PBS News Hour - Full Show - July 14, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: July 14, 2025

Monday on the News Hour, President Trump promises to send more weapons to Ukraine and threatens Russia with sanctions if no peace deal is made. The former FEMA administrator discusses the praise and criticism of the federal government's response to the deadly floods in Texas. Plus, how a provision in the Republican megabill could accelerate the shift toward private education. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening. I'm William Brangham. Amna Nawaz and Jeff Bennett are away. On the news hour tonight, the president promises to send more weapons to Ukraine and threatens Russia with sanctions if no peace deal is made. The former administrator of FEMA discusses the praise and criticism of the federal government's response to the deadly floods in Texas. And how a provision in the Republicans' mega bill could exceed. accelerate the shift toward private education.

Their concerns are essentially is that we're providing an incentive for people to leave the public schools and go to untested, unregulated, private schools that have, in many cases, very little or even no accountability whatsoever. Welcome to the new. Today in Washington, President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta announced they would give Ukraine new American weapons bought by European allies. And President Trump threatened massive new sanctions on Russia if there is no ceasefire established by early September. As Nick Schiffen reports, it was a remarkable turnaround for a president who only months ago blamed Ukraine for the war and ridiculed its president. As eastern Ukraine burned after another Russian attack, President Trump embraced Ukraine's and Europe's

defense. We are going to be sending them weapons, and they're going to be paying for them. Ukraine has relied on tens of billions of dollars of American weapons, but until today, the Trump administration had not authorized any new shipments. Now, Europe will send its own U.S.-made weapons to Ukraine, including Patriots, Patriot Air Defense, and then buy new U.S. weapons to backfill their own stocks, NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta. It will mean that Ukraine can get his hands on really massive numbers of military

equipment, both for air defense, but also missiles, ammunition, et cetera, et cetera. And the president who earlier this year publicly embarrassed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. You don't have the cards. You're buried there. Today, said his break with Putin was a family affair. We thought we had a deal numerous times. I'd get home, I'd say, first lady, I had the most wonderful talk with Vladimir. I think we're finished, and then I'll turn on the television, or she'll say to me one time,

well, that's strange because they just bombed a nursing home. They said, what? Tonight, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy praised Trump's shift. I'm grateful to President Trump. for his willingness to support the protection of our people's lives. The U.N. says that last month more Ukrainian civilians died than in any month over the last three years. And Russia fired ten times the number of drones than it did one year ago. Doing very severe tariffs, if we don't have a deal in 50 days, tariffs at about 100 percent.

You'd call them secondary tariffs. Russia sells $3 billion worth of goods to the United States. goods to the United States, so tariffs would have relatively little impact. But a Senate bill would authorize President Trump to impose massive secondary sanctions on the countries buying Russian oil, including India and China. That could help cripple Russia's economy. Bill co-sponsor, Senator Lindsey Graham, said yesterday on Face the Nation. We're going after the people who keep Putin in business and additional sanctions

on Russia itself. This is truly a sledgehammer available to President Trump. Trump to end this war. And for perspective on the Trump administration's decision to arm Ukraine, we turn to Kurt Volker. He was U.S. ambassador to NATO during the George W. Bush administration and special representative for Ukraine negotiations during the first Trump administration. Ambassador Volker, thanks very much. Welcome back to the news hour.

Bottom line, how significant is this deal that President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta announced today in which Europe will provide Ukraine arms from their stockpiles and then pay the United States to backfill those same weapons. Well, I think it's very significant because it removes an uncertainty that had been plaguing Ukraine and plaguing Europe ever since the beginning of the Trump administration. No one was really sure if the Trump administration was going to allow American arms and ammunition to continue to flow to Ukraine.

And now this takes away that doubt. It is not taxpayer-funded by American taxpayers, which is something that Trump has always said, he would not do. It is instead funded on a paid-for basis. European allies are going to be buying the American weapons and ammunition and providing them to Ukraine, and Trump is quite comfortable with that. So I think this is very significant in terms of the psychology of where this is now in the military effort. Russia is pounding Ukraine every night with what seems like daily records of drones and missiles. And Russia has taken over a little bit of Ukrainian territory in the last

couple months in eastern and northeastern Ukraine, even at great cost in terms of number of casualties on the Russian side. But given that, what impact on the battlefield can these weapons actually have? Well, there's a couple impacts. First off, more patriots and more air defense weapons are going to protect Ukrainian civilians, make these Russian nightly attacks less effective. Second, with longer range weapons that can go deeper into Russia, they can take out some of the airfields, some of the military facilities, some of the drone factories, perhaps, that are empowering Russia in this way. And third, with artillery shells, they can hold the line better on the front line than they've

been able to do in the past few months. Mostly what Ukraine has done is use its own homemade drones to prevent substantial Russian advances and inflict heavy losses. Artillery is going to strengthen the Ukrainian defensive position. Let's talk about President Trump's words about President Putin today. you, of course, started a special representative for the first President Trump administration in 2017 and 2018. President Trump famously sided with President Putin over the intelligence community when it comes to 2016 election meddling. Even more recently, President Trump has said things like, well, Zelenskyy started the war, Ukraine started the war.

But today, President Trump is now saying that Putin feeds him, quote, BS. What do you say about the evolution that President Trump has had over President Putin? I think he was tactically trying to say nice things about Putin in order to be part of an effort of encouraging Putin to come to the table, have a ceasefire, and we could lift sanctions, we could start doing business again with Russia. That's where Trump wanted to go. So he was saying nice things that way. I think he's become convinced that Putin is just blowing him off. He is dragging out the idea of negotiations, while meanwhile ramping up his attacks and killing civilians. So I think he has changed his rhetoric now, coming to the conclusion that that's the only way he's actually going to put some pressure on Putin.

But why not achieve that clarity, if you will, years ago? People like you, other people were telling President Trump that, hey, Putin's not a friend. Putin is no ally of the United States. Why now do you think has President Trump come to this conclusion? I suppose because he has experienced it personally now. Every president, not just President Trump, every president has believed that they could do a reset, to quote an Obama phrase, with Putin. And everyone believed that they could somehow be the special ingredient to get Putin to behave. I think Trump has now given his best effort at the

same thing, realized that Putin is not changing. He's not going to come to terms. He's not going to do a ceasefire. And so he has now decided that it's time to ramp up the pressure. And finally, Ambassador Bulkler, in the short time I have left, President Trump today threatened sanctions on Russia. If there is no ceasefire in the next 50 days, those come from a bill in Congress right now that's co-sponsored by Senators Graham and Blumenthal. You heard Senator Graham earlier in the story that we had say that if these sanctions are imposed, that can end the war. Do you believe that's true? What's the impact of those sanctions? I think it contributes to the end of the war. What this would do is dry up the financial resources that continue

to flow into the Kremlin's coffers, which they use to pay for the war effort. And so cutting off that supply of funds, of payments for oil and gas is critical. And the secondary sanctions should be enough to dissuade other countries and other actors from being willing to participate in that sanctions-busting effort. Ambassador Kurt Volker, thank you very much. Thanks, Nick. We start the day's other headlines in Massachusetts. Authorities say a fire at an assisted living facility killed at least nine people,

dozens more were injured. The blaze broke out last night at the Gabriel House in Fall River, about 50 miles south of Boston, leaving the front entrance heavily damaged. Firefighters say residents were hanging out of their windows, calling for help. The facility is home to some 70 people. One man said he didn't realize what was happening until he opened his door. All the smoke from the hall were right in my face. And all what I could do is just stand there and choke.

And I thought it was going to be the end of everything. Authorities rescued him and dozens of others from the burning building. Meantime, a Massachusetts firefighter's union say a lack of staffing hindered the response to the blaze. The cause of the fire is under investigation. Arizona's governor is calling for a federal investigation into why a wildfire along the Grand Canyon was initially treated as a controlled burn and not immediately put out. As of this afternoon, the Dragon Bravo fire had burned around 6,000 acres and was zero percent contained. So far, it's burned some 80 structures, including the historic Grand Canyon Lodge.

The blaze was ignited by lightning strikes on the 4th of July and quickly grew amid hot and dry conditions, prompting officials to close the area to visitors for the rest of the year. The Supreme Court today cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with the dismantling of the Department of Education. The justices paused in order from a judge in Boston who had blocked the firing of nearly 1,400 workers. As is typical with such cases, the order was unsigned and gave no reasoning. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by the court's other two liberal members. The order is technically temporary, as appeals make their way through the courts, but it is a major victory for President Trump, who had made the dismantling of that agency one of his signature campaign promises.

Turning to the Middle East, authorities in Gaza say that Israeli strikes killed at least 31 Palestinians across the territory overnight. Hospital officials in the southern city of Khan Yunus said that at least 12 people were killed there, including three who were waiting at an aid distribution center. Israel says it only targets militants and blames civilian deaths on Hamas. Also today, UN agencies are warning that fuel shortages are threatening their humanitarian operations. They say some hospitals have already gone dark. Separately, Israel says it struck military tanks in Syria today

amid new clashes between Bedouin groups and local militias. Syrian officials say more than 30 people were killed, though the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights puts the figure much higher. That UK-based war monitoring group says the violence erupted after a man from the Druze minority group was kidnapped by members of a Bedouin tribe. Syria then deployed government forces to try and restore order. The clashes underscore the challenges facing Syria's new government after more than a decade of civil war.

Israel has periodically involved itself in support of the Druze in Syria. Stocks on Wall Street held near record levels today as investors shook off the latest tariff concerns. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 88 points on the day. The NASDAQ climbed more than 50 points or about a cost. quarter of 1%. The S&P 500 also ended in positive territory. And France celebrated Bastille Day today. Air Force jets streamed past the iconic Arc de Triompth, releasing the colors of the French flag as some 7,000 people marched up the Champs-Elysé. The nation's biggest holiday marks the

storming of the Bastille Fortress in 1789, a pivotal moment in the lead-up to the French Revolution. It also comes amid an increased focus on national defense. A day earlier, President Emmanuel Macron pledged to double France's military budget by 2027. That's three years earlier than planned. Still to come on the news hour, Senate Republicans face a deadline to claw back funding for foreign aid and public media. Tamara Keith and Amy Walter weigh in on the MAGA basis split over the Jeffrey Epstein case. And some leading film critics recommend their favorite summer movies.

This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubinstein studio at WETA in Washington and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. It has been 10 days since the deadly July 4th flooding in Texas, where at least 132 people died, and the search continues for the roughly 160 people that remain missing. A new report from the Washington Post found that Camp Mystic did not begin evacuating young campers along the Guadalupe River until an hour after a severe flood warning was sent. In the meantime, the federal response to this disaster has also, come under scrutiny. Over the weekend, DHS Secretary Christy Noem responded to allegations that FEMA

cutbacks meant delays in answering people's calls for disaster assistance and aid after the flood. Those claims are absolutely false. Within just an hour or two after the flooding, we had resources from the Department of Homeland Security there helping those individuals in Texas. So those claims are false. They're from people who won't put their name behind those claims. and those call centers were fully staffed and responsive. President Trump, who has called for cuts to FEMA, praised the agency during his recent visit to Texas, but he did not comment on his plans for its future.

So for a closer look, we are joined now by former FEMA administrator, Deanne Criswell. Deanne Criswell, thank you so much for being here again. I appreciate that it is complicated commenting on your successors' work. But from your analysis, what is your sense of how FEMA has responded to this disaster in Texas? William, I mean, it is hard to watch from the sidelines because you know how you would do things. But, you know, I think the thing that really stands out is I know the women and men of FEMA, and I know how they would respond and the actions that they would take to make sure that they're moving resources in

to have things available, to anticipate what that state might need. And from the reporting that I've been reading, what it sounds like is that there's been added layers of administrative burdens that have been put in place that take away that agility that they normally have to be able to execute on their mission. And so I know that they want to do the right thing, and I know that they have the capability, but it seems like there's additional steps that are making that process just a little bit more difficult now. So what are some of the other specifics of things that you might have done differently if you were in the chair? So one of the first things we do, this is the kind of

incident that is not like a hurricane where you're watching it come in and you have days to move equipment and people in place to make sure that it's ready based on where the impact might be. This is a limited notice event. And so you've already lost a little bit of that time, right? Because the action or the incident is already unraveling. And so I would have immediately made sure that the teams, and they wouldn't even have had to wait for me to tell them, they would have known to do this, but moving urban search and rescue teams and critical personnel,

like our disaster survivor assistance team members, into the area, into the community, even before a presidential disaster declaration is made, what we can't do is put them to work until after that declaration is made and the state asks for help, right? And so once the state asked for that help, at least they would be there,

they would be ready to be engaged immediately. Now we've lost a few days, and that's just time that you can't get back. But I do want to add, right, the role that the Coast Guard played that the Secretary talks about is critical. You know, the Coast Guard did amazing work, but they have it within their statutory authorities

to be able to respond like that. It's nothing new. They do that in every one of these types of flash flooding events because they have the resources and capability to get in there within minutes. And then FEMA's role is to start to augment that capability with the technical teams that can come in and help support that ongoing search effort and the search and recovery effort and then help that community start to rebuild. I want to ask you about the way in which we as a government allow people to build in a floodplain.

The Associated Press found that federal regulators had repeatedly granted appeals by Camp Mystic to allow them to continue building in an area that FEMA's own flood maps indicated might be highly dangerous in the future. Doesn't that highlight the risk of allowing FEMA to grant exemptions like that? You know, the flood maps are really designed to provide that snapshot in time of exactly where the high. risk areas are. I can't speak directly to the situation of why they were granted an exemption without being able to see the data and the reasoning behind it, but there could be a number of reasons for that. But you're right in the fact that the whole goal of this is to make sure that people are aware of what their highest risk is and that they're taking the necessary actions

then to put the appropriate preparedness measures in place to protect the communities that they're serving or in this case, the communities that are coming in to use this campground. And so there could be a number of reasons for those exceptions and have to see them. But again, it's a process that has done in partnership with local communities and with the state. FEMA doesn't make these decisions on their own. They have to do it in partnership with them. I think that there's more to learn about this particular situation to understand the reasoning behind it. President Trump, as you well know has suggested dramatically dialing back the role that FEMA plays and in a way making the states pick up a lot of that labor of immediate disaster response. Do you believe that states

can shoulder that burden? States and local emergency managers have always had the responsibility to respond. FEMA doesn't come in and take over that. FEMA doesn't come in and supplant that. FEMA comes in and supports them when it exceeds their capability, but at the end of the day, they will always have that responsibility for immediate response needs and for the actual recovery. What's going to be challenging if you start to scale back the role that FEMA has is they're not going to have the tools and resources to augment and to support that response process like search and rescue teams. But more importantly, they're not going to have the financial support or technical assistance to help them rebuild during this recovery phase.

And so it's easy to oversimplify some of the things that we're saying about give more responsibility to state and locals, but it's much more complicated than that. And I think it deserves a very thoughtful, inclusive conversation with those people, the state and local emergency managers that have this responsibility to make sure that we're building a government system that works for them and not against them. All right, that is former FEMA administrator, D.N. Criswell. Always great to talk to you. Thank you very much for your time. Thanks, William.

President Trump is making some big and controversial changes to the future of public education. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue today, with a major dismantling of the Department of Education. There's also an important change included in the president's new tax and spending law that he signed on July 4th. It would create what many say is essentially a new national school voucher program.

Stephanie Sy has the details. William, starting in 2027, the government will offer a federal tax incentive more generous than any other on the books. It's meant to expand school choice, but states will get to decide, whether to opt in. Individuals would get a dollar-for-dollar tax credit up to $1,700 when they give to a nonprofit that offers education scholarships. They could then use that money for tuition

and other educational expenses, including for private or religious schooling. Laura Meckler covers education for The Washington Post and joins me now with more. Laura, thank you so much for joining the News Hour. Could you just start by explaining a little bit more about how this is all going to work and who is eligible? Sure. This is a program that essentially support state-based organizations that offer scholarships to families, typically to send them to private schools. So essentially, if you're a family and you want help paying your tuition bill, you can apply for a scholarship from one of these private organizations. But where does the organization get their money? They get their money from donations. And what this tax credit will do,

sort of mimicking what's been done in many states is offer, as you said, a dollar-for-dollar tax credit. So essentially, you give money to this organization and you get the entire amount reimbursed to you through the tax code. So it is a powerful incentive, much more than any other kind of charitable giving. And is there an income limit on who can make this contribution and get the tax credit? No, there isn't. There is no income limit. Anybody can make this contribution and anybody can get this tax credit. So it is unlimited. Now, there are some limits on who can get the scholarships, who can essentially get the help paying for a private school. But those are very high income limits. For instance, here in Washington, D.C., anyone earning up to, say, $450,000 a

year would qualify. So it really does cover the vast majority of families. I read her proponent of this law call it a revolution in the tax code that could open up school choice to millions of students. Could this be a sea change for education in this country? You know, I would actually call it as another step forward in a sea change that is somewhat already underway. We have seen in many conservative states voucher proposals being passed and being expanded, new efforts to essentially all different flavors, but they're all doing the same thing, which is sending tax money to private schools, to help families pay for private schools and in some cases for homeschooling as well. So this is this sort of privatization

of education is happening all over the country, particularly in Republican states. One thing I want to ask is the original proposals had the tax credit cap much higher. It ended up at $1,700, which is a lot less than some of the bigger tax credits proposed. With where things landed, would it still be enough to help a lot of families afford private school? Well, you know, we'll see. I mean, I think that the challenge for these scholarship-granting organizations is that instead of just getting, like, you know, relatively few donations from very big donors, they're going to have to get a lot of donations from a lot of donors in order to raise a substantial amount of money. Because, in fact, the scholarships they give may, in fact, be bigger than $1,700 or smaller. They'll be up to them to decide.

But essentially, if you want to give a family, say, $5,000 scholarship, you're going to need to raise money from several people. order to afford that. Public education advocates, as you know, Laura, are really upset by this. Help us understand what their concerns are. Well, their concerns are essentially is that we're providing an incentive for people to leave the public schools and go to untested, unregulated schools, private schools that have, in many cases, very little or even no accountability whatsoever. Essentially, the public schools are required to take all kids.

They're subject to standardized tests. testing and many rules. They have to obey civil rights protections, whereas private schools can often do whatever they want, and maybe not whatever they want, but there are far fewer limits on them. And essentially, what this tax credit does is incentivize families who would, could leave the public schools in order to, because it will become easier and more affordable to go to a private school. And public school advocates worry that that essentially undercuts and weakens the public system. That's, you know, most children still depend. on. You mentioned that a lot of Republican states are already doing some version of this,

but given that states have to opt into this federal tax incentive, what's your sense of the appetite among state leaders and what dynamics do you think we're going to see around this issue in coming months? I think it's going to be really interesting. I think it's going to be an easy question for Republican states opt into this. But for purple states, and particularly for liberal states, you know, there's going to be a lot of pressure in both directions, a pressure that says, hey, why not participate? This isn't going to cost us anything, and we can get support for children who want to go to private school. This is federal money you're leaving on the table, essentially. But then there are going to also be people who say that, no, this is not consistent with

our values. Before we let you go, Laura, the Supreme Court just decided today to allow the Trump administration's cuts to nearly 1,400 employees at the Department of Education to move ahead for now. Tell me, how does the president's agenda to largely dismantle the Department of Ed fit in with everything we've just discussed? Well, I just think it's part of a larger campaign to really make big changes in this country around education. Now, in some ways, it's at odds with it because this is now a big new federal role in shaping school choice where there was never been a federal role before. And at the same time, you have them saying, well, we want to, you know, turn education back to the state. We want to diminish the Department of Education. Now, the tax credit will be administered by the Treasury Department, but still, I do think there is something of a contradiction here.

In any case, these layoffs are allowed to go forward, which means that the Education Department will be about half of its former size, which is making a substantial difference in their ability to run the student loan program, to deal with the case backlogs at the Office for Civil Rights, and to conduct education research, all of which have been cut back severely. That is Laura Meckler of the Washington Post joining us. Laura, thank you. Thanks so much for having me. 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-prisoners approach is making a difference. 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. vote in the U.S. Senate this week. Some Republicans have concerns about the cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting, while the clock ticks towards Friday's deadline to approve or modify the Trump administration's plan. Our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardin, is here with a closer look.

So, Lisa, remind us what this rescission bill actually does. That's right. This is the presidential power, but this is an unusual assertion of it. Basically, he's trying to get Congress to reverse a cease. of funding that it made last year, even by supermajority. Now, this total amount is relatively small, but it's strategically very significant. And, of course, it includes real cuts. So let's look at what's involved here.

22 different specific program cuts the president is asking for. Most of it is foreign aid. That's $8.3 billion, but there is $1.1 billion for public broadcasting. That's all of the funding for the next two years for the corporation for public broadcasting. In order for these cuts to happen, both chambers must approve by majority and also by law under this special rescission's maneuver. This only has 45 days to live in Congress until it basically expires. That 45 days ends Friday. So this week then is obviously critical as to whether it's a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

Does it have enough votes to get across the finish line? It is really up in the air right now. I think in the Senate, it probably does, but it is really not clear. One thing to keep in mind is that the House barely passed this through. They had to flip votes at the last minute to get it through. Now the Senate will tackle this. And remember, Republicans can only lose three votes, not four, in order to get things through with just Republican votes. So we know that there are some senators right now who, if they vote, they could potentially block it.

These are three senators that have public, strong doubts and issues with this package, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jerry Moran. All of them have problems with either global health cuts, including to PEPFAR, HIV-AIDS prevention money, or to public broadcasting money. So just one more on top of that, then the Republicans would have a problem. My reporting is that there are somewhere between a total of a dozen and maybe even more Republican senators who do want to change this bill. They have those same problems with global health and also with the corporation for public broadband. broadcasting factors. Now, Susan Collins is absolutely key. She is trying to write amendments to change the bill, which they have the power to do. We talked to our colleague, Kevin, Kevin William, Kevin Miller at Maine Public about the dynamics around Collins. Senator Collins is actually the only Republican member of Congress from New England right now. So she frequently has to kind of balance those interests where she gets a lot of pressure from Democrats to oppose. particularly things that President Trump is doing.

But the Republican base up here in Maine is strongly in support, seems to be strongly in support of what President Trump is doing. So she gets pressure from there. All right, thanks to Kevin Miller there. Now, what's interesting is that President Trump, in a sign that there were real concerns about the public broadcasting piece,

in particular, sent out a post last week really threatening people, rampaning up the pressure there. He wrote on true social that any Republican who votes to allow PBS and NPR funding is someone that he would not endorse. Now, that puts the pressure on a lot of those rural senators that are really in conversations now, like Shelly Moore Capito and West Virginia, those kinds of folks.

And, of course, as our viewers know, the Corporation of Public Broadcasting partially funds, local stations all around the country, and some funding ends up here at NewsHour as well. So what happens now? Right, right. Tell us, please, what is going to happen? As you and I speak,

there are groups of Republican senators trying to work out amendments. And I think whatever Susan Collins proposes could be the most important amendment out of all of it. But let's go through the timeline because that's very important here. It's a critical week, absolutely. The deadline, as we said, is Friday at the end of the day,

Friday, the midnight at the end of the day. Now, if you go back to what's going to happen, first votes will be tomorrow. Senate will start voting on procedural motions. Then Wednesday and Thursday is when we expect, probably Wednesday, the Senate to have their final votes. I do expect them to change the bill. That means the House has to vote again.

So then where do you get to? The House likely voting on Thursday or Friday. And reminder, there's that deadline on Friday. So they are cutting this very close. There is a world where some who oppose these cuts are hoping they run out of time. There could be a problem in the House. Right now, I think the path is more likely that this bill changes. How it will change is the most important thing.

Could it get tied up? Yes, this is the 119th Congress. Anything is possible. Lisa Desjardin, as always, thank you. You're welcome. The handling of disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's case continues to royal the MAGA world. After repeatedly claiming that there were scandalous criminal details about Epstein being hidden from the public, now some of those same people having joined.

the Trump administration are saying there's nothing to see. But key figures from the president's base allege that a cover-up continues. Leading that charge is far-right activist and conspiracy theorist Laura Lumer. She told Politico that there should be a special counsel appointed to the Epstein case. Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI director Cash Patel, and deputy director Dan Bongino have each stoked ominous conspiracy theories about what's referred to as the Epstein Files, allegedly a secret list of powerful people who had connections to Epstein. But Patel, once he became FBI director, tried to temper expectations. So on the Epstein matter or any other matters, we are diligently working on that. And it takes

time to go through years of investigations, years of political maneuvering, and years of cover-up to get the American people what they deserve. And that's what I'm going to give them on everything. Then last week, the Justice Department and FBI released a memo saying there was no client list and that there would be no more information disclosed. Parts of the MAGA base erupted. Influential right-wing broadcaster Alex Jones broke down in tears over the news. And then for them to do something like this, it tears my guts up.

At a conservative political conference on Friday, Fox News host Laura Ingraham egged the crowd on about Epstein. How many of you are satisfied, you can clap, satisfied with the results of the Epstein investigation. Clap. How many of you are not satisfied with the results of the investigation? Ingram told the crowd there was, quote, some family disagreement between the Attorney General and Bongino. Don't exaggerate what you don't got. and don't over-promise and under-deliver. Patel has seemingly disavowed his earlier claims, writing that, quote,

the conspiracy theories just aren't true, never have been. President Trump argues that his administration and supporters shouldn't, quote, waste time and energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about. But with this MAGA rift, Democrats see an opening. Democrats didn't put the Jeffrey Epstein thing into the public domain. This was a conspiracy that Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, and these MAGA extremists have been fanning the flames of for the last several years. And now the chickens are coming home to roost.

And joining us now to discuss that case, plus more of the day's political news, is Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. Welcome to you both. So nice to see you. With me here. Amy, I want to start with you. This Epstein case continues to royal the MAGA world. I mean, there's a sizable chunk of the president's base who believes that they have been betrayed, that there are other villains that need to be named and shamed

and potentially prosecuted. Steve Bannon was out recently saying that he believes this handling of the Epstein case could cost the GOP 40 potential house seats in the midterms. Is it that big of an issue? Yeah, it's hard to believe that this is an issue that is going to continue to be as hot a year from now as it is today. So whether it is going to have an influence on 2026, that does seem unlikely. What it does highlight, though, are a couple of things.

The first is the role in which what we call now non-traditional media figures have in this new, constructed Republican Party. We call it MAGA. And the folks who are the most engaged in bringing in new members of MAGA are folks who aren't on traditional media. They have podcasts. They have YouTube channels and they have a lot of following. And those followers are the ones that they are spending their most time engaging with. Now, some of them may not end up showing up to vote for Donald Trump, but it is a, I think the point is that these folks have an undue influence within the party. The second is the degree to which the bind that keeps this party together, that keeps MAGA together, is the idea that there are elites, there are institutions that have had

like a chokehold on the American public and that it is the job of Trump and those who support him to unmask them. That has not happened in this Epstein case. Tam, the president has said several times recently, Epstein, why do you keep talking about Epstein? I mean, his critics point out, that could be that he wants to not draw too much attention

to the videos that exist of him and Epstein hanging out together. But he clearly wants this to be over. Does he have the political will to bend the party to make it go away? Yeah, I mean, certainly this is an uncomfortable moment for the president. This is his base expressing disappointment with him and the celebrities of his base expressing disappointment with him. But you already see a little bit of a shift, a little bit of movement. Some people not being as loudly upset about it as they were, say, on Friday.

And so it will be interesting to watch whether the sort of the MAGA celebrities, whether the president is able to get the MAGA celebrities to sort of move in his direction and get the public, you know, to get rank and file people to then move in that direction. Or whether this feeling of betrayal persists and lasts beyond this. Clearly, he put out that social media post. It was very long. And he was trying to wear. earlier in the week. He said, we don't have time for this. He once again was like, come on, please. His White House also was saying anybody who sort of gins this up is undermining the administration. But the undermining was coming from within. It was coming from his supporters. It wasn't the Democrats that were the problem this time. It wasn't the other guys that he's, that he, that he often, um, demagogues. It was his own supporters who were expressing such disappointment. That said, you know, his own supporters, many of them initially expressed a lot

of disappointment with the airstrikes in Iran. And then pretty quickly they got back in line. And so it will be interesting to watch what happens there, whether he's able to get them back. Amy, I want to ask about this rescissions package we were just talking about with Lisa. As she was reporting, this package faces a critical deadline this Friday. And as Lisa was detailing, there are some conservative Republican, maybe not conservatives, but Republican holdouts that might like to tweak this.

Again, to this point that Tam is making, does Trump have the continued iron grip to force this through as he did with his one big beautiful bill? It sure seems like he does. I would argue that if he got the holdouts on that one big beautiful bill, many of whom said very bad things

about that big beautiful bill. before they went on to vote for it, it sure seems likely that he will get his wish on this one as well. Tim, I want to shift to this issue of immigration. We've seen one judge out in Southern California who is ruled against the presidents and the administration's ICE tactics saying you can't basically stop people without probable cause. That applies just to Southern California. There are still these kinds of raids and arrests happening on street corners all over the country. Do you have any sense as to what the public believes about these? Are people outraged by what they are seeing, or are they thinking this is what he promised and this is what he's delivering? Well, this is definitely what he promised.

He promised mass deportations. He and people in his administration when he was running for office and now while he is in office are talking about what life would look like without all the undocumented immigrants in America. The president has been very clear on this for a very long time. This is his agenda. What we also know, though, is that there has been local pushback when people that someone knows are getting swept up in it. And there also has been some softening in the polls of support for the president's handling of immigration,

and that includes softening among Republicans and importantly independent voters. Interesting. Before I let you guys go, I do just want to flag one big event that's happening this Wednesday. This is the Congressional Women's baseball game. You two are active members, as is Lisa, as are other members of the NewsHour team. You are playing the women's congressional softball team that raises money for breast cancer.

Tickets are available still for people who want to pay attention. Otherwise, you can see it live streamed on the Monumental Sports Network. Any predictions? Well, I predict that we win. But I also predict that we will raise awareness that young people, that young women can and do get breast cancer. And that's what this is about, in addition to providing an opponent for members of Congress so that they can come together against us. Tamara Keith, catcher of the bad news babes, Amy Walter, pitcher of the bad news babes. Thank you both so much.

You're welcome. I'm welcome. Superman was one of these summer's most eagerly anticipated blockbusters, and this new Man of Steel delivered with a big opening weekend. Jeffrey Brown sat down with a pair of film critics recently to share their top picks for several summer movies, including the big releases, a few comedies, and some lesser-known choices available via streaming.

It's part of our arts and culture series, Canvas. us. Whether it's the latest reboot or a smaller film, we have some movie ideas for you this summer. They come from Mike Sargent, host of the podcast, Brown and Black, and co-president of the Black Film Critic Circle, and Anne Hornaday, chief film critic for The Washington Post. And welcome back to both of you. So, you know, I thought Superman is the new film, right? And everybody kind of knows Superman. So maybe you both should take a quick crack at this. Mike, you want to start? What did you think about Superman? Well, I enjoyed it. I thought it was entertaining.

I thought it was smart of him to kind of just drop us in, like, third season. We all know his origin. We didn't need that again. We know his relationship with Lois. We know his relationship with Lex. And I think that that's what they really play upon. And that's probably the best stuff in there. You know, we get to see Super Dog and whatnot.

But I thought it was entertaining. Not great. It doesn't reinvent the wheel, but definitely an entertaining take on Superman. You have a dog. You know, as Mike said, James Gunn, the director, is trying to lighten up. I mean, the franchise has gotten very dark and serious in recent years, and I think that was what I appreciated most. It's frenetic.

It does drop you right into all the things as they're going on. He's not only introducing a new cast with David McCornswett and Rachel Brosnahan and Nicholas Holt, but he's setting up other movies. He's introducing new characters, so there's a whole lot going on, and some of that frenetic energy didn't work for me. but by the end, you know, I really kind of had settled into it and did find it very entertaining, and I think it's a terrific cast.

Okay, so there's Superman. Now, there's a whole lot of other reboots and big franchise blockbusters. Mike, give us maybe two of those kind of big pictures that you want to recommend. Well, okay, I would recommend, believe it or not, 28 years later. This is not, I'm not a huge zombie movie fan,

but I thought that this was actually better than the first two. I thought it was imaginative. I thought it was edited very well. I thought it was artistic and creative. It's probably the most artistic and creative zombie movie I've ever seen in my life. And I also have to say a film I haven't seen that I really want to see

and I didn't think I would is The Naked Gun. Hi, Daddy, it's me, Frank Jr. Love you. Hey, Dad. Boy, do I miss you. The Naked Gun, that reboot, I think that it couldn't be better. I think that the idea of getting Liam Neeson at this point, point in his career is sort of like Leslie Nielsen, where he was in his career.

Who are you? Drebman, Detective Frank Trevin. Formerly having done serious stuff and almost mocking himself. So I'm looking forward to this reboot. Huh. So he went with zombies and full-on comedy, right? What have you got? Well, you know, I'm a big F-1 fan.

F-1, the movie came out earlier this summer. And to me, it just is the quintessential summer blockbuster. With a big star? A big star in Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem and the wonderful Carrie Condon. Again, a wonderful cast done by the same team that did Top Gun Maverick a couple of years ago. And they just, they know how to do these sort of big action spectacles. And it's kind of classically entertaining in that way. We had Mission Impossible, the Final Reckoning, which a lot of people, you know, the title indicates.

Another big celebrity, right? big, big star. And another, just that kind of classic, big scale spectacle. And maybe it looks like all the signs are pointing to the final one. So just for old times sake, I would recommend people go to that one. I need you to trust me. One last time. All right.

How about a couple of smaller films maybe that don't get quite the blockbuster attention? Mike, what have you got? I have to recommend a film called 40 Acres. And this is a film that I didn't know anything about. I went into it. I had no idea that it was a dystopian story about the world has been a famine and, you know, lots of people have died. And Danielle Deadweiler plays a mom who's an ex-military mom who has got a farm and she's got to create a fortress literally because there are cannibals. There are all kinds of things that have happened. Of course, society is broken down. We're waiting on no revenge. They're going to end up dead anyway.

This is a first feature film from writer-direction. R.T. Thorne, who's a Canadian black filmmaker, and it's terrific. So I highly recommend that. The other film that I like this year that I have to recommend, if you're a science fiction fan, is a film called Companion. And this is also a film that I really didn't know what it was going in. It's writer-director Drew Hancock. It stars Jack Quaid and Sophie Thatcher. She plays, oh, an AI robot companion. Really, really good science fiction, the kind of science fiction that it's not. not about the effects, but it's about the concept and what it has to say about the human condition. All right. And on her day, a couple of smaller films? Well, you know, Celine's song made a

breakthrough movie a couple of years ago with past lives and her sophomore. Yeah, wonderful film. And she's made her next movie as materialists with Dakota Johnson and Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal. And, you know, I think Celine's song is trying to confront a lot of really thorny issues about dating and relationships, and especially around issues of class and looks and those sort of surface superficial values that people don't like to admit matter to them. I like the way you pick up the bill.

I do it really well, don't I? She's trying to get into the psychological depth of that. So being marketed as a rom-com, but it's a little bit more dramatic than that, and I thought it was interesting. There's one that's just rolling out now called Toa Land Unknown by a filmmaker named Madi Fleifel. It's about two young Palestinian men in Athens who are on there trying to make their way to Germany to start a new life.

And it has this kind of 70s energy, this sort of realism, naturalism, but with a little bit of poetry thrown in there. I just thought it was it had a lot of really interesting mood and atmosphere behind it. And it's a story that in one sense is timeless and another feels utterly new. and urgent. So I strongly urge people to check that one out. We got time for maybe one final bonus pick. It could just be something that, you know, either surprised you or that you find yourself still telling friends about because they might not have heard about it. Mike, what have you got? I've got to recommend a film called K-pop Demon Hunters, which is an animated fantasy. It is. It blends K-pop,

girl energy, and demon sling. And it's got a really fun soundtrack. And it's, It's a film from Maggie Kang and Chris Appalachans, and it's doing a lot better than Elio, which is the Pixar film because it's so much more original and so much more interesting. The world will know you as pop stops. But you will do much more than that. You have to appreciate just how much fun at the energy,

and there's a reason why it's doing so well. All right, Anne, you got one bonus pick. You know, the one that really snuck up on me is a movie called The Life of Chuck by a guy named Mike Flanagan, who has a huge following on Netflix with his horror series. This is not a horror movie.

It is adapted from a Stephen King short story. It's a coming-of-age movie that's dealing with identity and mortality and the end of the world, and it has some terrific dance sequences, one performed by Tom Hiddleston, the other by Jacob Tremblay. It's just a very quirky, humanistic, sweet movie

that I was thinking about for, days and days afterwards. All right, some of the great and good movies to see this summer. Anne Hornaday and Mike Sargent, thank you both very much. Thank you. Thank you. And you can see the full list recapping our critics' movie recommendations online at pbs.org slash news hour. And that's the NewsHour for tonight. I'm William Brangham. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team, thank you so much for joining us.