PBS News Hour - Full Show - July 1, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: July 1, 2025

Tuesday on the News Hour, as the Senate passes the president's massive domestic policy bill, we examine what's in it and its chances of final passage in the House. The U.S. withholds weapons promised to Ukraine, another blow to the nation that's lost more territory to Russia in recent days. Plus, how the Trump administration is trying to change how U.S. history is taught in schools and in museums. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening, I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett on the news hour tonight. Vice President J.D. Vance breaks a tie in the U.S. Senate to pass the president's massive domestic policy bill. We examine what's in it and its chances of final passage in the House. The United States withholds weapons it promised to Ukraine, another blow to the nation that's lost more territory to Russian forces in recent days. And how the Trump administration is trying to change how U.S. history is taught in schools and in museums. Our teachers in some areas are being told that they can't teach certain subject areas. Some teachers have left the classroom because they've thought, if I can't teach truth, then I'm not going to stay here.

Welcome to the News Hour. Trump's massive domestic policy bill overcame a major hurdle today. Vice President J.D. Vance broke a tie in the U.S. Senate today to pass the legislation after lawmakers worked through the night and made last-minute changes. The bill shrinks Medicaid and extends trillions in tax cuts, and it's the most expensive budget bill Congress has ever considered. But its future is still uncertain, as House Republicans raise new concerns. The president wants us to cross the finish line by July 4th. Lisa Desjardin, watch today's votes unfold in the Senate.

She's here now to fill us in on what we know and what we yet don't about this bill's future. Lisa, good to see you. You too. So Republican senators barely got this bill through today. How did they do it? By the skin of their teeth and the decision of one senator. Remember, there are key votes here. Let's look at them.

Republicans could only lose three. So here are the key votes, and you see Susan Collins, no, Rand Paul, no, Tom Tillis, no. Lisa Murkowski was the decider. she ended up voting yes. I am told that Murkowski liked the tax cuts in this bill. She likes the defense spending, but she was and still is very concerned about the Medicaid cuts. So what happened in some last-minute drama that I witnessed over the Senate chamber, the last-minute changes to the bill really influenced her. So let's look at what they did here today. Out of the bill now, a Medicaid boost for Alaska and Hawaii that came out at the last minute

we thought Murkowski might vote no because of it. But in the bill, some snap or foods down, carve-outs for Alaska and Hawaii. Also in this bill, they doubled how much money would go to rural health care. That helped Murkowski. Also, notably, out was a new tax on solar and wind. That was going to hurt those industries, and that is out of the bill.

But I found out also in the last few minutes that there is indeed also a deduction for whalers, for their equipment. That will help Alaska as well. So all of this came together for Murkowski. She was asked afterwards about this vote, and she defended it as representing her state. I advocated from my state's interests, I will continue to do that, and I will make no excuses for doing that.

Do I like this bill? No. There are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that. That from my colleague from NBC, Ryan Nobles, and Frank Thorpe. She said that it was a hard decision and she still wants the bill to change. So that's Murkowski's view, one senator's view. What about other senators do you talk to?

How do they see it? Can I tell you, for Republican senators, this is almost like a near brush with political death or maybe just passing a critical exam. But all in all, they really saw this, and we talked to them afterwards, as a sweep-in bill that may come with some political risk, but they think will be critical for the future. This is definitely moving us where we need to go to make sure that the agenda of getting this economy back on track stays on track. It's all those things that are just priorities for the Trump agenda, and again, it's about

making America strong and getting America back on track. And this is what people voted for. And it will be a centerpiece of the next election, right? If we're right, we should do well if they're right, maybe not so well. Eventually, our homework will be graded and our work product would be graded by the American people. Big bill, big risks, big rewards. Opponents, as we've been reporting, see big dangers in this bill. That includes Republicans and Democrats.

It's a spectrum, concerns about health care provisions, about energy, also about the tax cuts and when we talked to them today we saw there was some common concern also about the red ink without question this is not a fiscally conservative bill and if you're someone who thinks the debt is a problem I don't see how you could vote for this it's unprecedented numbers millions of people who are going to lose their health care so that a few people can have a tax break and the same can be said with the incredible amount that this is going to add to the national debt.

They're going to take a trillion dollars out of our health care system, and our hospitals cannot survive that. And it's going to end up hurting all of us, oh, excuse me, all except the billionaires. This was a big win for a new Senate Republican leader, John Thune, but this is not over yet. It's not over yet. The president wants it done by July 4th. Is that possible?

I will tell you, it is hard to see how they get there, and the reason why is I have spoken to House Republicans who tell me they are a no on this bill publicly. We already have two, including Representative Ralph Norman, who sits on the Rules Committee. He said he cannot support this. They wanted to vote on this tomorrow. The next 12 hours are going to tell us a lot. But even Speaker Johnson has indicated he's in doubt about that timeline. We're going to watch it closely.

I know you've been breaking out specific pieces of the bill to take a closer look. You took a deep dive into military spending. What should we know? Listen, we've been talking about all the trillions in this bill. A billion dollars is still a lot of money. And when I read this bill, I saw billions and billions going to the Defense Department. that's something Republicans like, but it's something that's important to watch because a lot of this funding is usually the day in, day out funding. It's almost like an emergency grant to the

Defense Department. So I want to take a look at what the defense funding is in this bill. More than 200 projects I saw. You see some of them there, billions for new submarines and ships, missile defense. There's a big category called readiness that is not defined. It really just seems like billions that the Pentagon can spend as they want, AI, war games, weapons, F-22s, the Pentagon has often said they don't want to spend money on Congress, is again saying they must, and one billion on border enforcement. In total, $150 billion, this is a very large, maybe one of the largest sort of supplemental appropriations for the Defense Department. Again, Republicans love it, but when this time of budget cut is coming, it's important to know what they're doing

here is trying to protect the Pentagon from future budget cuts in this bill. That's not a military bill. There's also this question about whether or not Social Security could be affected. That against the Senate rules for this bill. Where does that concern come from? This is an indirect problem. Now, this is coming from the committee for a responsible federal budget, and let me explain how this works.

So Social Security income right now, for some folks, the taxes on those benefits go back into Social Security. But this bill cuts tax rates, and it also would mean that fewer people are at income levels that have to pay these taxes into Social Security, if that makes sense, from those benefits.

So anyway, what happened is the experts there did the analysis and found that the tax base lowers so much that the amount going into Social Security would also fall by enough that it would make the fund insolvent a few months sooner and make cuts go up. This is something we're following closely and waiting for Republicans to answer my questions about it. I know you're going to continue after until you get some answers. Lisa Desjardin, another busy day on Capitol Hill. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Some of the provisions being debated in the budget bill would end a host of tax credits for renewable energy, including one that allows homeowners to recoup 30 percent of the cost of a

rooftop solar system. Solar businesses say losing that subsidy could deal a serious blow to the rooftop solar industry across the country. As part of our series tipping point focused on environmental issues, we're taking a closer look at the potential impact of this bill with Dan Conant. He's the founder of Solar Holler. That's a solar installation company based in West Virginia. Dan, thanks for being here. We appreciate it. Thanks so much for having me. So, as I said, you're based in West Virginia, traditionally coal country, yet you've built a successful solar business there. What's driving demand? Who are your clients and what kind of projects are you focused on?

We work with folks all over West Virginia, and whether you're a homeowner or a church or a school or a pepperoni roll bakery recently. I'm really proud of that one. We really work with all kinds of folks, and we've been added for the past 12 years, and it's been really amazing to see the growth of this industry. in a place that people told me, frankly, not to bother with because it's coal country. But what's been really interesting to see is how much folks want solar. And really the reason is that people have been hit hard

by rising utility bills over the years. AEP, the main utility in southern West Virginia is raising rates 15 to 20% right now on top of a 30% rate rate. hike that they've had over the last couple of years. So that's been hitting families hard and businesses. And so really for the first time, people are trying to take control of how they make their power by investing in solar projects. When you talk about the growth of the industry with this 30% federal tax credit sunsetting at the end of the year, what impact do you expect

that to have on demand? And how is the industry preparing for that drop-off? Yeah, across the country, we're seeing a lot of concern within the solar industry, not just about the reduction in the tax credit itself. The bigger concern has really been around the speed, and folks are calling it a cliff. We had been banking on solar credits being around for the next 10 years. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, everything was in place through 2033,

and now all of a sudden we're seeing the drop-off in the space of a matter of months. And so that's been the real concern that folks across the industry have been voicing. Well, you know, critics have said that the federal government has been artificially propping up the solar industry with these tax credits for years. What do you make of that? And can the industry survive without federal support? The industry will survive. We're not going anywhere. But I will say there's going to be a big drop-off in demand in the coming years.

And unfortunately, that's coming at a really bad time with the growth of our. artificial intelligence, with the growth of data centers, including in my hometown, in West Virginia, we're seeing an explosion of demand for electricity on the grid. And actually, just last week here in the Mid-Atlantic, we saw record power prices and record demand. Solar is the fastest way to get more power on the grid. And if you want to be controlling the future, if you want to be controlling the future of AI and beating China. You just need more power and you need it fast. And unfortunately, with this bill,

the way it's written right now, it's really going to scale back our ambitions as a nation. Tell me about the work that you've done retraining and employing former coal workers to install solar panels. When we started out, there was basically no one doing solar in West Virginia. And as someone who was born and raised and proudly from West Virginia, I wanted to make sure that kids like me didn't have to move away to be a part of the energy industry, that we could all see the writing on the wall that renewables were going to be taking over the world. And I wanted to make sure that West Virginians could continue to power the rest of the country, just like we have for the last 150 years.

Just because we're changing energy sources doesn't mean we need to change who we are as a state or turn our backs on all the progress that we've made with the labor movement over the years. years. Big picture, though. What's the impact, though, of losing the federal support and of the Republicans in Congress who say that fossil fuels are the future, not green energy? Well, I think the rest of the world would disagree with that. We're seeing the explosion in solar and wind and even renewed interest in nuclear around the country. So solar and wind or not going anywhere, what this is instead doing is dialing back our ambitions as a country. And it's really going to be hurting all the factories that have been popping up by hurting demand

for their products. We get our panels from Georgia. We get our electronic control systems from South Carolina. We get our racking systems from Ohio. All of the projects that we're putting in are being made in America. and by dialing back demand for these types of projects just after we incentivized all these factories to come on the line is just jerking around the industry for no good reason.

Dan Cohnett, founder of Solar Holler. Thanks for being here. We appreciate it. Thanks for having me. The day's other headlines begin with the sex trafficking trial of Sean Piedee Coemes. Late today, the jury reached a partial verdict on four of the five counts against the hip-hop mogul. However, they were not able to reach a decision on the top charge that's racketeering conspiracy. The jurors will return for deliberations tomorrow. Combs is also charged with sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. He denies all charges.

Turning overseas, more than 165 international charities and aid organizations are calling for a shutdown of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. That's the new Israeli and U.S.-backed food distribution network in Gaza that's been plagued by violence. Palestinian health officials say more than 500 people have been killed near the sites in the past month, either by Israeli troops or strikes. The IDF says it only targets Hamas militants. Groups like Oxfam saved the children and Amnesty International said in a statement that, quote, Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice, starve or risk being shot while trying desperately to reach food. The foundation has taken the place of many UN-backed groups because Israel says Hamas was siphoning aid. In Europe, the first

major heat wave of the summer showed no signs of relenting and is expected to peak over the coming days. In Barcelona, Spain temperatures topped a record for the month of June that stood for over 110 years. More than 400 climate shelters were opened across the city to give people access to conditioning. Across Europe, tourists sought ways to keep cool, including here in Italy, where people douse themselves with water from fountains. 17 of Italy's 27 major cities were under red-alert heat warnings, and it felt even hotter for travelers who are used to such conditions. I'm from Texas, so I'm kind of used to the hot because it gets about the same temperatures, but I expected to be somewhere in the 80s, not in the almost 100 degrees.

In Paris, the top of the Eiffel Tower was closed due to unsafe heat conditions as more than a thousand schools across France were either partially or fully canceled. Temperatures in Paris remained at 101 degrees Fahrenheit, even at sunset. The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to ban transgender athletes from its women's sports in order to resolve its federal civil rights case with the Trump administration. The Department of Education said is part of the voluntary agreement that Penn will restore all individual division. Division I's swimming records and titles to female athletes who lost to Leah Thomas, the transgender swimmer who last competed for the Ivy League school back in 2022 and became the center of controversy. In a statement to the news hour, Penn acknowledged the agreement and added, quote, Penn has always followed and continues to follow Title IX and the applicable policy

of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. A federal judge in Rhode Island today blocked the Department of Health and Human Services for moving forward with mass layoffs and ordered the agency to stop its plans to restructure the workforce. District Judge Melissa DeBose granted a preliminary injunction sought by 19 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, writing the action was both arbitrary and capricious, as well as contrary to law. The judge also ordered the parties to address whether the Supreme Court's recent ruling on limiting injunction should apply to her order. The ruling comes just one day before thousands of layoffs were set to become final. Still, today marks the end of an era for six decades of

U.S. foreign assistance. The U.S. Agency for International Development or U.S. AID has been officially closed and absorbed into the U.S. State Department. It's the final step for the aid agency that was a first target for cuts by the Trump administration and then by Elon Musk's Doge in a statement Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, beyond creating a globe-spanning NGO industrial complex at taxpayer expense, USAID has little to show since the end of the Cold War. This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end. Critics of the move say dissolving the agency could have devastating consequences for world hunger and famine. Those include former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Rockstar Bono,

who all shared private recorded messages with USAID employees yesterday. It was a mixed day of trading on Wall Street after several days of record-setting highs. Dow Jones Industrial Average was the only gain among the major indices, adding almost 1%. The NASDAQ fell by close to a percentage point, while the S&P 500 slipped just marginally. And one of the most well-known televangelists in America, Jimmy Swaggart, has died. Stephanie Sy has our look at his life, controversies, and legacy he leaves behind. Jesus. Jesus. was bellowing gospel at the piano, or delivering a thunderous sermon.

When I'm sleeping, it's Jesus, I eat Jesus, dream Jesus, thank Jesus, talk Jesus, 24 hours a day. Jimmy Swagger knew how to captivate an audience. Congregates in church moved to tears, and millions more tuning in from home. You shall never thirst. He was one of the most popular televangelists of the early 1980s, crusading around the globe with his multi-million dollar ministry. It was a far cry from his early days, growing up poor in Louisiana. His ministry started in 1955. He began broadcasting on the radio in the 60s, then started a magazine,

and soon rose to fame on TV. Swaggart's telecast aired in more than 140 countries. You were made for more than profanity and filth and obscenity, to burn in hell, you were made in the image of God to walk in the image of your father forever and forever. Hallelujah. But the worldly temptation Swaggart warned against would eventually lead to his own downfall. In the late 80s and early 90s, he was caught in multiple scandals involving prostitutes. I have sinned against you, my Lord. Swaggart kept preaching for decades, but to dwindling audiences.

Two weeks ago, his family announced he went into cardiac arrest. He never regained consciousness. Jimmy Swaggart was 90 years old. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Tsai. Still to come on the News Hour, President Trump visits a new migrant detention center as Congress prepares to approve a windfall for his crackdown.

A Newshour poll reveals Americans' views on key Trump administration policies and a twice a year shot prompts hopes of curbing new cases of HIV. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. The News Hour has learned that the United States is holding back weapons that the Biden administration and the last Congress marked for U.S. Ukraine. This comes as Russia has made territorial gains in Ukraine in recent days and blasted the

country with unrelenting drone and missile attacks. Nick Schifrin is here now with more. So Nick, tell us what you've learned about these weapons that were scheduled to go to Ukraine. The Trump administration has halted weapons that Ukraine was scheduled to receive that, as you said, were appropriated by last terms Congress and authorized by the Biden administration. The list includes these weapons, Patriot Air Defense missiles, 155 millimeter artillery rounds, and grounds, Gimler missiles, those are fired by a multiple-launch rocket system, surface-to-air stinger missiles, and missiles fired by jets, known as Aim 7, and Hellfire missiles. Tonight, Deputy White House Press Secretary Anna Kelly tells me, quote, this decision was made to put

America's interests first following the Department of Defense review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe. The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned, just ask Iran. A separate U.S. official tells me that this decision was based on a Department of Defense Readiness Review, meaning that officials believe that sending these weapons to Ukraine would reduce the U.S.'s ability to be ready for any contingency, of course, especially China. So in terms of real world impacts from the cutting off of these weapons, what do we know? What could be the impact?

I've been asking Ukrainian officials to respond to this since last night, and they've all declined. But they've made clear over time that they especially need air defense missiles. Patriots alongside other air defense are used to defend key Ukrainian sites as well as its population and cities from what is daily attack by Russia. In fact, Ukraine says Russia launched more than 5,400 drone attacks in June. A new UN report says there's been a 37% rise in civilian deaths and injuries over the last six months. The cuts will also affect Ukraine's military's ability to go on offense. You see there are those Gimlers fired by Ukraine to target concentrations. of Russian troops and key targets inside of Russia because they can fly 40 miles.

Take a listen to Major General David Baldwin. He was recently the former Adjutant General of the California National Guard, which has been training Ukrainian troops since before the full-scale invasion by Russia. And he continues to go to Ukraine to assist Ukrainian defense firms. The United States not sending those particular weapon systems will have a tactical effect on the battlefield. field. But really, the effect is more on the will and morale of the Ukrainian people. And if you want to negotiate a peace settlement, it's always better to negotiate from a position of strength. And that

position of strength comes by continuing for the United States and our Western allies to supply arms, aid, and material to the Ukrainian so they can continue to fight this illegal aggression. Baldwin says he understands the U.S. argument that is being made the need to prioritize other theaters, especially China. But he points out that the fight against Ukraine is now, not in the future. And he says while Ukrainian and European defense firms are trying to increase their production of weapons, that just takes time, especially for air defense. They're not quite ready. And they're certainly not ready to start producing super-sophisticated weapons systems like patriots. The answer is, is unfortunately a tough one for the United States

government. I would recommend that they continue to support the Ukrainians because that fight is happening right now. That's a fight against tyranny right now. While we continue to tool up our defense industry and spend more money to increase our capacity to build capacity to later face the Chinese. And that is the argument, Omna, that U.S. officials inside the government who did want these weapons to continue to go to Ukraine, that's the argument. argument they've been making. So put all this in context for us, Nick, we reported earlier that Russia's been making territorial gains in Ukraine in recent days. What should we know about that? Over the last few months, Russia says that it has seized about 360 miles inside Ukraine

to give you a little context. That's about the size of Indianapolis over the last few months. Today, pro-Russian officials in Lujansk claimed capture of that region in all of eastern Ukraine. That's not believed to be true, but it has been close. Russia has made a lot of gains in that area. Russia did recently capture their first village in southern Ukraine and Nipra-Bukhovs, and they have been massing tens of thousands of troops in northeastern Ukraine near Sumi. Now, this comes at great cost, Amna. Thousands and thousands of Russian soldiers are dying or being wounded every week.

And analysts do say that Ukraine is largely holding out despite these pushes, despite this really summer offensive that Russia has begun to launch in Ukraine. But Ukrainian officials warn that any cuts to weapons that they receive will challenge their ability to hold out, especially, especially air defense. Nick Schifrin, great reporting as always. Thank you very much. Thank you. This PBS NewsHour podcast is supported in part by Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

If you're a bad protein in a cancer cell, you'd better get your affairs in order because now, thanks to Dana Farber's foundational work, protein degradation can target cancer-causing proteins and destroy them right inside the cell. This Take No Prisoner's approach is making a difference in multiple myeloma and other blood cancers and is how Dana Farber is working to treat previously untreatable cancers.

Learn more at Danafarber.org slash everywhere. As Republicans try to push through their big bill that would inject billions of dollars into President Trump's deportation campaign, the president today visited a new detention center in Florida. The facility dubbed Alligator Alcatraz by local officials is located at an airport in the Florida Everglades and is set to hold up to 5,000 beds. We have a lot of bodyguards and a lot of... cops that are in the form of

alligators, you don't have to pay him so much. But I wouldn't want to run through the Everglades for long. We'll keep people where they're supposed to be. This is a very important thing. Our White House correspondent, Laura Berone Lopez joins us now with the latest. So, Laura, what should we know about this new facility?

So this facility is located in the Florida Everglades on an isolated 39-mile air strip. Now, people detained there will be intense to start with plans for a more permanent structure to be constructed later on. Now, a DHS official told us that they will immediately start holding some 500 to 1,000 beds. And as early as this month, they are trying to hold some 5,000

beds there. The operational cost is expected to be about 450 million for a single year with the state of Florida paying that up front and then being reimbursed by FEMA and Homeland Security. Now, environmental groups have already sued the administration to try to halt construction. But But the president again today floated the idea that he wants more facilities like this. He wants to open the original Alcatraz to detain people saying in a social media post that he's looking to rebuild Alcatraz prison sitting high on the bay surrounded by sharks. What a symbol that could be. And the administration is pushing other states to follow suit to open facilities similar to this one?

That's right. They are pushing other facilities. The president said it, other states to open facilities like this. The president repeatedly said it. Even Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida encouraged other states to follow them as to why they're opening in a facility like this. The administration, much of the deportation campaign, the president's deportation campaign has been about optics, about intimidation, about pressuring undocumented migrants to self-deport something that Homeland Security Secretary Cristinaum repeatedly said today. Also, Florida GOP, the party, is selling alligator Alcatraz, merchandise pushing this White House officials, have repeatedly highlighted. the dangerous wildlife around this facility saying that they think that it could act as a deterrence. I spoke to Ira Kurz-Bahn. He's a longtime immigration attorney based in Florida today.

And he said that he thinks this facility is less about containing violent criminals and more about dehumanizing immigrants. It's an effort to dehumanize people, period, because a lot of these people aren't undocumented. For example, Haitians who had been here and in many cases for years and years on TPS, all of a sudden are losing that TPS. They're going from legal status to, quote, illegal status. Remember that it's not a crime to be in the United States. You may be subject to deportation, but it's a civil offense. So what they want to do is ramp up civil detention of people. Temporary protected status, that's that TPS that IRA is talking about.

Now, that has been stripped from Haitians and other immigrants, and hundreds of thousands of immigrants have actually lost some form of legal status due to the Trump administration's efforts. And, Laura, I know you're also tracking the case involving Kilmar Obrego-Garcia, the man who was mistakenly deported initially to El Salvador. Tell us about that and what his case says about the Trump administration's overall, deportation agenda. So there are some contradictions happening right now with the Trump administration's agenda. They have said repeatedly that they are seeking out violent criminals, public safety threats,

and they have been zealously pursuing their prosecution of Abra Garcia after bringing him back from El Salvador. But as they've been pursuing that, in their case against Garcia, recent court documents and reporting show that the Trump administration has agreed to release a three-time felon from prison and agreed to not to deport him for at least a year in exchange for cooperation in exchange for testimony against Kilmar, Abrago Garcia. And also over the last few months, the Trump administration has worked to drop cases against MS-13 gang leaders while they've been pursuing their case against Abrago Garcia. Now, currently, Garcia is still in federal custody at the request of his lawyers because they're concerned that if he's released, the administration may pursue

quick deportation proceedings. And one last thing about the president's trip to Florida today. We heard him step up his threats to denaturalize his perceived political opponents. What more did he say? Today the president raised this two times during his trip to Florida, saying that he's open to denatural investigations into both billionaire Elon Musk, as well as New York City Democratic mayoral candidate, Zoran Mamdani. And he was asked what he would do if Mamdani is actually elected and decides to not cooperate with ICE arresting undocumented immigrants.

And this is what the president had to say. Well, then we'll have to arrest him. Look, we don't need a communist in this country. But if we have one, I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation. And a lot of people are saying he's here illegally. You know, we're going to look at everything. This comes also as the Justice Department made public. this week, that they are intending to prioritize denaturalization investigations into a number of

immigrants. Jeff? Laura Barone Lopez. Laura, thank you. Thank you. Marist poll released today. To walk us through some of the new numbers, I'm joined now by NPR's Domenico Montanaro. Great to see you. Hey, great to be with you.

Let's pick up on immigration that Laura was just reporting on. It was a central issue for Mr. Trump's reelection campaign. How do voters look at this issue at this point in his presidency? Well, his handling of immigration mirrors his overall job approval rating. Only 43% say that they approve of the job that the president is doing when it comes to handling immigration. 52% disapprove. And like I said,

that's the same number as approve and disapprove of him overall. He doesn't get really good marks on almost anything either. Only 41% approve of his job on foreign policy and just 39% on the economy. So immigration is the best of those, but still not great. Domenico, like a lot of issues, it gets more interesting, the deeper you go. Our colleague Josh Baraha spoke to a number of voters about the president's immigration agenda. One, a man named Stephen Singh, who's an independent voter in California, had this to say. I would love a more streamlined pathway to citizenship for immigrants.

I don't want to see students deported. I hate to see students being deported as a weapon to spread someone's political ideals and to silence others. So the nuanced answer is there are some cases where I think his immigration policy is spot on. And there's some where I think it's overstepping the bounds. Is that view showing up in the polling? Yeah, I mean, in reality, you know, views of immigration are. much more nuanced than sometimes the political debate lends itself to be. You know, Republicans feel very strongly one way, Democrats feel very strongly another way.

When we look directly at deportation policies and whether or not they're making the country more safe, less safe, or not having any impact, you can see there are 43% say that Trump's deportation policies are making the country safer. 33% say less safe, a quarter say no impact at all. When it comes to how that breaks down by party, as we were talking about, 81% of Republicans think that his policies are making the country safer. Only 17% of Democrats are with just 34% of independence as well saying that they think that his policies are making the country safer. And it comes to who is being impacted and targeted in these policies. How do Americans view that?

And reflecting a lot of what we heard that voter say there, there's a real range. There's a wide range here. When it comes to violent offenders, people who are convicted of crimes who are in the country without permanent legal status, 80% say deport them. When it comes to nonviolent offenders, those convicted of crimes but nonviolent crimes, almost 6 and 10 also say to deport them as well. But it gets a lot trickier for Trump the further down we go. We heard that that person talk about those who have overstayed visas. Only 49% say that they should be deported real split in the country. And when it comes to those industry workers, people in the food and agricultural industry, for example,

44% say that they should be deported. A majority say don't do that. So we've seen a number of these immigration policies, other policies of the president ending up in court. There's a mixed bag in terms of where the rulings are landed, but there are questions being raised by the president and his supporters about whether or not the president needs to comply with those court orders. How do people feel about this issue? Well, overall, I mean, 82% of people said that they think that any president should, follow court orders, even if he or she doesn't like them. When you dig a little bit deeper into those numbers, though, 22% of Republicans only said that they feel strongly about this, whereas opposed to big majorities of independents and Democrats who said strongly that they think

a president should follow it. So I guess if there's something they really don't like, they might be able to give Trump a little bit a leash. Here's the other thing that stuck out to me. Going into Independence Day, the poll showed a striking number of people who say they are concerned about the state of democracy in America. What should we understand about? Yeah, it's really interesting. Three-quarters of people say that there is a serious threat to democracy. Three-quarters of people also say that politically motivated violence is a major threat, a major problem in the country as well. So you have a lot of people who really feel uneasy right now about the situation in the country, the polarization that exists in the country, but they have very little faith in their political leadership as well. Fascinating look, where the country is right now. NPR's Domenico Monsanaro. Thank you so much. Welcome. The FDA has approved a breakthrough preventative treatment for HIV that could change the course of the AIDS epidemic.

But deep cuts to health initiatives, both here and abroad, could hinder the medications rollout. William Brangham joins us now with the latest. William. The drug is called Lena Capavir, and not only does it offer nearly 100% protection from HIV, but people only need two injections per year. Other HIV prevention drugs need to be taken daily or monthly. So this drug has generated enormous optimism in the HIV-AIDS community, but getting this drug to those who need it the most is not a sure thing. For more on this, we are joined by Mitchell Warren.

He's the executive director of the AIDS vaccine advocacy. Coalition. Mitchell Warren, so good to have you on the program. So a lot of excitement about this new medication, nearly perfect protection. But as I mentioned, it's two injections per year. Can you explain why that timing is so significant? Thank you so much for having me. And I'm delighted to be able to talk about this because it is one of the most exciting moments in HIV prevention, frankly, in 44 years of this pandemic. 13 years ago this month, in fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

approved daily oral prep, the idea that you described of taking a pill every day to prevent HIV. It's an incredibly effective product. It's incredibly safe by taking a pill every day for a condition that doesn't exist for prevention is hard. And we've seen sluggish rollout for some people

in a hard time to adhere to taking a pill every day. So the idea of only needing to come into the clinic twice a year to get these injections, makes it a potentially more feasible intervention for people who are at risk of HIV. And so there is a lot of enthusiasm. And then, as you say, the data presented just last year showed near perfect protection in two different trials. So at least conceptually, this is our best shot, literally, to prevent infections that we've ever had. So who are the people that are most likely to use this medication. So prep is indicated and now approved by the FDA for anybody who is at risk of transmission

of HIV. And that can mean pretty much anybody who's sexually active are people who use drugs, the classic roots of transmission. The important part of prep programs, though, are not just the products, whether that's a daily pill or this injection. It's really helping people understand their own sexuality, their own risk. It is certainly going to be used by some gay men and men who sex with men, transgender individuals, people who inject drugs, sex workers, young women in particularly in East and Southern Africa, where we see high rates of HIV. So it's really about helping people understand their own sexuality, their own sexual risk, and hopefully empowering them to make decisions to pick any of these prep products or a condom to be safe

in preventing HIV. This breakthrough comes, as we've also seen, large cuts by the Trump administration to foreign aid. And given that the U.S. is one of the, perhaps the world's biggest supporter and funder of HIV care and prevention, what does your sense as to what those cuts mean as far as getting this drug to the people who need it the most? You know, William, this is one of the cruelest ironies. The FDA approved this product just two weeks ago, and we really should be in a moment of celebration of thinking about now how to do the hard work of rolling this out. But But the degree of difficulty to make this product available with speed and scale and equity has been diminished by what we've seen over the last five and a half months.

The presidential administration is really dismantled. And as you will know, today is the first day we have the absence of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which was gutted by the administration. Just in December, the program called PEPFAR, the president's emergency response for AIDS release, started by President Bush. with wide bipartisan support for over 20 years, had agreed with the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TV, and malaria to roll out Lena Capavir with a speed and scale

that has never been seen before in HIV prevention. They wanted to reach 2 million people immediately after the approval of the product. The ambition is still there. PEPFAR still exists and the Global Fund is still committed, but it is going to be significantly harder because the backbone of programs around the world have been funded by PEPFARS.

to deliver prep. So we've got to really look at how we, in a sense, stabilize the patient, stabilize the prep programs that have existed delivering oral prep and an earlier injection that you get every two months to now transitioning to this every six month injection. So the will is there, the commitment from political leadership at country level and certainly at the global fund is there, but in the absence of USAID and with a greatly diminished PEPFAR, going to be harder. And it's coming at such a difficult moment because the science is so promising and we really are on the cusp of turning the tide on this epidemic. And we are now set back

even in the midst of this exciting news. And what about the distribution of the drug here in the U.S.? I mean, this is an expensive drug. It's around, I think, $30,000 a year for those two injections. Congress right now is debating huge cuts to Medicaid, which is one of the biggest insurance. that provides HIV care and prep across the U.S., do you think those impediments are going to slow its rollout domestically? I fear that it might, and again, it's another one of these cruel ironies. In this president's first administration, one of the great surprises was his announcement in a state of the union address in 2019 that he wanted to end the HIV epidemic in this country by 2030. I would argue that injectable Hellenicapivir may be our best chance to actually,

reached that ambitious target that he himself set out in 2019. And yet in this term of his administration, he's begun to cut the HIV prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, slowing the release of funding to municipalities, to states and cities that are going to need to deliver prep at scale in the United States. The price that has been named is about $28,000. It is in line with the other listed prices for other prep products. And we need to really push Gilead Sciences, the company that makes this product, Lenat Kappavir, as well as the CDC and this administration, to develop the programs that are going to deliver this product in an affordable way and a way that we can actually see impact.

And that's going to take creative partnerships, both in the United States and around the world. All right. That is Mitchell Warren, Executive Director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much for covering this important topic. In the last decade, at least 20 states have passed laws or policies that restrict how history can be taught in schools. Since taking office in January, President Trump has pushed even further, with executive orders that aim to reshape how U.S. history is presented, not only in classrooms, but in some of the nation's most famous museums.

Paul Solomon reports for our series, Art in Action. The graduating classes remained almost 100% white until 1969. For eighth-gradeer Julia Jones, U.S. history. They're like, well, it wasn't Brown to be born in 1954? That doesn't seem right. Classes at her own Richmond, Virginia Middle School. When the 1970s school year started, there were about 5,000 white students who never came back. Jones was competing in National History Day in College Park, Maryland, one of some 3,000 students from around the country.

In school, we often learned that, you know, after 1954, you know, now schools were integrated. Now black and white students could learn together, and it's a big victory. But then when you learn this history, you realize that it really wasn't the case. Students picked their own topics, drafting the Declaration of Independence, the evolution of labor unions, Japanese, internment camps during World War II. We are telling the kids that you have to look at all the angles, and you have to back up what you're saying with evidence.

Kathy Goren-run's National History Day held every year since 1974. You guys pick me a winner? But this year's different, after federal cuts hit home in April. We had two grants, and the total amount we lost was $336,000, right in the middle of everything. The grants were among more than a thousand terminated at the National Endowment for the Humanities. Private donors bailed out this year's competition, but the cloud hovers. Our teachers in some areas are being told that they can't teach certain subject areas. Some teachers have left the classroom because they've thought, if I can't teach truth, then I'm not going to stay here.

So what's driving the cuts? So I think we've ended up with really the wrong approach to historical education. It's way worse than that. Whokeness has become the new curriculum. We have an education system that teaches our children to be ashamed of themselves, in many cases, to hate our country despite... In January, the president signed an executive order promoting patriotic, as opposed to supposedly woke education.

Americans should not be felt that they have to live in shame, or that there is a collective guilt to be carried. Mike Gonzalez, who fled Fidel Castro's Cuba as a child in the 70s, works for the Heritage Foundation. and helped write Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for President Trump's second term. Do you think America has or has had a racism problem? Yeah.

I mean, we had systemic racism. If you were a black couple in Alabama in 1950, you couldn't go to the lunch counter and get a sandwich. Yeah, I would call that a racism problem. Do we still have it? I think they're individual racists. I think there's this ugly racism. By the way, and I think just so we should be,

ever vigilant and prosecute these things, we haven't been able to get rid of murder, rape, theft. We're probably not going to be able to get rid of racism. So how do we strike the right balance in teaching, commemorating, let's say, the history of slavery, or Jim Crow, or the civil rights movement? I think you have to put it in the proper context. I don't know anybody who says, no, we cannot teach about slavery. But you have to also add, you know, 12 million Africans bought in the continent of Africa, I made it across to the New World of that 400,000 came here. In other words, 3%. Slavery was practiced in the rest of the Americas extensively, much more extensively than here, in my own country of birth,

and was practiced in biblical times. It was practiced in antiquity. So there's a long history of man not being kind to man. In March, President Trump followed up with another executive order targeting museums. directing Vice President Vance to remove divisive and anti-American ideology from Smithsonian Galleries in Washington and New York. It's now in effect. Lonnie Bunch, who is today the Secretary of the Smithsonian, he was the head of the African American History Museum,

and he ordered the curators to start collecting and curating materials from the Ferguson riots and from the Black Lives Matters, demonstrations, and riots from that point on. There is some of that today, and it's still in the museum, but it's been cut back severely. The Smithsonian had no comment about those specific cuts, but the board has stated that museums, quote, must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans and do more to further foundational values.

This is the march route that march was took, led by Dr. King in 1965. For those who protect historic sites, the work now feels more urgent. Philip Howard is a civil rights preservationist in Alabama. I don't believe this work is controversial. I believe it is just as important to protect this history as it is to protect battlefields of the Civil War, our homes are the founding fathers. Even though the Trump administration, at least at the moment, is trying to reframe history to make it more positive.

I don't think there is a more positive American story than the civil rights movement. In March, the Montgomery bus station, home to the Freedom Rides Museum, was one of more than 400 federal buildings deemed, not, quote, core to government operations and slated for sale. After an uproar, however, the museum was dropped from the list. The challenges we face today are minuscule compared to the history we're trying to preserve. Howard crisscrosses Alabama and Mississippi for the Conservation Fund, a realist. state nonprofit that partners with local communities to protect historic sites. Raise your hand if you were on the bridge during Bloody Sunday. A recent stop, Zion Church in Marion, Alabama, where a memorial service was held in 1965 for

Jimmy Lee Jackson, a young civil rights activist killed by Alabama police, a death that helps spark the Selma to Montgomery March. And what would you all think your legacy should be? For people to continue on with the fight and to know that it didn't come easy. We need to know the history, so hopefully we don't repeat it. Last stop in Selma. The Etterstone Hotel, built in 1855, where recently freed blacks came for food, shelter, and medical care following the Civil War. This building would have been one of the first places in the South where an African American person

would have been treated like a human. Even though there are challenges, it's nothing that these communities haven't seen before. They will come out of this stronger than ever. This history will be preserved. But Gonzalez says that's also his goal, except put into context. America is not a lost experiment because of its history. On the contrary, America is an experiment in freedom.

So we're not systemically guilty. We did these things. These things happened. All of us in every country on earth, we should learn about them, and we should also understand the good. This is a great country that people should be proud of and people should be inspired by. Well, you know, those folks out there that are saying that if we teach complete history, if we teach the tragic parts of our past,

that we're going to be making kids feel bad or we're going to be making them feel guilty, right? The exact opposite is true. It gives them an greater understanding of how Americans have worked so hard to make their country better. And then when you do that, you are helping to create thoughtful, informed patriots, not blind ones. But the future of how U.S. history is told? up as it long has been for debate. For the PBS NewsHour, Paul Salman. And there is a lot more online, including a look at Americans' views on U.S. involvement in Iran

and the threat that nation could still pose. That's at pbs.b.s.org slash news hour. 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.