PBS News Hour - Full Show - February 26, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: February 27, 2026

Thursday on the News Hour, Hillary Clinton testifies to lawmakers over the Epstein files, while the Justice Department looks into whether documents mentioning President Trump were withheld from the public. The Trump administration halts Medicaid funding to Minnesota over allegations of fraud. Plus, a whistleblower warns ICE recruits are not receiving proper training. 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 Omna Navaz. On the news hour tonight, Hillary Clinton testifies to congressional lawmakers over the Epstein files, while the Justice Department looks into whether documents mentioning President Trump were withheld from the public. The Trump administration halts Medicaid funding to Minnesota over allegations of fraud. And a whistleblower warns that ICE recruits are not receiving proper training. It is a recipe for someone else to die, potentially for multiple people. to die and it's going to be done by officers who deserved better from this government. Welcome to the News Hour. Members of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee questioned

Hillary Clinton for more than six hours today as part of its investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The former Secretary of State told lawmakers she had no information on Epstein's criminal activities. During a closed-door session, Clinton said she also did not recall ever meeting Mr. Epstein and never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes, or offices. Today's meeting was the first of two days of closed-door depositions for the House Oversight Committee of both Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. There were a lot of questions that we asked that we, you know, weren't satisfied with the answers that we got, but we will continue to move forward.

Democrats on the committee argued their Republican colleagues did not take the deposition seriously. Today, we are sitting through an incredibly unsurious clown show of a deposition where members of Congress and the Republican Party are more concerned about getting their photo op of Secretary Clinton than actually getting to the truth and holding anyone accountable. Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein's crimes, but Bill Clinton has said he previously had a professional relationship with the convicted sexual offender. For more on today's testimony, I'm joined now by Justice correspondent Ali Rogan. So, Allie, today's session was behind closed doors between Clinton and members of the committee.

What did we learn today about any ties between Secretary Clinton and Epstein? Well, Amna, Hillary Clinton just came to the microphones and spoke to the media following today's proceedings. She said she answered questions as best she could. She called the day long and repetitive, maintained that she has never met Jeffrey Epstein, and that she had no knowledge of his or Galane Maxwell's crimes. She also said that towards the end of the questioning today, it took an unusual turn, and she was asked about things like UFOs and PizzaGate, that scandal from the first Trump campaign season.

We want to play for you a piece of what she said today. I answered every one of their questions as fully as I, as I could based on what I knew and what I knew is what I said in my statement this morning. I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or communication with him. Omna, committee members also said that Hillary Clinton today gave them suggestions for other people to try to depose. And committee chairman James Comer said that repeatedly she answered questions by saying, I don't know. You'll have to ask my husband.

Well, we've heard the Clintons and the representatives argue House Republicans here are operating in what they call partisan political theater. At one point today, there was some back and forth between them, the Clintons and the Republicans on the committee. Tell us about that. That's right. Right before the meeting started, Congresswoman Lauren Bobert snapped a picture of Clinton, apparently sent it to mega influencer Benny Johnson, who posted it on X. Oversight Committee ranking member Robert Garcia said everyone in the room, was taken aback by this clear breach of committee rules. So proceedings did temporarily pause,

and then they did get back on track. So this testimony, this session comes after months of negotiations with the Clintons, just remind us how we got to this moment. This hearing took a long time to schedule. Initially, the Clintons sought to argue that this subpoena was invalid and could not be enforced. Then the committee moved towards a full House

of Representatives vote on contempt of Congress. Then the Clinton said they would testify, but only in public, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said that he would interview them the same way everyone else has been interviewed on that committee, which is closed-door videotape with the video and transcript released subsequently. Clearly they arrived at a resolution omna because these members made their way to Chappacot, New York for today and tomorrow. So they heard from Secretary Clinton today. Tomorrow they hear from former president, Bill Clinton, is that right? That's correct.

And though, of course, being mentioned in the files is not a suggestion of wrongdoing. Bill Clinton, indisputably, had a closer relationship with both. Jeffrey Epstein and Galane Maxwell than did Hillary. Epstein visited the White House while Clinton served in office. Clinton traveled and socialized with the two of them, as is evidence from many of the photos that have been released over the months from the Epstein files. As a Clinton spokesperson has maintained that Bill Clinton knew nothing of either individual's crimes, as for the rest of the the witness schedule, this committee is also going to hear from Epstein's accountant and his lawyer. We also learned today that Chairman Comer is open to requesting that Commerce Secretary Howard

Lutnik testify. Lutnik has had to revise his statements several times about the nature of his relationship with Epstein, so it makes sense the committee would want to hear from him. Well, we have you. Another piece of related news I want to ask you about, we've seen reporting from multiple outlets this week that the Justice Department with held and removed some of the Epstein files related to President Trump. What do we know about that? Yes, this is related to notes from four interviews that the FBI conducted with one woman in 2019 after Epstein was arrested. The DOJ did release notes from one of those interviews in which the woman accuses Epstein of sexually assaulting her when she was as young as 13 years old.

But several media outlets noted that the notes from the three other interviews were missing, and that based on other documents that they could triangulate, there was information implicating potentially President Trump in those missing documents. In response to this, the DOJ has said that it is reviewing those files and that, quote, should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process, the department will, of course, publish it consistent with the law. That's our justice correspondent. Allie, Rogan, beginning our coverage tonight. Allie, thank you. You bet. We start the day's other headlines in Cuba. A U.S. official tells the news hour that at least two individuals involved in yesterday speedboat shooting were U.S. citizens and that the owner of the vessel claims it had been stolen by an employee.

Four people were killed, including one of the U.S. citizens. The incident took place in the waters off the island's north coast. Cuba's government said earlier the 10 people aboard the four. Florida registered boat were Cuban nationals who aimed to carry out a terrorist attack. On social media, Cuban president Miguel Diaz Canal vowed, quote, Cuba will defend itself against any terrorist or mercenary aggression that seeks to undermine its sovereignty. While on the streets of Havana today, locals express their support for yesterday's shooting. What they're doing is testing our strength to see how far they can go if no one stands up to them. But the fire we gave them was good. If they come, we'll shoot at them.

If they shoot at us, we'll eat bullets. We will open fire if there are problems. From the U.S. side, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last night, the U.S. government was in no way involved and that it is investigating the incident. In New York City, a Columbia University student was detained by ICE agents in her campus apartment today, then released hours later. Elie Agayevaheva is a senior from Azerbaijan and a self-described content creator. This morning, she wrote on Instagram, quote, DHS illegally arrested me, please help.

Immigrants are welcome here. Immigrants are welcome here. Within hours, dozens had gathered at the campus gates in protest. Federal officials described Agaueva as an illegal alien whose student visa was terminated in 2016. Her release came after New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdanani. said he discussed the arrest with President Trump during an unrelated meeting at the White House. Police in Buffalo, New York are investigating the death of a nearly blind refugee from Myanmar days after Border Patrol agents dropped him off alone at a coffee shop miles from his home.

56-year-old Nur al-Amin Shah Alam, who spoke little English, had been jailed for a year on charges later resolved with a misdemeanor plea deal. Last week, he was released to Border Patrol agents who found he was, quote, not amenable to removal. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, quote, agents offered him a courtesy ride, and, quote, he showed no signs of distress, mobility issues, or disabilities.

A medical examiner ruled out exposure and homicide, saying his death was health-related. But Buffalo's mayor, Sean Ryan, said the decision to leave him was unprofessional and inhumane. In Geneva today, Ukrainian and U.S. officials gathered for talks aimed at ending Russia's war in Ukraine now in its fifth year. Just hours earlier. Ukraine's president, Vladimir Zelensky, says Russia launched a barrage of more than 400 drones

and dozens of missiles across several regions. Officials say the bombardment targeted critical infrastructure and injured dozens of people, including children. In the southeast city of Zaporizia, an elderly couple say their apartment was destroyed when their building was hit. They say there's little hope that the war will end soon. We don't believe it. It won't end and Ukraine will be blown to pieces.

We want them to reach an agreement, but they don't. And now we don't know where to go or what to do. Everything is destroyed. President Vladimir Zelensky said today, the next round of trilateral talks involving Ukraine, Russia and the U.S. will likely take place in Abu Dhabi in early March. In Afghanistan, the sound of explosions rang out tonight in the capital city of Kabul, though there's been no word yet on casualties.

It comes just hours after Afghanistan launched an attack on Pakistan, which it claims was retaliation for Pakistani airstrikes on border areas earlier the week. Afghanistan claims to have seized more than a dozen Pakistani army posts in the latest escalation between the two neighbors. Pakistan called Afranistan's attack unprovoked and dismissed claims that any army posts had been captured. The FBI has reportedly fired more agents who worked on President Trump's classified documents case. The Associated Press and others report that at least 10 employees were terminated for helping investigate Trump's hoarding of documents at his Mar-a-ago home after he left office in 2021.

It's just the latest purge under FBI director Cash Patel, who's fired dozens of employees for working on Trump-related cases or for being seen as disloyal. The FBI Agents Association condemned the firings, saying they, quote, weaken the Bureau by stripping away critical expertise and destabilizing the workforce. Warner Brothers Discovery said today that Paramount's revised bid for the company is superior to its existing deal with Netflix. Paramount raised its price for Warner Brothers to $31 a share this week as a best and final offer. In response, Netflix said it would not raise its offer for Warner Brothers, saying the deal is, quote, no longer financially attractive. Ahead of that news,

shares of Warner Brothers ended slightly lower. Elsewhere on Wall Street, stocks struggled after a blockbuster earnings report from AI giant Nvidia failed to win over investors. The Dow Jones Industrial average managed to end a few points higher, but mostly flat. The NASDAQ lost nearly 275 points on the day. The S&P 500 also closed in negative territory. Still to come, on the news hour. Negotiations take place between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to avoid an all-out war. After Rose Byrne discusses her Oscar-nominated performance in, If I had legs, I'd kick you. And our Settle-in podcast challenges us to rethink the idea of black history.

This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of PBS News. Vice President J.D. Vance announced yesterday that the federal government would hold back $259 million in Medicaid funding for Minnesota. over fraud concerns. The state and its welfare fraud scandals have become a target for the Trump administration, which deployed thousands of immigration agents to the Twin Cities in recent months.

The vice president spoke in neighboring Wisconsin today. The job of your government is not to open your borders and allow fraudsters to come in and take advantage of you. The job of your government is to shut the border and shut off the fraud, and that's exactly what we're doing in the Trump administration. Democrats, including Minnesota Governor Tim Wall, says the defunding was politically motivated. The sense of retribution, no state has experienced this before.

How does taking and punishing children and elderly have anything to do with fighting fraud when that's not where this issue was taking place? To break this all down, we're joined now by Matt Seppik, reporter from Minnesota Public Radio. Matt, thanks for being with us. And for folks who might be confused by some of this, first we should explain where exactly do these fraud allegations stem from? Well, they go back several years, and they really begin with a scandal known here as the Feeding Our Future Fraud. In that case, dozens of people, 79 at last count, have been charged. Most of them

have already been convicted, and this began, it became public in 2022, of stealing around $300 million from taxpayer-funded child nutrition program. That investigation has since morphed into Medicaid fraud. And that brings us to today, a former assistant U.S. attorney who investigated this case, estimated back in December that as much as $9 billion may have been stolen from Minnesota's Medicaid program since 2018. So there is something to this. This $259 million figure, though, put that in the context of how much money, Medicaid money, this state, gets from the federal government. Well, Minnesota gets about $21 billion in Medicaid funds every year.

That's according to the latest figure that we have, which is from 2024. So this is a not insignificant chunk of money. And there remains some confusion over how this is all going to play out. Minnesota Medicaid director, John Connolly, said today that the way this is structured means that the state will actually owe the federal government $260 million for the final three months of 2025 and will not see a future installment for the current quarter, the first three months of this year, until this halt on spending is lifted. So who's affected by these cuts, Matt?

Primarily people who rely on 14 programs that had been flagged previously as being susceptible to fraud. These include autism services for children, a housing stabilization program that Governor Walls, in fact, shut down last year because there was so much fraud, as well as things like non-emergency medical transportation, so reimbursements for someone driving you to the doctor. What it doesn't appear to affect at this point are what we normally think of as core Medicaid services, such as physicians, visits, checkups, and that sort of thing. So when President Trump, as he did at the State of the Union address earlier this week, said that members of the state's Somali community have, quote, these are his words, pillaged an estimated $19 billion from the American taxpayer. What do we know about the accuracy of a claim like that? That number is wildly inflated. The 14 programs that I mentioned that have been susceptible to fraud, according to Medicaid officials in the federal government, the state has spent, or the federal government has spent about $18 billion on those in total since 2018.

About half of that, and this is an estimate, and it's important to note that this is only an estimate this has not been proven yet, but a top federal fraud prosecutor who used to work at the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office, Joe Thompson, estimated back in December that about half of that could be fraudulent, and that's based on the, the exponential growth in taxpayer outlays for those 14 programs. Has the state done anything to address this so it can't happen again, this level of fraud? Well, it's a hot topic at the legislative session over in St. Paul that just got underway. Lawmakers, Democrats, and Republicans are considering a number of proposals to combat fraud. One of those is setting up a new inspector general's office on the state level.

They're also talking about more site visits to ensure that Medicaid providers are providing what they say they are. State Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Democrat, is also asking state lawmakers to pay for more fraud prosecutors in his office, specifically to go after Medicaid fraud. Matt SEPA of Minnesota Public Radio. Thanks again for joining us this evening. You're welcome. In Geneva today, the U.S. and Iran concluded a third round of indirect and at times direct negotiations. Iranian officials announced that technical talks will begin on Monday with the U.N. nuclear watchdog. That suggests some possible progress as the United States deploys the largest military presence to the Middle East in more than 20 years. Stephanie Sybe begins our coverage.

In Geneva today, U.S. envoy Steve Whitkoff and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner held crucial negotiations with Iran, at first indirect through Oman's foreign minister and then direct. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Arakhi, signaled positive momentum. We made a very good progress. We were able to define the main elements of a possible deal, and we discuss about those elements. Of course, there are still differences, but in most of the cases, we have at least a general understanding how to resolve those questions. That, despite an official briefed on the talks telling PBS News Hour, that the U.S. demanded Iran destroy its three main nuclear enrichment sites,

Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz. The same sites struck by American bombers last summer. And the official said the U.S. team demanded Iran get rid of its highly enriched uranium, which Iran says was buried during the strike on the 4th. Mordo enrichment plant. Iran announced that technical talks would start on Monday in Vienna, and a fourth round of political negotiations would be scheduled in a week. They want to start all over again, and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions. This week in his State of the Union address, President Trump vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. One thing is certain, I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen. And President Trump went further than public intelligence estimates and accused Iran of pursuing intercontinental ballistic missiles. They've already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America. Tehran has repeatedly denied ever seeking nuclear weapons and has long claimed its uranium enrichment activities are for civilian purposes. Just before the talks, ARACi, reiterated that Iran's right to nuclear enrichment is non-negotiable and vowed retaliation if the U.S. attacks. You are ready to remove concerns, but you are not ready to give up our right for peaceful use of nuclear technology. If, God forbid, the U.S. decides to attack us, then their bases in the region would be a legitimate target.

Wartime preparations are ramping up. Today, the largest U.S. aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford, left the Greek island of Crete in the eastern Mediterranean. Adding to the Abraham Lincoln and its accompanying ships already in the Arabian Sea. Fighter jets and support aircraft, as well as air defense, are deployed across the region. And for the first time, outside of a training mission, the U.S. has deployed F-22 fighter jets to Israel. Israel has made it clear it would respond to any Iranian attack, even if it follows a U.S. strike with a larger war than last summer. I passed on and clarified to the regime of the Ayatollahs that if they make perhaps the gravest mistake in their history and attack the state of Israel, we will respond with a force they cannot even imagine. The ongoing talks could be a last chance for diplomacy before a potential war, a moment that could define the future of peace in the Middle East.

For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Sy. For a perspective on today's talks and President Trump's handling of Iran, we get now two views. Alan Eyre had a four-decade career in U.S. government, including in the Foreign Service, focusing on Iran. He was part of the Obama administration's team that negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA agreement with Iran. He's now at the Middle East Institute. And retired Colonel Joel Rayburn had a 26-year career in the Army. During the first Trump administration, he was on the National Security Council staff focusing on Iran in the Middle East. He's now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Welcome to you both, gentlemen. Thanks for being here. Alan, I'll begin with you. Just give us your assessment of how the talks have gone so far. and also your assessment of how President Trump has been handling this approach, dealing with Iran, demanding it gives up its nuclear program, assembling a massive military force, and threatening strikes if there's no deal. I think that, again, based on what we heard today, there has been progress, and I think if there were enough time given to the process,

there could, in fact, be a nuclear agreement between Iran, the United States. They made progress, but there's still key red lines. The problem is you have all that military hardware in the Persian Gulf and near, nearby, and you can't keep that there indefinitely. So, I mean, the most salient fact of all of this is that the red lines for either side have not really shifted, not just since last year's 12-year war, but since the beginning of the negotiations between the Trump administration and the Iranians. So we can reach an agreement, but it depends on whether we're willing to allow indigenous

enrichment in Iran. In terms of how President Trump is handling it, it's all a question. of whether he wants to give enough time to the Sioux sides to negotiate to reach a deal, and that's his decision. Colonel, how do you see it? Well, I think what's different this time around is that the administration has, it's not just a nuclear issue, really. If you've, if you've listened to the president, if you listen to Secretary Rubio in particular,

it's the other aspects of the Iranian regime's destabilizing and aggressive behavior. It's the ballistic missile and drone production and proliferation, including, for example, into the Ukraine war through the Russians. It's the support for the terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and so on, and the Houthis, which exploded on October 7th and October 8th. So I think what the administration is after right now, it does seem the Iranian negotiators will always try to sequester it down to the narrow issue of nuclear enrichment, the rest of the aspects of the Iranian regime's aggressive policies unaddressed.

And frankly, that was one of the fatal flaws of the 2015 JCPOA that the Obama administration negotiated. It became just an agreement about the nuclear enrichment file and left Qasem Soleimani and the Quds Force and Hezbollah's behavior across the region unaddressed, the missile and drone aspect unaddressed. And that's what began to blow up then, 2017, 18. and so on. Alan, to the point, this is what we've heard from the Trump administration, have they made a convincing case about why there is an imminent threat from Iran

that would warrant a military strike? Have you heard that yet? I have not heard it. I obviously listened to the State of the Union speech. Joel is right. Iran presents a type of threat to the United States in that it is antagonistic to what we're trying to do in the region, to what we're trying to do in the world.

But in terms of it being an imminent threat, either in the sense of its nuclear program, its missile programs, or it's decimated, if not destroyed networks of proxies. No, no imminent threat. And what's most interesting is that now Iran has lost almost all of its deterrence that it had before the October 7th attacks. So finding an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue is theoretically possible.

If you put missiles on the table, if you put proxies on the table, The odds of reaching an agreement with Iran is null, null set. It's not going to happen. So, Colonel, if the goal is a deal, then why the military build up? Why the expedited talks with the threat of a strike on the back end? Well, I think we're in a different world in a post-October 7th and October 8th. Remember, October 7th was the Hamas attack against Israel. October 8th was the Iranian regime and Hezbollah decision to enter that war, which they didn't have to do.

That was a war of choice on the Iranian regime's part. leaders' decision-making. So I think we're in a different world post-October 7th and 8th, their use of militant proxies, the ballistic missiles and drones, which they provided, that have done so much damage in Ukraine, the Houthi's shutting down to the Red Sea, for example, against commercial shipping. That's not tolerated anymore. That kind of hybrid threat from the Iranians is not tolerated anymore. And many of those proxies have been degraded now, right? They've been degraded. They've been degraded, and the Iranian regime's own capabilities have been degraded, but the intention still seems to be there.

And I think what the president and the administration are responding to is after the 12-day war last June, I think there was an expectation that the supreme leader in his regime would abandon that aggressive policy. They would abandon their ambitions to get back to nuclear enrichment, to continue to produce and proliferate drones and missiles. and then they would be willing to severatize or wind down the military proxies. And that just hasn't happened. The evidence has been in the other direction. I think that's what's been compelling this action. Are you concerned this will end with the U.S. military strike? And if so, what do you think that strike looks like?

What form could it take? I'm not concerned it will end with a U.S. military strike. I'm concerned it will start with the U.S. military strike in the sense that Iran has made it known that unlike previous responses, were it to be attacked, either what we would characterize as a limited attack or decapitation, any type of attack, Iran has said largely because it feels its deterrence has been eradicated and it needs to restore it, that it will respond aggressively and disproportionately. So I'm concerned that despite the huge imbalance in military power

between the U.S. and Israel were to join and Iran, that Iran will strike out and try to destabilize the region, strike at our allies, strike at our forces in the region, strike at Israel, and that would lead to events in the region that can't be helpful. Colonel, 30 seconds left. I'll give you the last four years. I just think in a military confrontation, if it comes to that, between the United States and Iran, it's not really a fight.

It's not even just a fair fight. There really won't be a contest there. The Iranian regime has adopted a security doctrine in which they essentially don't have conventional defenses. They don't really have an Air Force, a Navy, an Army. They barely have missile and air defense. So this would be a short contest. It could be sharp, I think, in the first couple of days, as it was in their confrontation with the Israelis last year. But the military disparity there is just vast. I think more than people understand.

We'll see what happens. We'd love to have you back as things develop. Colonel Joel Rayburn and Alan Eyre. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Amna. A former ICE lawyer and training instructor who resigned this month is warning that the agency has scaled back training hours for new recruits and is instructing them to violate the Constitution. Ryan Schwank told Democrats in Congress this past week that the academy where he trained cadets is,

quote, deficient, defective, and broken. He says it's part of an effort to turn out new officers and increase arrests as part of the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration. Ryan Schwank is here and joins us now with his attorney, David Kligerman. Thank you both for being here. Pleasure to be here. Thank you for having us. Ryan, you've testified that ICE dramatically shortened its training program for new recruits

from 72 days to 42 days. Exactly how much training was removed and what type of classes were eliminated? So out of a 584-hour program, they cut about 240 hours. And the classes they cut included classes on the fundamentals of the constitutional. and the officers' duties within the structure of our legal system. They cut out classes on, they cut out multiple classes on use of force, multiple classes on how to use their firearms safely. They took out testing requirements that were set to allow us to measure

whether or not the cadets that were coming out of the academy could actually exercise their authority in a safe and lawful fashion. They took out classes that tied back to our understanding of due process within the legal system. really. DHS, in response to your testimony, issued a statement that reads in part, No training hours have been cut. Our officers receive extensive firearm training, are taught de-escalation tactics, and receive Fourth and Fifth Amendment comprehensive instruction, to which you would say what?

Well, I would start by breaking that into a couple of pieces. They said Fourth and Fifth Amendment instruction, and that's true. There is some of that in the curriculum. But notice that they don't say anything about the removal of the First Amendment protections. They don't say anything about the due process, right? They won't deny that part in the statement they issued. And frankly, in that statement, they said, no hours had been cut. That's simply untrue.

You can look at the curriculum, which by the testimony of Todd Lyons was 42 days out of a 72-day program, 42 days in the public statement they issued in January, and now all of a sudden in the same statement you're citing to, they say it's 56 days. They suddenly added two weeks of training magically the day after I testified. How well prepared do you believe new recruits are to distinguish between lawful enforcement activity and actions that could potentially violate constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment? Well, I will tell you that cadets themselves brought their concerns with this to me.

I had cadets who told me they were not sure of what their role was or what their duties were. And to answer your question, no one can tell you right now that these cadets are fully prepared to understand the difference in a lawful order because, no test, no measurement exists for the new cadets of how they would apply it in practice because they specifically removed all of the testing that would have told us that. At what point did you believe that it was necessary for you to speak out? I realized the day I arrived at the academy and I was shown an unlawful memo that authorized

officers and told me to teach officers to go into homes without a judicial warrant to make arrests, that there was a serious problem. And from that day, my goal was to, to make sure that I could document and track and see what was happening with that memo and then to see what was happening with the academy itself. Because it was kind of like an avalanche. It started with this and then step after step after step. I just saw this massive degradation

and destruction of our training requirements and the things that we owe to these cadets. There's a lot of conversation in immigration law about the rights of the immigrant, And that's a very important conversation. But these law enforcement officers themselves are being done a terrible disservice because we are sending them out into the world without the training they need to do the job they signed up to do. Generally speaking, who are these new recruits?

And I asked the question because one of the Democrats during your testimony this past week said that ICE and its recruitment is appealing to white supremacists. When I was at the academy, certainly there were probably people at the academy who would fit that description. But the vast majority of the cadets I worked with were first or second generation immigrants. They were average people from across the United States. I had many cadets for whom English isn't even necessarily their first language. In fact, I remember one particular training scenario. I had six cadets and not one of them had English as a primary language.

And it's very hard to argue that cadets coming into the academy who come from such a diverse background set are white supremacists when most of them are in fact not white. David, what legal protections does your client have as a whistleblower? And are you prepared for potential retaliation? Yeah, unfortunately, and we see this a lot at whistlebloweraid.org, we have clients who come forward. And in this environment, the game has changed. It used to be that you could come forward to an inspector general or an office of special counsel. But those mechanisms have been swept away by the Trump administration.

In fact, have been weaponized against our whistleblowers. So clients like Ryan ordinarily could just go through the ordinary process. They could remain anonymous. There'd be an independent person within the system who is checking and balancing these. With that gone, the only option is really to go to Congress, and that's suboptimal for a lot of reasons. First of all, it's a separate branch of government, so it becomes adversarial. And secondly, not all the information can be revealed. There are certain things that ultimately clients have that may be privileged or there are other things that need to be protected,

so they're only getting a snapshot. And Ryan's revealed a lot, but it would be really ideal to go through the agency directly. Were you ever reprimanded, pressured or warned about something? speaking up internally before you resigned? When I was shown the memo, it was given to me by a supervisor who made it clear that the consequence for disagreeing with it was going to be the loss of my job,

my loss of my position. And you could see it in the way the academy operated. There was a culture of fear with all the officers I talked to. I could have conversations with officers about the program, about our concerns, but we wouldn't do it where other people could hear us. You could literally see officers

wanted to talk about the way they thought training was going, turn their heads, look over their shoulders, and make sure there weren't other people around to hear them. And it would be literally, I would have one officer do this, and then maybe the next day I'm talking to the officer, another officer, who is the officer he was worried about? Right. One, one looks over his shoulder and sees the guy behind him, and the next day I talked to the guy behind him, and he's looking at your face shoulder with the guy I talked to the day before, right? No one trusts anyone in that academy. No one's willing to put faith in each other to, to, to recognize the problems they have there.

Because I think if they did, I think a lot of the faculty would say, hey, maybe I don't know what the legal department is doing or the firearms department is doing. But I know in my unit, in practical training, we're not measuring things correctly. Or I know in my unit where we teach the use of our computer systems, we're rushing through it too fast. And I think if they all sat down and talked about it,

they would recognize that step by step by step, the academy's graduate and cadets, who don't have the raw hours, the raw practice they need to do the job correctly. Do you see a link between the training quality, and the fatal shootings of Nicole Good and Alex Priddy? I do, but it's an indirect link. And here's why I say that.

The officers involved in those shootings are not recent graduates. They're experienced officers. The officer in the Renee Good shooting is a member of the SRT team, essentially the special response team that they have at ICE. That's a difficult position to get you have

to have a good deal of experience to get that. The officers who are coming out of this academy have half the training. And yet they're being sent to some of the most contentious and difficult operations ICE has ever undertaken. Never in the history of the agency have they done what they're doing in Minneapolis.

And when you put officers who don't know the law and don't know use of force policies and don't have all the training they need on their firearms into that situation, it is a recipe for someone else to die, potentially for multiple people to die, and it's going to be done by officers who deserved better from this government.

Ryan Schwank, David Kliggerman, thank you both for being here. Thank you for having us. Thank you. I appreciate it. Known for both comedic and dramatic roles, Rose Byrne has already won a Golden Globe for Best Actress this award season,

but the psychological drama, If I had legs, I'd kick you. She's been acting professionally for more than 30 years, and now she's up for her first Oscar. Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown recently joined her in New York for our Arts and Culture series, Canvas. It's a portrait of a woman coming undone.

under so much pressure, it's breaking her. In the film, If I Had Legs I'd Kick You, Rose Byrne plays Linda, with a severely ill daughter hooked up to a feeding tube, an often absent second-guessing husband. Things are so bad, the roof of her home literally collapses. The therapist herself, she's in therapy. Conan O'Brien, in a dramatic turn, plays her unhelpful therapist. And she's begging someone, anyone, to tell her what to do.

But I'm asking you a thing, an actual thing, a problem to fix, that I need help with this. Am I supposed to just sit around and watch your fail and this is just going to go on forever? What do I do? Okay. That means there's no drinking. There's no drugs. There's no... Are you listening to me?

Can you hear me? What this woman is going, what your character is going through can be hard to watch. You're laughing now, but was it hard to play? There's an element of just... like of trying something, being on a dangerous tightrope every day. She's unraveling, but how the unraveling looks and at which part. So she's trying to keep it together and when she really falls apart. So it was challenging.

Yeah, I just didn't want to mess it up. Now 46, the Australian-born Brooklyn-based burn has done drama, including 2004's Troy, horror in the Insidious series, and comedy foiled to Kristen Wigg in the 2011 film Bridesmaids. You just stop. Just stop. And to Seth Rogan on the current Apple TV series, Platonic. Legs is based in part on director Mary Bronstein's real-life experience with her daughter's illness.

Byrne says she and Bronstein spent hours and hours before production talking about the character, trying to get a grasp on her. You've said that you like to know everything about a character, who she was before the moment we're seeing you on camera. you on camera. Well, I was obsessed because we don't get any information about her. I was just obsessed with who she was before she was a parent when she was a teenager. And everyone's going to respond differently to a crisis and why is she responding like that? What is her temperament? What happened to her? What's her story? And that actors' homework, you know, stuff that's sort of

boring, but that I... Yeah, but not all actors like that. I mean, some actors just want to be dropped. Absolutely, absolutely. Oh, I've worked with actors who don't want to rehearse. They find it very disruptive and they don't want they want to be completely authentic and in the moment and spontaneous but i i was just i was less interested in like relating it to myself and relating it to this character of who she was mommy hi scares me she only needs new telea i need you to be with you one of the most striking things about this film is your face is on camera but in real close-up now we're sitting pretty close but it's but in the film yes it was like a few inches from the camera was right there. I could hear it going because we were shooting on film

135 and so it's an actual living thing and so I was a contending with technically just drowning out the noise and you know giving Mary what she would need but also trying to be also in the moment so not it's a balance right that tight rope of like acting for the camera but never have I had the camera that close to my face. I'm curious and I'm imagining, most people don't know how this works for you as an actress with vis-a-vis the camera. You know it's there, but do you put it out of your head? Yeah, that's a great question.

It was like, I guess, I think every actor has a good, decent power to disassociate for better or worse. And in this case, I dove deep into my ability to disassociate because it's so close. So everything is magnified a thousand percent. It's like, okay, what don't you need? It's just going to be minimal when it's that close. And that was something I hadn't really been required to do before on screen. You keep telling us that it isn't our fault. Yeah.

But it is. In other words, how much to withhold as well as let loose? And how much to use moments of dark comedy to leaven the pain of a woman questioning whether she should be a mother and whether she's to blame for her child's problems? She's failed and that I failed. Byrne herself, the mother of two young boys, with her longtime partner and fellow actor Bobby Conavale, says the film taps into larger cultural issues around motherhood. It's such a varied experience, and that is so wonderful about this script, is that it really showed aside that we don't really see of a woman who's like, I don't think I should be doing this.

And I was so fascinated with that. And who was she? Again, back to, like, I can relate, of course, to the relentless nature of. being a parent and she captures that raw kind of feeling when you're really struggling. But I've not had a child with a serious illness, you know, thank God, I mean knock on what, you know, like that and hopefully, you know, 99% of parents won't go through what she went through. We spoke to mothers who have children with special needs and that was fascinating to see their varied experiences of what that was like.

You mean as part of your preparation? Yeah, part of the preparation. I've just had women come up to me from both, from all different worlds who've just said, I feel seen. scene. Also to that end, Byrne co-founded Dollhouse Pictures with Australian friends and colleagues to prioritize female-driven storytelling. A lot of it is really also, I think, as an actor, trying to find your own agency, because often you don't have any, you know, and you're sort of waiting for things to happen, and things come your way and things don't. So any child has been really inspired by other actresses who've done that before me who just try to source material and find

stuff and develop it. But are you satisfied with where, you're at right now? Oh my gosh. I feel I'm, it's funny, yeah, a moment like this, you sort of naturally take stock a bit and reflect. I think I'm just still myself, but I feel very, very grateful. You're going home from

this interview you said to pick up the kids. But I feel very grateful and it's very, I feel very honored and it's surreal. And again, the film is, it's a small movie and it's a challenging film, so it feels extra magic, yeah. Rose Byrne goes for her first Oscar on March 15th. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Jeffrey Brown in New York. This month marks 100 years since Americans first celebrated what would eventually become Black

History Month. On our video podcast, Settle in. We marked the centennial with award-winning journalist and writer Michael Harriet. We talked about the ongoing fight over how history is taught and his best-selling book, Black A.F. History, which argues that Black History isn't a counter-narrative to the American story, but the narrative itself. Here's part of that conversation. There's so much reverence around America's founding story, and your take on Jamestown stands out because it was so irreverent and biting, and you portray the English settlers, not as these heroic figures, but as these sort of bumbling founders. Tell me more about that. Yeah, well, first of all, like, of the 109 people who came here, there were nine survivors. They

cannibalized each other. They starved to death because they ate all their provisions. They didn't know how to plant. They thought they could like climb in the tree and see the Pacific Ocean. Remember, these were investors. People came here to make money. They weren't people who explored other nations. And they perished because of their incompetence. And that reframing objectively, right? Instead of a mythology of these rugged individualists who came here looking for freedom, we know that that's not what they came here for. And to tell that truth, not just through the eyes of black people, but through an objective lens, it's important. And then there's what transpired in 1619, which gets a lot of attention now because of the book. But you look at this not as a symbolic

moment, but as a structural one, the point at which the American colonies became viable because of slave labor. And even the term slave labor insinuates that it was like the muscles and the brawn and the, you know, the hard work of those enslaved people. But it is important to understand the intellectual capacities of these people, the intellectual know-how, the skills that they brought to this country really kind of made America a viable proposition for the investors in Europe, right? They didn't have an edible cash crop until the enslaved people in South Carolina start growing rice. And that rice growing culture through language, through the ability to eat, and through the average life expectancy that created this country and not this idea of, like,

right people who came here and worked hard and made this country what it was. How do you respond to people who might suggest that your take on this is in some way controversial or in some way a revisionist history? Well, so if I'm being honest, I fortunately haven't kind of encountered that because no one has ever argued about the contents of the actual history in this book. you know, the only argument against it is, well, why do you have to bring up that version of history? Don't you think that is divisive? And I always wonder what part of the truth is divisive, right?

What part of recognizing everyone's humanity and telling everyone's side of the story is divisive? For most black children in America, we've been educated. to revere men who are white supremacists. We've been educated to respect men who saw us as less than human. And to tell those children, to give those children a story about their past that shows their humanity, that shows that they are worthy of respect, that shows that their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents, did great things and contributed to this country is important to me.

And I don't think it's divisive. And I think that we can respect all of it, right? There's never been one side arguing that we shouldn't revered Thomas Jefferson or think that he is a founding father. We are saying that you should contextualize everything that he did. And if you choose to respect the documents and the stuff that he wrote rather than the stuff that he did, that is perfectly fine. But don't hide the stuff that he did and say the stuff that he wrote is all that we should know. If there's a chapter in this book that you could lift out and have included in every history book in this country that school kids are given, what would it be?

Oh, that's a great question. I think the chapter on reconstruction and the idea that it was the Black American Revolution, right? And what I did is kind of mirror the ideas of the American Revolution and saying that this was Black people's chance. There were founding fathers. There was a constitution with ideals. I think that's one. And then there's an excerpt on the Stoner Rebellion, which kind of is, the genesis of the treatment of black people formed our slave laws. It formed the slave codes. It formed the black codes after 1865 and it reached into reconstruction and until the civil rights movement. I think that's one of the things that we should understand.

You can watch that full episode of Settle In and others on our YouTube page or wherever you get your podcasts. Well, before we go tonight, we want to bid farewell to our dear friend and colleague Richard Coolidge. Richard is retired. after 11 years as a senior producer here at the PBS News Hour and 26 years at ABC News before that. Richard has guided us through countless election nights, political conventions, debates, and state-of-the-union addresses. Richard oversaw our News Hour West Bureau, traveled around the country and overseas for stories in Uganda and Nepal. He produced high-profile interviews, and he's overseen and enhanced our daily operations to ensure we can bring you, our viewers. the highest quality broadcast every single night. All of this comes after an award-winning career at ABC,

where he reported from some 50 countries, including war zones, natural disasters, and some of the biggest stories of the last few decades. But what we'll remember the most is the steady voice in our ears during breaking news, the steady hand in the control room when the unexpected happened, the quiet behind-the-scenes problem-solving that most never see, but that makes everything you do see possible. Richard, you have made us better journalists and better colleagues,

and you will be deeply missed. Richard is easily one of the best in the business, someone we're all lucky to have worked with and learned from, but he's also just simply one of the best. He will drive the team minivan in the field. He will keep us laughing during very long days and very late nights, and he will insist that we make time to put our toes in the sand during a nearby shoot.

Richard cares about the stories and about getting it right, but he also cares very deeply about this team, these people who will all miss him very, very much. The best of the best. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Nawaz. On behalf of the entire News Hour team, thank you for joining us.