feasts in the holy month now live in eerily quiet tents. For Amal al-Samri and her children, this is now home. Before the war, life was beautiful.

We used to visit relatives, and I would go to my parents and siblings. I would go down to the market to shop for the house and prepare for Ramadan. Today there's nothing. We are living in tragedy. Outside the tents, children infuse their bleak surroundings with color. Decorating for Ramadan creates room for joy, even if it's simple. Of course, today we are talking about children in Gaza, whose survival is a success story internationally. We want them to experience happiness and dreams to welcome the holy month of Ramadan. Their artwork, a defiant hope on display for all to see.

Another sunset brings another day of fasting to an end, in a Ramadan ripe with reflection, but this year also resilience. Be sure to watch Washington Week with The Atlantic tonight here on PBS for a look ahead to President Trump's State of the Union address next week. And on Compass Points this weekend, Nick Schifrin and his panel assesses China's latest military moves. And on horizons, William Brangham explores the importance of exercise. You can find those programs on our YouTube page and on your local PBS station. Well, that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett.

And I'm Omna Navaz. On behalf of the entire News Hour team, thank you for joining us and have a great weekend.