PBS News Hour - Full Show - February 3, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: February 4, 2026

Tuesday on the News Hour, the House passes a bill to end the partial government shutdown, but lawmakers remain divided over DHS funding. Tulsi Gabbard defends her presence at an FBI raid of a Georgia election facility. Haitians with temporary protected status in the U.S. face an uncertain future. Plus, a new book explores how an agricultural revolution could transform how we eat meat. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, President Trump signs a bill to end the partial government shutdown, but lawmakers are still divided over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. We speak with the House Democratic leader. The Director of National Intelligence defends her presence at an FBI raid of a Georgia election facility, saying President Trump asked her to be there. And hundreds of thousands of Haitians in the U.S. face an uncertain future. as a judge temporarily blocks the Trump administration's plan to end their protected status. I'm afraid of folks being detained for no reason. I'm afraid of seeing parents being separated from the kids. Welcome to the News Hour.

The four-day partial government shutdown is now over. Lawmakers passed a funding package today, which President Trump then signed, reopening the government. But the policy fight behind this shutdown over Mr. Trump's immigration crack down is far from over. And the government has given itself just a small window of borrowed time. As congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardin, has been following and is now here to explain. Lisa, good to see you. So just kick us off here. What happened today and what does it mean? This narrowly passed the House. It was close and there was a great deal of floor drama.

And I'm going to talk a little bit about it because it is important for what lies ahead. The House does have the narrowest majority, just a one-vote majority for Republicans in history. And that was a factor today in an hour or so that this bill was actually failing on the House floor. Here's why there were five Republicans who House Speaker Johnson needed to vote yes. They either weren't voting or were voting no. Most of them were trying to use this as leverage to try and get a voter ID law passed. But one of them, John Rose of Tennessee, notably the Speaker said his problem was he's running for the governor of Tennessee and wants some more help from President Trump.

This is a major funding bill, and yet it was held up for that. Now, this is important because, as you say, now we still have a period of time where DHS itself is not funded. This is just a short-term patch. So, again, what happened today was this law fully funds most agencies in government, except for the Department of Homeland Security, which has 10 days worth of funding. During those 10 days, lawmakers are supposed to negotiate a deal on ICE and CBP. But those frustrated Republicans today, they're still frustrated. one of them continued to vote no Thomas Massey of Kentucky. Our producer Kyle Maduro caught up with him and talked about his opposition.

Is it worth holding out for it or you'd think that this is all just process? We got to hold out for something at some point, right? Nobody's holding out for anything here with me. And I held out for the Epstein files and got it done. They got to start holding out for something. You hear that? They got to start holding out for something. There's only 10 days left until the next funding.

wall hits. This was difficult, but I also want to say they did manage to get funding passed, mostly in a bipartisan way, and notably the appropriations process was starting to work until it had this hold up. I hear you're saying 10 days. That is a very short window to reach some kind of deal when it comes to federal agents and ICE conduct. What do you know about those talks? I've had a lot of time working on this today. Let's look at the rough contours of where we are. Democrats haven't presented one specific plan, but here's what some of the Democrats are demanding. They want body cameras. They want no more masks.

They want ICE agents to provide their IDs. And some Democrats want to require judicial warrants for ICE. But here's the problem where it's getting complicated. Here's a look at where Republicans are in general. We know DHS has already said they will work to get body cameras on ICE agents. But as for masks, IDs, unclear exactly where Republicans will come down on that. And, Omna, Republicans, including the Speaker, have said they are against the idea of using judicial. warrants. Another question here is that Republicans, including the Speaker, want that vote on a

voter ID law, which is unassociated with this. They want to add it to it. So here's what Speaker Johnson said earlier today on both fronts. This is a big priority for not just House Republicans, but for the American people. And we will continue to attach this to legislation and send it over, and it will be part of the discussion over the next couple of weeks, and we'll see how all that shakes out. But I suspect that some of the changes, the procedural modifications with ICE, immigration's customs enforcement, will be codified. I mean, they've said that they're willing to do some of this, and so we'll see how it comes out. That was big news, willing to codify some of this what Democrats want. As for what they want exactly, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader of the

Senate, said today he's ready to make the next move. The House vote just passed, and we're going to present a serious proposal detailed along the outlines of what we've talked about to the Republicans, both in the Senate, the House, and the White House very shortly. We're also watching House Democrats. They don't necessarily agree with Senate Democrats. You mentioned those judicial warrants. That seems like one of the most complicated pieces here. What do Democrats want there? I think we're going to be talking a lot more about this in coming days. But quickly, the judicial warrants have a much higher standard. They have to go through a judge, through a court, and that's why Democrats want them. They want someone independent of ICE reviewing that warrant process.

However, Republicans say, no, that's too high of a standard in this situation. That's going to be a major point of debate. It's a bottom line for today, Lisa. When do we expect the full government to reopen? Imagine this. Right now, the government is reopening. As you said, President Trump signed the law. Those many workers who didn't show up today, who had a brief furlough, they will be back tomorrow.

But again, stay tuned because the Department of Homeland Security, which is a very large agency, their fate still awaits another wall in just 10 days. More talks ahead. Lisa Desjardin covering it all. Thank you. You're welcome. For more on the vote today, ending the partial government shutdown, and the latest on the Epstein files,

I spoke earlier today with House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. Leader Jeffries, welcome back to the News Hour. Thank you for having me on. More than 20 House Democrats voted with Republicans to reopen the government. You voted against the measure. Why? Well, what's clear to me is that there needs to be dramatic. change at the Department of Homeland Security.

We supported the five bipartisan bills that are now on their way to President Trump's desk because they are actually designed to promote the health, the safety, and the economic well-being of the American people. Rosa DeLauro, top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, did a tremendous job in negotiating those bills. The American people don't want to see their taxpayer dollars, however, utilized to brutalize and kill. American citizens. Taxpayer dollars should actually be used to make life more affordable for everyday Americans. And that's going to be the genesis of the fight over the next 10 days as we approach the funding deadline on February 13th for the Department of Homeland Security. That's right. We should explain to folks

who might be unfamiliar. This agreement kicks off this 10-day sprint now for Democrats and Republicans to agree on policy changes for how ICE should operate. What specific changes do you believe my be addressed before Democrats support longer-term funding. Fundamentally, we believe that ICE should conduct itself like every other law enforcement agency in the country. Police officers don't wear masks. Sheriffs don't wear masks. State troopers don't wear masks. There's no justification for the manner in which ICE is conducting itself in terms of masks. They should be required to have body cameras. They should be required to obtain judicial warrant. before they can rip everyday Americans out of their homes or out of their cars.

We want to make clear there's an explicit prohibition from ICE detaining or deporting American citizens, which we have seen examples of, unfortunately. We believe that if ICE agents break the law, they should be held accountable. And those investigations should be fair, complete, and independent. which also means giving state and local authorities the ability to investigate violations of state and local law. The DHS secretary, Christy Noem, said this week that DHS will deploy body cameras to Minneapolis and other cities as funding allows for those agents who are working in those cities. Is that sufficient? Is that a good enough first step, a sign that the administration is at least open to changes?

Well, Christy Noem has zero credibility. Certainly it is the case. that body cameras should be required. And we also know that the Department of Homeland Security has more than enough funding. And the one big ugly bill where Republicans enacted the largest cut to Medicaid in American history and at the same time, stripped away about $186 billion in support

for nutritional assistance, they literally stole food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors and veterans in order to give the Department of Homeland Security a $191 billion slush fund, $75 billion of which went to ice. So the funding clearly exists for every single ICE agent to have body cameras on and functioning at all times. And the fact that Christy Nome is suggesting that there may be a funding shortfall indicates further the lack of credibility that she has. She should be fired.

And if she's not fired, I've indicated that the House Democrats are prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings against them. In the time that remains, I want to ask you about the Epstein files because the Justice Department last week released over 3 million pages of Epstein-related documents. Many of them were heavily redacted. There are legislators who say that not all of the relevant material has been disclosed. In your view, did the DOJ comply with the congressional intent and with the law in the way that it has? has gone about making these documents public. The Department of Justice continues to hide documents from the American people in a manner that is entirely inconsistent with the law that was passed with huge bipartisan majorities

and, of course, signed by Donald Trump. And the question has to once again be asked, what are the Department of Justice lawyers hiding from the American people and who are they protecting? There are more than 3 million documents that have not been released. And as you indicated, several documents have been heavily redacted. And so the survivors of the Epstein crime spree have boldly and appropriately called for accountability and transparency. And the only way to achieve that is to make sure that the Department of Justice releases the Epstein files in their entirety, they have failed to do that to date.

The meantime, the Clintons have agreed to testify in this Republican-led inquiry. It's led by the House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, as you well know. This appears to be an effort by the GOP to make the Clintons the face of this Epstein scandal, the Epstein investigation. The question I have for you, though, is about the precedent. If Democrats, when the House come November, does this mean that future investigations will apply the same standard

to presidents and political leaders of both parties? Well, I think that, you know, the Clintons have endeavored to enter into good faith negotiations with a Republican majority that is clearly trying to create a political circus in order to try to distract from the accountability and lack of full transparency that the Trump administration has been blocking since the very beginning of this. whole sorted matter. And so from our standpoint, I'm thankful that it appears that we're now on a path toward the Clinton's reaching an agreement with the House to provide their testimony.

But I don't believe that James Comer is a serious individual or that he's seriously trying to actually get information that then can be presented to the American people as part of what we are trying to accomplish here, which is transparency and accountability. He wants to politicize things. He's targeting the Clintons so he can distract from the fact that the Trump administration is failing to comply with the law, a law that Donald Trump himself signed. House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries. Thanks again for your time this evening.

Thank you so much. Turning to the day's other headlines now, the U.S. military says it shot down an Iranian drone in the Arabian sea that was approaching a U.S. aircraft carrier with what officials described as an unclear intent. Just hours earlier, Iranian forces are said to have harassed a U.S.-flagged merchant vessel in the Strait of Hormuz. The two developments come as Iran's president called for fair and equitable negotiations with the U.S. in talks scheduled for later this week. That marks a shift in tone following weeks of heightened tensions between the two nations over Tehran's bloody crackdown of protests that left thousands dead.

Russia renewed its attacks on Ukrainian energy targets overnight, just to do that. a day ahead of planned peace talks aimed at ending the nearly four-year war. The bombardment included hundreds of drones as well as missiles and knocked out heating in parts of the capital, Kiev, which is suffering one of its coldest winters in years. It comes as Russia and Ukraine differed on a timeline for a pause on hitting each other's energy infrastructure. That temporary halt was requested by President Trump last week. Speaking alongside NATO chief Mark Ruta in Kiev today, President Zelenskyy said the pause was supposed to expire this coming Friday.

We will contact the American side regarding this matter. I expect that our partners will not remain silent about what is happening. It is critical for everyone to continue to support the defense of our country. But in the Oval Office this afternoon, President Trump insisted that the pause was only due to last until this past Sunday and that President Vladimir Putin of Russia had indeed, quote, kept his word. More Palestinians gathered on both sides of the Rafiq. the crossing today, hoping to pass through on day two of its long-awaited reopening.

Ambulances were seen departing Gaza, evacuating patients in dire need of medical care to hospitals in Egypt, and Palestinians who previously fled Gaza returned home today via the crossing. It's not clear how many people made the journey in either direction. It comes after only a dozen Palestinians were allowed back into Gaza last night. Some recounted their experience, which they say included an interrogation, by Israeli troops. The army took us and blindfolded us, me, my mother, and another woman. They tied our hands and began questioning us about things we didn't know and had no connection

to. We had nothing to do with anything they were asking us about. The reopening of the crossing is a vital step toward the second phase of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire. President Trump says he now wants $1 billion in damages from Harvard University to settle a long-running dispute over alleged anti-Semitism on campus. That's double the amount the Trump administration had been seeking. And it comes after the New York Times reported that Mr. Trump was backing away from a demand for a cash payment from Harvard. In a series of social media posts, the president

fired back, calling that reporting completely wrong. Harvard has been fighting the administration in court over its efforts to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding and to hinder the school's ability to enroll foreign students. Disney named the head of its theme parks, Josh DeMorrow, as its new CEO. The 54-year-old replaces longtime Disney head Bob Eiger and becomes just the ninth boss in the company's more than 100-year history. Demoero takes over at a time when Disney is riding high with box office hits like Zootopia 2 and the latest Avatar film, but is also seeing fewer international visitors at its U.S. theme parks. Disney shares ended slightly lower following the Elsewhere, on Wall Street today, stocks fell amid weakness in tech shares.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped more than 160 points. The NASDAQ dropped more than 330 points, or nearly 1.5%. The S&P 500 also closed in negative territory. Still to come on the news hour, A former Secretary of Homeland Security weighs in on the agency's immigration crackdown. Colombia's president visits the White House after months of high tensions between the two nations. And a new book explores the agricultural revolution that could transform how we eat meat. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington,

headquarters of PBS News. We're learning new details about the FBI raid on an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia, last week. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard explained in a letter to Congress that President Trump personally asked her to be on site as federal aid. agents executed that search warrant. The incident has raised serious questions about election security and federal authority. White House correspondent Liz Landers has been following all of this and joins us now. So Liz, let's start with that FBI raid in Georgia and Tulsi Gabbard's role. What more do we know about why she was there? Well, this has been raising concerns amongst Democrats in Congress who asked

her to explain her presence. So she wrote this letter late last night defending why she was down there in Fulton County. She said that the president specifically directed my observance of the execution of the Fulton County search warrant. She also in this letter confirmed a phone call that she facilitated between President Trump and FBI agents who participated in that operation, which I should underscore Omna is very unusual. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt was asked about this and explained a bit more about Gabbard's role this afternoon. This is a coordinated whole of government effort to ensure that our elections, again, are fair and transparent moving forward. I don't see anything wrong.

with the president tasking cabinet member to pursue an issue that most people want to see solved. Maybe you don't, but I know many Americans do want to make sure our elections are protected, and that's what Tulsi Gabbard is focused on doing. And Fulton County election officials there are saying that they are going to sue the FBI and the Department of Justice over the search warrant that they say was not proper. I'm sure you've heard there are some who are worrying this could be a sort of dry run for other places to interfere in the 2026 midterms and beyond. What are you hearing about that?

Well, one of the main concerns about what happened in Fulton County is that they seized voter rolls. That was something we saw in the warrant last week. And there are concerns from other state election officials about this now. I spoke earlier with Tammy Patrick. She served as a Maricopa County election official for 11 years. I think that state and local officials for a number of months now, if not for the last year, have been reviewing and getting a better understanding of what the laws are in the state. their state around their voting materials post-election, who has access to them, what needs to be done in order for someone to gain that access, and what are the protocols for chain of custody

to make sure that the integrity of the materials remains and is retained. Patrick also added that these local election officials are working very closely with their county and state attorneys right now to make sure that they are properly maintaining voting material even after the voting concludes in case there are these kinds of operations that happen further down the line. One more thing that I would add, Omna, Senator Mark Warner, who sent that letter to Tulsi Gabbard, he is also worried that the kinds of actions that we saw in Fulton County seizing election materials, that that could spread to other states. Meanwhile, we heard from the president yesterday in a radio interview saying Republicans should

nationalize the voting in some states ahead of the midterms. He doubled down on that. idea today. Here's what he said. Look at some of the places that terrible corruption on elections, and the federal government should not allow that. The federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over. The question is, does the president have the power to change the election system like that? The short answer to this is no. And it's worth reminding people what

the Constitution says specifically about how elections are supposed to be administered in this country. The Constitution is clear that states are the ones who set the time and place for federal elections, but it does give Congress the right to alter those rules. Congress has exercised this power sparingly during the reconstruction period after the Civil War. And this also applies to congressional elections, not state elections like governor or secretary of state elections. This ultimately, though, does not give the president or any president unilateral power to nationalize congressional elections. That power is explicitly given to Congress. And I would add that even those in his own party, like Senate Majority Leader John Thune, was asked about the president's comments, nationalizing

elections. And he said to reporters today, I am not in favor of federalizing elections. I know you've been covering this as well. But we should point out this Trump administration has been fighting for almost a year now in court to obtain private voter data from a non-eastern. of states. When you talk to election security watchers, what do they say about that? Well, the main concern that we heard, and we heard this last week from secretaries of state who were in Washington all convening together talking about this, is that there could be personally identifying information that gets out if they're sending some of this information to the federal government and to the Department of Justice. So about 20 states now have been sued by the Department

of Justice trying to get more of their voter role information in some of these details that these states say we're trying to safeguard this to make sure that people's identities don't get stolen, stuff like that. So when we're talking to these state and local election officials, they are, you know, sort of on the front lines of fighting against what the administration is asking for right now. And they say they're doing it to protect the voters in their states. That's our White House correspondent, Liz Landers, reporting tonight. Liz, thank you. In a forum on federal agents use of force in the president's immigration crackdown, Democratic lawmakers heard from Americans directly impacted.

That included the brothers of Renee Good, shot and killed in Minneapolis last month. Marimar Martinez shot five times by Border Patrol agents in Chicago last fall, and Alia Rahman dragged from her car by agents in January in Minneapolis. Ice agents said they'd instructed Rahman to move her car. The administration has claimed that Good and Martinez threatened agents with their cars. charges against Martinez were later dropped. Here's just some of what they shared. The completely surreal scenes taking place on the streets of Minneapolis

are beyond explanation. This is not just a bad day or a rough week or isolated incidents. These encounters with federal agents are changing the community and changing many lives, including ours, forever. I struggle with the memories of the day, the initial swerving into me by Agent Exum, the shots ringing out, and the burning sensation as the bullets ripped through my skin and body.

I had seven bullet holes in my body. I remember the agents rushing the nurses to finish up so they could take me with them. I still felt dizzy. I was not able to fully process what had happened to me. Then the glass of the passenger side window flew across my face. I yelled, I'm disabled at the hands grabbing at me. And an agent said, too late.

No DHS officials appeared at today's forum. For more on all of this, I'm joined now by Janet Napolitano. She served as Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama. She's also served as Arizona's governor and as attorney general. Secretary Napolitano, welcome back to the News Hour. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Can I just ask you to respond to some of the sound we heard there from that forum today of people testifying about the use of force they or their families' experience and also the videos I'm sure you've seen of federal agents breaking windows, pointing guns at civilians, dragging people from cars.

You ran DHS. Is this what an immigration enforcement operation is supposed to look like? No, it is not. And what we've seen in Minneapolis and in other cities, where the so-called surge has occurred, is increasingly aggressive behavior by federal agents. You know, look, immigration is a tough topic. I know I've dealt with it for decades, but it is no excuse for the excessive use of force against the citizenry of the United States.

You will recall, under President Obama, when he was dubbed by immigration rights advocates as a deporter in chief, right? He logged more than a 3 million, deportations across both his administrations under ICE. So what was being done differently then compared to what we're seeing now? Well, first of all, we prioritize. We gave clear direction to ICE to focus on those in the country illegally who had also

committed other serious crimes. And that's primarily what we did. We also focused on border and border security and deportations right at the border before individuals had the opportunity to get into the United States and settle here. And so I was secretary for about five years, and in that period, we deported about 3.2 million or so individuals. That's what gave President Obama, I think, much to his chagrin the nickname deporter-in-chief. But it was a clear prioritized operation that was designed to protect the nation from undocumented illegal immigration,

but also to rid the nation of illegal immigrants who had otherwise committed other crimes. As you've seen, we've seen a little bit of a change from the president's administration in Minneapolis, at least replacing Greg Bovino, who was running the operation there with Tom Homan, his so-called borders are. I understand you know, Mr. Homan, from your time at DHS.

He was there when you were secretary. What can you tell us about him? And how, if at all, you think things will change on the ground in Minneapolis? Well, I think the switch was long overdue because Bovino was such a showboat rather than being really an effective law enforcement leader and manager. Tom Holman is a career public servant. He's very conservative on immigration. Don't get me wrong. But when I was secretary, he was head of ERO at ICE. And that's when we implemented the guidelines that we had begun under President Obama, which was in the interior of the country to focus on those who were in the country

in undocumented status who had committed other serious crimes. When you look at what's happening on the ground, though, and contrast that with the message we're hearing from some of the senior most officials in the White House, the vice president himself, the Stephen Miller, who we know it formulates a lot of this policy, they have been messaging to ICE agents that they have absolute immunity in how they act. how do you think federal agents are incentivized to be less aggressive or pull back when that's the message they're getting from the White House? Well, it's not only is it wrong on the law, they don't have absolute immunity and have never had absolute immunity, but just the words that are being used, the rhetoric that comes from the White House, from the

Secretary's office, et cetera, in essence gives permission to field agents to do overly aggressive behaviors in order to accomplish what they're supposed to do. And that has resulted in some of the real unfortunate abuses that we've seen in Minneapolis and in other cities across the United States. So how much of a difference would it make when you look at what Democrats are asking for, an example, in these shutdowns now over, but in the negotiations over a change in ICE tactics? They want things like ending roving patrols, removing agents masks, requiring judicial, not administrative warrants. Would those things make a real difference? Well, roving patrols are a function of the quota that has been issued by the White House for 3,000 arrests per day, which is a great increase from any prior administration.

And they simply can't find enough of those people. So they're just running around looking. And that has caused all kinds of abuse and the kinds of things that we've seen in Minneapolis. and elsewhere. Other things, requiring a judicial warrant, which seems to be a sticking point, well, judicial warrants are required when a federal agent wants to enter a home. It's a function of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. There's no difference. Under the current law, immigration agents do not need a judicial warrant when they're affecting an arrest in a public place if they have probable cause to believe an individual is otherwise removable.

So if that's where they end up, that's what the law currently requires. And where we've seen the law broken is in agents going into houses, not with judicial warrants, which is a fundamental of the Fourth Amendment, but with simple administrative warrants. You have mentioned in previous interviews that you don't know, the current DHS secretary, Christy Noem. You haven't spoken to her. You did say in one interview she's clearly out of her depth.

But if you could advise her at this moment about what you think should happen next to avoid more loss of life or further aggressive use of force, what would you say? Well, first, I would say that she needs to watch what she says and how she says it. She is the leader of the Department of Homeland Security. She shouldn't rush to judgment and immediately say a victim is a domestic terrorist, or an insurrectionist or an anarchist. When we can see the videos for us, so the American people can see the videos for themselves. But in essence, it's giving permission

to those agents who are out there, who are acting overly aggressively, not using law enforcement best practices to continue that kind of behavior. The second thing I would recommend to her is to make sure that investigations of these excess of force cases are done independently, openly, transparently,

and in cooperation and coordination with state attorneys general and local police. That is the only way that department will reestablish the credibility of these investigations since there was such a rush to judgment at the outset. That is the former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano joining us tonight. Secretary Napolitano, thank you for your time. We appreciate it. Thank you. The Trump administration's plan to end temporary protected status for Haitians in the U.S. was blocked yesterday by a federal court in Washington, D.C.

The program which allows Haitians to live and work legally in the U.S. was set to expire today, a move that would have left roughly 350,000 people vulnerable to deportation. But the Trump administration plans to appeal, and as Stephanie Sye reports, that uncertainty has one Ohio city bracing as it fears becoming the next focus of immigration enforcement. Thank you. I have a right to remain silent. Masked men confronting congregants while others record on their cell phones.

A chaotic scene unfolds at a church in Springfield, Ohio. Only, it's not real. Department of Homeland Security, open up. Community members are role-playing how an ice raid might unfold, and they clearly plan to resist, armed with scripture. Thank you. You have been arrested. and knowledge of their constitutional rights. They are supposed to not be able to enter private spaces without a judicial warrant.

I can't imagine what it would be like for me if I had to leave my country because I couldn't live here safely. There is a lot of support for Springfield out there. Senior Pastor Carl Ruby founded a network of churches in the area offering support to the city's Haitians and in some cases sanctuary. I would want people to stand with them. me. I would want people to protect me. So that's all that we're trying to do. Nancy Flinchbaugh has called Springfield home for 30 years. I'm here because I'm very concerned

about what's going to happen to the immigrants in our community and to my town because I think it's going to have a detrimental effect on all of us. In recent years, Springfield has experienced a surge in Haitian migrants, most of whom came under the Department of Homeland Security. temporary protected status designation. TPS lets people from countries deemed temporarily unsafe due to war or natural disasters live and work in the U.S. legally. The Trump administration has tried to terminate TPS status for 11 countries in his second term. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats. And the president has had Springfield's

Haitian population in his site since the 2024 election. When the the city became a political flashpoint and focus of misinformation. If the Trump administration's decision not to renew TPS for Haiti is ultimately allowed by the Supreme Court, many of the city's roughly 15,000 Haitian residents will become subject to deportation orders. The USA that used to be seen as the beacon of the word is no longer that USA. Veeleis Dorsonville is originally from Haiti's capital, Porta Prince, and moved to spring in 2021. He runs the Haitian Support Center in Springfield.

I'm afraid of folks being detained for no reason. I'm afraid of seeing parents being supported from the kids. Despite the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Nones' determination that Haiti no longer meets the criteria for TPS, the U.S. State Department has a do not travel for any reason advisory for the country due to kidnapping, crime, terrorism and unrest. And the FAA has a ban on commercial flights to its main airport in place at least until March. I think that the American people who've been enjoying their country not having those type of problems that immigrants have would not understand what we are going through. If they were living in a condition where they feel insecure by all

If they were in a condition where they wouldn't be able to feed their kids, if they were in a condition when they were persecuted by the own government, wouldn't they try to get to somewhere safer? A federal judge cited with that view yesterday. In a challenge to the Trump administration's move to NTPS, D.C. District Judge Anna Reyes wrote that the decision appeared driven by hostility to non-white immigrants. And she called the termination of TPS preordained and not based on the realities on the ground in Haiti. The Trump administration is expected to file an immediate appeal. Ultimately, their fate could end up decided by the Supreme Court. But not everyone in Springfield would be upset to see Haitian migrants leave. There's definitely a resentment in Clark County, and that's the tension that this issue brought to town. She's a good one.

Laura Rosenberger has lived in Springfield for three decades and is the executive chairman of the Clark County Republican Party. She says many in Springfield were taken off guard by the arrival of such a large number of Haitian immigrants. I think a lot of the people, the native people, feel like they were not asked. It was not put to a vote. The people had no voice. All of a sudden this happened.

And she says the surge in population led some Ohio. to feel pushed aside. There's a lot of competition for jobs, and when you bring in such a large amount of people that increases the friction because people are fighting each other for jobs and resources. You know, the wages that the Haitians will work for are much lower than what your typical American workers

going to work for. But if these manufacturing companies lose their work workers might that lead to a greater shift away from areas like yours that have already lost so much of their industry? Well, we need our people to step up and apply for these jobs and the manufacturers need to hire them, even if it means hiring them for a little bit of a higher wage than what the Haitians would have worked for. When you see the erosion of the economy over time, you can start to be kind of protectionist.

And then you have a scarcity mindset that is, well, if somebody else is getting this, then I'm not getting something. Melanie Wilt is the former commissioner of Clark County, which includes Springfield. She admits the population surge was difficult to manage at first. But we've spent the last four or five years really adjusting to that, helping to assimilate the Haitian community, making them part of our workforce. and they're an important part of this community now. So if that were to change overnight with the expiration of TPS, our community would have to adjust. Like many industrial Midwest cities,

Springfield lost jobs and residents for decades, a trend that began reversing in recent years, partly due to Haitian immigrants. One of the goals that we've had for a long time is to increase our population because increased population strengthens the tax base. And we've seen that are immigrant neighbors really do spend their money in the community.

But with the end of TPS come a lot of unknowns. What do you think should happen to these folks? I mean, it's called TPS because it's supposed to be temporary. Well, I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican and I believe that this country needs immigration reform. But I think we need to do it in a way that is respectful of human dignity. I think we need to do it in a way. that is predictable.

Veles Dorsonville says that uncertainty is weighing heavy on his community. They are tired. When I see tired, that means they just don't know what to do next. They are not accepted back home and they're not accepting anywhere. They keep running from time to time and not being able to set up anywhere. So they are tired. Tired with no clear place to run to next. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Sye.

Today, two presidents known for their fiery rhetoric toward each other met in the Oval Office and apparently put their acrimony behind them. Colombia's president Gustavo Petro has long been a critic of President Trump and the U.S. itself. But Mr. Trump this afternoon praised Petro and did not repeat previous threats of military action. And in a press conference tonight, Petro said the meeting eased tensions between Trump and all of Latin America. Nick Schiffran reports. Today at the White House, a Colombian president who for decades criticized what he calls American imperialism was all smiles for the man he recently dubbed a would-be king.

President Trump greeted Gustavo Petro warmly, offered a personal tour of what he's labeled the presidential walk of fame, and wrote Petro a letter, a great honor, I love Colombia, and inscribed his art of the deal, you are great. I thought he was terrific. You know, he's pregnant. You get along great. Tonight, Petro said the meeting diffused regional tensions. He gave me a red cap that said, Make America Great Again. I wrote with a pen and put an S and said, make America's great. And that can only be done on the basis of mutual respect.

That is a far cry from months of mutual maliciousness. Colombia is out of control. Now they have the worst president they've ever had. He's a lunatic who's got a lot of problems, mental problems. We must respond to defend people's rights, the rights of democracy not to be governed by tyrannies. He has cocaine mills or cocaine factories. He's not going to be doing it. So that will be all appreciate by the U.S.

It sounds good to be. For us, ICE operates the same way as the Nazi and Italian brigades, the fascists. But after the U.S. is quote, law enforcement action against Venezuela and President Nikolaos Maduro ended with him in handcuffs, President Trump says there's been a change in tone. I mean, he's been very nice over the last month or two. He was certainly critical before that, but somehow after the Venezuelan raid, he became very nice. He changed his attitude very much.

What hasn't changed, the Colombian military's desire to combat drug smuggling. For years, they've worked with the U.S. to take steps like this. Dick cocaine from Colombia on the way to the United States. The Trump administration's solution was military, dozens of strikes on alleged drug boats. Petro described that as murder. And his solution, voluntary eradication, letting farmers themselves rip up the root of the problem. It doesn't interest us. We don't want it because we know there's no future or way forward there for us.

The theory is not wrong. The problem is it's never worked in practice. Kevin Whitaker was ambassador to Colombia from 2014 until 2019 under President's Obama and Trump. He points out that Colombia's cocaine production has grown year over year, and the country now supplies nearly 70 percent of the world's cocaine. I mean, a serious flaw in the Petro administration's approach to this entire issue is to completely stop the process of military engagement with these illegal armed groups who are behind the coca trade. A serious approach would be to design a strategy aimed at undercutting the illegal armed groups as a military matter. I think that that would be very attractive to the U.S. administration.

I also think it could be effective in Colombia. Whitaker also says that despite historic ties, Petro and the U.S. could cooperate on overlapping goals with the new government of Venezuela. The U.S. has forced that government to stop exporting oil to Cuba. And now, under U.S. pressure, Mexico could also cut off its own supply to Cuba. It's a failed nation now, and they're not getting any money from Venezuela. And they're not getting any money from anywhere. It's a failed nation.

Mexico is going to cease sending them oil. But we are dealing with the Cuban leaders right now. Since the Cuban Revolution, the country has relied on an outside patron. It first lost the Soviet Union, and now Venezuela. have been predicting the end of the castroid regime in Cuba for many, many years. It's hard to think that this will be the time when it will really make a difference. But petroleum is very important to the economy. And if they lose the flows both from Mexico and from Venezuela, that's going to hurt economically. And Cuba and the region will remain under enormous U.S. pressure that today brought

a former guerrilla fighter to the seat of U.S. power. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Nick Schifrin. In his new book, Bruce Friedrich argues that the way we produce meat is unsustainable for the climate, for public health, and for the planet, and that the solution isn't eating less meat, but making it differently. From lab-grown meat to plant-based alternatives, he says a food revolution is already underway, whether consumers realize it or not. I spoke with them about the book, Meat, how the next agricultural revolution will transform humanity's favorite food and our future. Bruce Friedrich, welcome to the NewsHour. Thanks very much, Jeff. I'm delighted to be here. You open the book by saying, this is a quote, I'm not here to tell anyone what to eat.

Why was it important for you to start there and to focus on how meat is made rather than on the personal choice? Well, because the environmental and global health and animal protection communities have been basically starting on personal choice for more than 50 years. And what we've seen is that meat consumption

just keeps going up. So the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, they started tracking this in 1961, and we've literally hit a new global meat production record every single year since. And that's a problem, because cycling crops through animals is incredibly inefficient.

It takes nine calories into a chicken to get one calorie back out in the form of chicken meat. It's just a shockingly inefficient system that has a lot of negative externalities, negative external costs. And you describe this moment as the next global agricultural revolution. What makes this shift comparable to past revolutions in farming? Well, for 12,000 years, we have been growing crops to feed them to animals so that we can eat animals.

That is, you know, after hunting and gathering, that's how we've been doing it for 12,000 years. As I just mentioned, it's fantastically inefficient, but it's not just the inefficiency of growing the crops to feed them to animals. So, you know, the most efficient animal being the chicken, and that's 800% food waste. So eight times the land, eight times the water, eight times the herbicides and pesticides, you also have to ship all of those crops to a feed mill, operate the feed mill, ship the feed to the farm, operate the farm, ship the animals to the slaughterhouse, operate the slaughterhouse. That's a bunch of extra gas guzzling pollution spewing vehicles, a bunch of extra factories, which take a lot of energy and spew out a lot of pollution. If we

we can remove the animal from the equation and give human beings what they love about meat, because I call it humanity's favorite food in the subtitle, that would be really a revolution, animal meat without the animal. And you make clear that this will only work if the meat alternative looks, tastes like, and has a price point that matches conventional meat. Where are we closest on parity when it comes to that? Yeah, I mean, just to underline that point, like, you know, we started with the idea of personal choice. What is absolutely clear is that people eat meat because it's delicious and it's affordable.

What's also clear is whenever there are more people and the economy grows, meat production and consumption goes up. And this is like one of the most consistent findings in social sciences is that where food is concerned, people care, is it delicious, and is it affordable? And then you look at meat production, meat consumption, pretty much everywhere. People really love meat. So that's the focus. The products need to be, they need to taste the same or better, they need to cost the same or less. And that's how you make plant-based meat and cultivated meat that can win in the marketplace.

I think for people who've had a Beyond Burger or Impossible Burger, it tastes close to the real thing, but not quite. Do you think we can get to a point where it would be indistinguishable? So the last chapter of the book, chapter 11, I interviewed 30 plant-based meat scientists and 30 cultivated meat scientists. And I started with the question, you know, can we get to plant-based meat, cultivated meat, depending on the scientist, that is cost-competitive with and indistinguishable from cheap chicken and cheap fish sticks? Because that's, you know, you can get there, you can get everything else.

And people really, I mean, they just pointed to first principles. They said, look, if one thing requires nine times the inputs of something else, what would be the hurdle to plant fats and proteins behaving like animal fats and proteins? What would be the hurdle to growing actual animal muscle and fat in tanks instead of on live animals? So it's going to take some time. It's going to take some innovation. But 10 years ago, there was no Beyond Burger. Ten years ago, there was no impossible burger. we've come a pretty long way on both plant-based meat and cultivated meat in, you know, historically that long.

One of the takeaways in this book for me was that, as we all know, consuming meat is deeply cultural. It's tied to identity. It's tied to tradition in many ways. And that changing production is really easier and more realistic than changing human behavior. So you start with changing production. Yeah, I mean, it certainly seems to be the case that, I don't know, if biological or physical, physiological or psychological or cultural. But it definitely does seem to be the case that every place in the world, you know, India might be to some degree in exception. But even in India, meat consumption is up 300% in the last 25 years.

Still at a, you know, pretty low level. But every place else, the more meat people can eat, the more meat they eat. So we're probably not going to change that. Some people have been trying for more than 50 years. And yet meat consumption just keeps going up. It's great if people want to eat less meat or no meat. But let's add another tool to the toolkit. It seems really clear that science can make meat from plants that is indistinguishable.

And it's absolutely the case that science can grow actual animal meat, essentially looks like a brewery. If you walk into a cultivated meat production factory, it looks like a brewery. So a bunch of friendly neighborhood meat breweries, essentially. And that, we think, is how you handle the external costs of meat production. The book is Meat, How the Next Agricultural Revolution Will Transform Humanity's Favorite Food and Our Future. Bruce Friedrich, founder and president of the Good Food Institute. A real pleasure to speak with you. Thanks very much, Jeff. It was a pleasure to speak with you.

And that is The News Hour for tonight. I'm Omna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at The News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us. Thank you.