PBS News Hour - Full Show - July 17, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

Thursday on the News Hour, with the rescission bill in the House for a final vote, we look at the impact on public broadcasting. We speak to the president of Planned Parenthood to discuss the fallout of funding cuts to that organization. Plus, amid a violent week in Syria, we examine the state of the fragile new nation in a fraught region. 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 rescissions bill goes back to the House for a final vote. We look at the impact on public broadcasting. This is such an American institution trusted by people across political divides. And what's so short sighted about it, I think, is that this affects mostly rural communities. We speak to the president of Planned Parenthood to discuss the fallout of funding cuts

to that organization. Planned Parenthood is a part of the public health infrastructure. We are a safety net of safety nets. And amid a violent week in Syria, we examine the state of that fragile new nation. Welcome to the NewsHour. The clock is ticking for Congress to claw back more than $9 billion of federal funding

for programs including foreign aid and public media. Tomorrow is the final deadline for the House to pass the so-called rescissions package, which is a priority for President Trump. Lisa Desjardins joins me now with the latest. Lisa, bring us up to speed where this rescissions bill is. Well, the House is preparing to vote. My reporting is it will happen very late tonight or perhaps in the early morning hours.

This is the final vote needed to pass these immediate cuts. And my reporting is that the votes are in fact there. Those who have opposed this in the past told me today that now they are more or less on board. There may still be a few no Republican votes, but this is on track to pass later tonight. Now, it should go without saying, this is a major victory for President Trump and his ability to sway Congress. Many Republicans did not want to vote on this, thought this was really not worth their time.

It's not really a lot of money in the scheme of the whole federal budget. And many of them privately would have voted no if it was a secret ballot vote. But this is on track to pass in the next hours. Given that, we've talked about this quite a bit over the last few weeks, this is going to have some impacts. Let's talk about those impacts on public broadcasting. Right. The public broadcasting portion is $1.1 billion. It's the smaller portion, but it is the only portion

where funding is completely eliminated. All of the funding for public broadcasting for the next two years is eliminated here. Very significant. Now, NPR has, their CEO has put out a statement saying this is a risk to public safety because of potential cuts to emergency broadcasts, for example, and also PBS's CEO, Paula Kerger, put out a statement

today as well. She wrote, these cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas. We put together a map using Corporation of Public Broadcasting data of the rural stations most at risk. These are stations around the country where they depend on 40% or more of their funding from the federal government. These are the ones most at risk.

You see a large number of them in Alaska, but they are all over the country, notably not on the eastern seaboard, really not in major cities. These are the rural areas that are in trouble or could have trouble. What will happen with these stations? Well, it is going to be a months long progress.

I know a lot of our viewers are watching on those stations right now. And each station will have to sort out how they move forward, what their needs are. Do they depend more on their viewers? Do they work together with other stations? Can they survive this? It is a critical historical moment for stations that have been around for generations. Now, there is one other piece of reporting I want to raise. There was a side deal that I have reporting on

made by Don Bacon of Nebraska, who voted yes, ultimately, there he is, for this deal that had to do with PBS funding. Now, here is what he told me earlier this month about the side deal. He wrote, he said, quote, "'I got a commitment to make sure PBS is funded this year from speaker Johnson And I trust the speaker that commitment supposedly is to take place in September

But there are real questions about how that works. He again told me today they do trust the speaker. We will have to see Public media separately there's also as you've reported quite a bit so much about foreign aid in this bill You did report earlier this week how PEPFAR, the HIV AIDS program, was pulled out of that, but there are still major cuts for foreign aid. Tell us about that. Right, those cuts to PEPFAR, those are off the table now. That program will survive completely intact right now.

But let's take a look at those other cuts in foreign aid. Now, four billion of that is economic and democratic programs, really fostering democracy in other countries, as well as the economies of countries where the United States is worried about potential economic or political collapse. $800 million is for shelter, water needs, sanitation, and also family reunification. $500 million for countries facing natural disasters, again, some of those basic needs. So while we've been talking about PEPFAR and HIV, these are also day-to-day living needs,

and this is money that will be cut off as soon as the president signs this bill. There are longer-term implications to this, right? Yes, there are significant longer-term implications,. I'm very happy to talk about them because what this is doing is it is setting in motion an entirely new way of funding using government's funding power. We expect as soon as this is signed, maybe more rescissions offers from the president, more requests. And what this does is all of the funding that is being cut here was passed by Congress with 60 votes in the Senate, but it's being cut by just over 50 votes. So it's changing the dynamic so that the White House has the funding power.

The Senate's 60-vote margin really is not as important anymore. So what the president can do here is just continue to cut, cut, cut, no matter what Congress spends. It is yet another shift toward presidential power. It is huge, titanic developments here. One other piece of news from Capitol Hill today. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a nominee to a very, a controversial nominee to a very important court.

Update us on that. That's right. We've covered it here before. This is Emil Bovi. He right now is the number three official at the Department of Justice. He's in his 40s. He has a is the number three official at the Department of Justice. He's in his 40s. He has a long history. He has been a clerk in courts, a prosecutor, also was a defense attorney for President

Donald Trump. A lot of controversy over his demeanor, but also over his role specifically in helping fire prosecutors who went after President Trump in the January 6th case, as well as his role in that plea deal with the New York City Mayor Eric Adams, the dropping of charges there. Now, the controversy really bubbled up today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republicans moved forward his nomination. But Democrats wanted more time to debate, and so they acted in protest today in that

committee. There you see they stood up because they wanted more time to talk about this nominee and they left the room in protest. Now, there was some debate a little bit in committee day and there was a back and forth over who is the problem here? Is it Democrats for opposing this nominee or is it Republicans for pushing him forward? This is us simply trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we've had under this presidential administration. Sir, God bless America. You are a good man.

You are a decent man. Why are you doing this? What is Donald Trump saying to you that are making you do something which is violating the decorum of this committee? The vicious partisan attacks and obstruction of nominees that we've seen from Democrats this Congress has to stop. One day, roles will reverse again. And my colleagues will want the same fairness for nominees of their president that they

refuse to extend to President Trump's nominees. Quickly, I want to play the sound of the judge who signed a letter who expressed why he's concerned about this. Mr. Boevey has great experience as a lawyer. However, implicit in his resume is that he engaged in some questionable ethical behavior as a prosecutor, including being sanctioned by a judge. He has been the architect of a purge in the Department of Justice where he has systematically fired career prosecutors who were engaged in the January 6th prosecution. Bovi told senators though that's a wildly inaccurate representation of him and he's just an attorney.

He is on track to get this important nomination and confirmation. Lisa, thank you so much. You're welcome. We begin the day's other headlines with a stunning development in the Breonna Taylor case. The Justice Department is recommending a one-day sentence for Brett Hankison, the former Kentucky police officer who was convicted in the 2020 killing of Ms. Taylor during a botched home raid. Her death sparked nationwide protests against racial injustice.

Last year, a jury convicted Hankison of violating Taylor's civil rights when he fired several shots through her window. DOJ officials say his prosecution was excessive and point out that he did not hit or injure anyone. Hankison will be sentenced next week and faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. The White House now offered a rare window into President Trump's health today,

saying he'd undergone testing for mild swelling in his legs. Press Secretary Caroline Levitt confirmed that the 79-year-old is suffering from what's called chronic venous insufficiency, which occurs when leg veins struggle to pump blood back up to the heart. Levitt said it's a common and benign condition for those over 70.

The White House also said recent bruising on the president's hand relates to his, quote, frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin. Overall, Levitt said, the president remains in excellent health. Turning overseas, in Iraq, officials say a fire at a newly opened shopping center killed more than 60 people, including children.

Funerals were underway for the deceased today, though at least 14 bodies are still unidentified. The blaze broke out late last night in the eastern city of Qut, leaving the mall an empty shell just a week after it opened. Local officials say the cause is still under investigation, but that legal cases have been filed against the building and shopping center owners. They've been offering no details yet on what charges they face. An Israeli shell hit the compound of the only Catholic Church in Gaza today, killing at least three people and injuring ten others.

The Holy Family Catholic Church was sheltering hundreds of Christians and Muslims on its grounds. Among those wounded was the priest, who used to speak with the late Pope Francis about the war. A funeral was held today at a separate church where community members mourned two of those killed. Today we stood at the burial of citizen Saad Salama, who was a guard for the church, and Mrs. Fumia Ayad, an educator who was a school principal and teacher of generations. They were coming out of their prayers when they were killed. Pope Leo released a statement expressing his, quote, profound hope for dialogue, reconciliation

and enduring peace in the region. Israel issued a rare apology for the shelling and said it's investigating. The UK is planning to lower its voting age from 18 to 16 before the next general election. The governing Labour Party announced the move today, saying it's aimed at boosting participation in the democratic process. Critics say it's an attempt to alter the electorate

in their favor. Roughly 1.6 million people in Britain are aged 16 or 17. That's about 3% of the population. The plan is seen as the biggest expansion of UK voting rights since the age fell from 21 to 18 back in 1969. If approved by Parliament, the UK would join Austria, Brazil and Ecuador in allowing 16-year-olds to vote in national elections.

Back in this country, the Food and Drug Administration is allowing Juul to continue selling its e-cigarettes in the U.S. Officials determine that its benefits as a less harmful alternative for adult smokers outweigh the risks of young people using the product. It's welcome relief for the company, which has been blamed for creating a vaping trend among teens. In 2022, the FDA banned its products from shelves, but soon reversed course and agreed to a scientific review.

The FDA's decision covers both tobacco and menthol flavored versions of its products. The Steve Miller Band is canceling its US tour due to concerns over extreme weather. In a statement, the 81-year-old classic rocker said that extreme heat, flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, and fires, quote, make these risks for you, our audience, the band and the crew, unacceptable. Miller's tour was set to begin next month with stops including New York, Florida and California. This cancellation comes after extreme weather events

affected the Bonnaroo Festival in Tennessee in June and last week's Rock the Country event in Kentucky. And on Wall Street today, stocks rose after some better than expected economic reports. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added more than 200 points on the day. The Nasdaq climbed more than 150 points to hit a new record. The S&P 500 also closed at a new all-time high. And the singer Connie Francis has died. ["Bet Your Bottom Dollar," by Frances Hicks, playing in background.]

She had more than a dozen top 20 hits in the late 1950s and early 60s, with songs like Lipstick on Your Collar and Who's Sorry Now. Frances started singing as a child and signed a record contract when she was a teenager. But her later life was troubled. She was raped at Knife Point in 1974 and was committed to a psychiatric hospital by her father in the 1980s. Earlier this year, though, she came back into the public eye

when her song Pretty Little Baby blew up, TikTok. She was hospitalized two weeks ago for extreme pain. Connie Francis was 87 years old. Still to come on the NewsHour, public media faces tough choices as Republicans slash federal funding. The IRS looks to share personal data with immigration agents as deportations ramp up. Journalist Jose Antonio Vargas discusses an update

to his book about undocumented immigrants. This is the PBS NewsHour 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. and in the West from the Wofford Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. As we've heard, the House is moving to revoke a billion dollars in already approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that steers taxpayer funds to PBS, NPR, and public media stations. To talk about the potential impact on PBS,

we turn to one of this network's most acclaimed and most watched filmmakers and directors, Ken Burns. The Ken Burns collection on PBS includes more than 40 documentaries on a wide range of subjects, including the Civil War, baseball, Vietnam, and country music. His new documentary series, The American Revolution,

is scheduled to premiere on PBS in November. Ken Burns, so good to have you on the program. The federal government, as you well know, has for over five decades supported through CPB public media. That very much looks likely to end starting tomorrow. As someone whose work is so central to this network, how is this news sitting with you? Well, not very well.

I think we're all in a bit of a state of shock and also sort of reeling at the short-sightedness of it all. This is such an American institution trusted by people across political divides, geographic divides, age groups, and what's so short-sighted about it I think is that this affects mostly rural communities or the hardest hit. My own films probably get somewhere around 20% of any given budget from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

That's a significant hit. We'll scramble. We'll have to make it up. I'm confident that with the extra work, it will happen. But it's those projects at the national level that might get 50 or 60, maybe even 75% of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, they just won't be able to be made. And so there'll be less representation by all the different kinds of filmmakers.

People coming up will have an impossible time getting started. I think the first film that I made and was broadcast by PBS in the early 80s called Brooklyn Bridge had money from CPB and from various CPB programs. And so there's a kind of pall that we feel. My biggest thing is I travel around the system all the time and I meet in big markets and small markets and you begin to see the way in which,

particularly in those small rural markets, the PBS station is really like the public library. It's one of those important institutions. It may be the only place where people have access to local news, that the local station is going to the city council meeting. They're going to the school board meeting. They're going to the school board meeting, they're going to the zoning board, there's a kind of sense of local accountability and as news becomes nationalized and even internationalized, there's a loss there.

It's not just, they're not just losing the prime time schedule, they're losing also context with emergency alert systems and homeland security and continuing education in classroom in the air, along with our with children's programming and prime time. So there's a sense that this is an incredibly short sighted move to do this. There are so many unknowns about how this will play out. I mean, the leaders of PBS and NPR and the NewsHour have said, we are not going away. We will keep doing our work.

But given that there are so many institutions getting cuts, public education, public health, medical research, do you think that PBS writ large, public media writ large, will be able to fill this funding gap, given there are so many other outstretched hands? Well, Les, that's a really wonderful question. I think the answer has to be yes. We're not giving up.

One of my films that you mentioned is baseball, and Yogi Berra said, it ain't over until it's over. And I do not think it's over. And I think we're going to keep trying to make our case. And I think the absence of us will be particularly pronounced. And I think people across the aisle, this is not a political thing. This is the most American of institutions. People across the aisle will be suddenly realizing, oh, I think we've gone a little bit too far

and find ways to appropriate. You know, I've been working for the last decade on a film about the American Revolution. And one of the things, of course, at the heart of it is all of those great ideas, particularly the second sentence of the Declaration, which ends with, for most Americans, a kind of inscrutable phrase, the pursuit of happiness.

The key word in that is not happiness, I think, but pursuit. And I think a lot of people have understood happiness to mean the acquisition of things in a marketplace of objects. But what the founders actually meant was lifelong learning in a marketplace of ideas. That in order to be this new thing that had not existed in the world, which is what makes the revolution such an important moment, we were creating citizens, not subjects. And it was the opinion of all of the founders that these citizens had to be educated, that education had to be part of it and had to be continuing education. Otherwise, you couldn't be virtuous. But I think we're all kind of committed to redoubling our efforts and making

our case for restoring funding in some way, shape or form, perhaps in appropriations as we approach the new budget in whatever. It just seems like there's no need, there was no need to have to reinvent the wheel that I think we're now being forced to do. As you well know, Republican administrations going back decades have been trying to cut public media funding, alleging that there is an inherent liberal bias. How do you push back on that allegation? Well, I push back everywhere. William F. Buckley, a noted conservative thinker, had a program on PBS called Firing Line for 32 years.

That program is still going on. It's still moderated by a conservative. And so I think somehow we have to separate what becomes the ideological football of the moment, this idea. And it's a legitimate argument that the government shouldn't be in any way involved in this. So though every government on earth is, course involved in it in some ways. And then the fact that it is so woven into the fabric of our American community is such a patriotic thing.

The brand itself of PBS is the most trusted in the country that I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. And I think we've got an obligation to the people who depend on us to make sure that we can come back as vibrantly as I know we will. We will continue to do it. We'll still have those programings.

But I'm still worried about that small town in Nebraska or South Dakota or Alaska that is suddenly really in the greatest existential crisis they've ever had. And their citizens will be bereft of the services that the public broadcasting service, not system, offers them. Ken Burns, always great to talk to you. Thank you so much. Thank you. [♪upbeat music playing -♪ [♪upbeat music playing -♪

[♪upbeat music playing -♪ Since President Trump signed his sweeping domestic policy bill into law, one key provision, which prevents Planned Parenthood clinics from receiving Medicaid funding, has already been blocked by a federal judge after the organization sued. Tomorrow, Judge Indira Talwani will hear the first arguments in the case since she issued a temporary restraining order. Joining us now to discuss this further is the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood,

Alexis McGill Johnson. Thank you so much for being here. As I mentioned, Judge Talwani has already said that she believes your case is likely to succeed in proving that parts of this law are unconstitutional. What is the argument you're making in this suit? You know, ultimately, this case is about the fact that this reconciliation bill is devastating to patients and the entire healthcare system,

all because of a decades long plan to target and defund Planned Parenthood. We see our argument and our best case is to expose the naked attempt to attack and really punish Planned Parenthood, not simply for providing access to not simply for providing access to abortion care, which we know Medicaid does not cover, but in fact to be a strong advocate and vocal rights supporter for abortion access across this country. And so we are leaning heavily on the First Amendment

to protect our right to free speech and our right to association, because we believe that that is a fundamental freedom that should protect everyday Americans who seek access to health care from the providers who fight so hard on their behalf. If, as you're saying, though, that Medicaid doesn't cover abortion, why was this so crucial for Planned Parenthood? I mean, what would happen if your suit failed

and Medicaid was blocked? Well, in fact, Medicaid is an insurance provider, as we know, for low-income communities, and half of all Planned Parenthood patients rely on Medicaid to get care. Planned Parenthood is a part of the public health infrastructure. We are a safety net of safety nets.

And so taking away access to Medicaid for patients who need sexual reproductive health care services in largely rural communities or medically underserved areas is devastating on the communities that are being served. Planned Parenthood providers, just like any other health care provider, deserve to be reimbursed for the services that they provide, whether they are being reimbursed under a program like Medicaid or private insurance. And so we think it is fundamentally unconstitutional to target an organization like Planned Parenthood simply because we support abortion rights.

Conservatives have argued that this isn't about Planned Parenthood, per se, but it's about the power of Congress to decide where taxpayer dollars are spent. Some of those legislators also argue that they just simply don't want any money to support abortion care, reproductive care at all. What is your counter to that? The way this law was designed was specifically

to target Planned Parenthood as a provider and our associated organizations, affiliated organizations. So when you design a law that intends to just trap one organization at best two, in it that is really a targeted backdoor abortion ban because they know that by attacking the resources that Planned Parenthood gets for providing things like STI testing and treatment for providing birth control for providing, you know, wellness exams and breast cancer screenings. Those are the sorts of things that are being defunded in this egregious law. And access to abortion is really just a backdoor ban while they take away access to the other services. There was a recent KFF poll that indicated that 46 percent of Republicans in the U.S. oppose defunding Planned Parenthood.

But nearly all the Republicans in Congress voted for the law that does exactly what you're arguing. How do you explain that mismatch? I think what we have is a Congress that has been heavily gerrymandered, meaning the districts have been designed to essentially elect some of the most extreme Republicans who are out of step with their constituents. State by state, as you have seen, and ballot initiative after ballot initiative, states like Kentucky and Montana, and Ohio and Michigan, Kansas,

states that are purple or red at best, have all voted in support of reproductive freedom one way or another. But we also know it is incredibly close. This bill passed with just the bare minimum margin in both the House and the Senate. All of those Republican senators who voted to defund Planned Parenthood are now vulnerable in many ways because of their constituents that are going to be harmed in the areas that they are serving. I want to ask you just one broader picture question here. I mean, it's been three years since Roe was overturned.

I'm just curious how you all are approaching this moment with an administration and some state legislatures that seem determined to double down on these attacks on reproductive and abortion care. I will tell you that every single day Planned Parenthood health centers open up their doors, right? The people who are truly on the front line of fighting tyranny, they walk through protesters, they ensure safe passage for patients into clinics, and they deliver the most incredible, high quality, time sensitive, life affirming care imaginable.

I won't say it is not a challenge, obviously to do it in a climate that has been determined to tear us down at every fight, to deny our ability to make the most basic healthcare decisions about our own bodies. And yet, in true admiration, they show up because they know that when people are denied the opportunity to make decisions about their lives, then they are denied the opportunity to determine their futures. And we know most Americans are with us on that. And that is also what keeps us going.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM. All right. That is Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Today in Syria, violence continued between rival factions even after a ceasefire deal happened yesterday. Government troops withdrew overnight from Soweta. As Israel said, it would not allow Syrian forces south of Damascus, extending Israel's attempted control of that area.

Stephanie Sy updates the situation and then looks at this new nation's fragile stability. And a warning, images in this report may disturb some viewers. Today in southern Syria, a massacre armed Jews militias chase, tortured and killed Bedouin tribe members, including women and children. An act of apparent vengeance after Bedouin attacks on Sunday escalated into conflict. The brutality comes despite a fragile ceasefire agreement signed yesterday between the Syrian government, the Druze Union and local tribal leaders in Soweta. But the conflict is not just local.

Israeli strikes Wednesday on the presidential Palace and Defense Ministry headquarters in Damascus raised the stakes. Today, U.S. State Department spokesperson Tamarie Bruce said the U.S. did not support those strikes. TAMARIE BRUCE, U.S. State Department Spokesperson, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of

Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the violence. All parties must step back and engage in meaningful dialogue that leads to a lasting ceasefire. The U.S. has supported the interim Syrian government led by Ahmed Alshara, a former jihadist who has promised peace. Ten days ago, the U.S. lifted its terrorist designation on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, his former armed rebel group, now part of the interim government. And in May, al-Sharah met with President Trump, a day after Trump lifted sanctions on Syria.

An array of groups hold sway in the country. In the northeast, the Kurdish-Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the United States. And in the northwest, swaths of territory are controlled by Turkish-backed militias. Other opposition groups hold pockets of power in the south, and Israel occupies and controls the Golan Heights. Since the new interim government came into power in late March, instability has been rife. The nation's many factions and tribes have come head to head. In March, 1,500 Alawites, a religious minority that once controlled Syria under the 50-year Assad family dictatorship, were slaughtered by forces of the new government.

This, after former officers loyal to ousted President Bashar al-Assad attempted a coup in Latakia, once the Assad dynastic power base. And while interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharah denounced the killings and vowed justice, his own government has been criticized for aiding and abetting Syria's instability. Today, Al-Shara promised to protect the Druze. I also address the Druze people. We assure you that protecting your rights and freedom is one of our priorities, and we reject any effort that aims to drag you to an external party

or to create division within our ranks. But long-standing divisions continue to threaten Syria. After today's bloodshed, the Bedouins have already vowed another round of revenge. To break down the recent developments in Syria and its regional and geopolitical implications, let's turn to Hassan Hassan, a longtime Syrian analyst and the founder and editor in chief of New Lines magazine joining us today from Virginia. Hassan, it's great to have you on the news hour. I want to jump right in to what triggered the appalling violence we're seeing in Soweta

where clashes erupted between these Druze militias and Sunni Bedouin tribes. What started this? So this was a long simmering problem in Syria over the past few months, but what happened this time is that Israel poured gas into it basically. Over the past few months, especially over like the past seven months since the Assad regime fell, this is a regime that ruled Syria for almost 60 years, the new government controlled most of Syria except for four provinces. One of these is closer to Israel, and it's dominated by the Druze. And those refused to be part of the government. There is one Druze leader backed by Israel who refused basically to be part of the new

government, considered kind of an extremist government, and he refused to be part of that. That was the source of tensions that kind of triggered many incidents of violence over the past seven months. Right. So Israel, though, says they are there. They bombed Damascus yesterday to protect this Druze minority. Do they have other reasons for why they would target Damascus and want to see this government that is still trying to consolidate and unify Syria, which

isn't easy. Do they have other reasons to want that destabilization? Israel does, yes. So Israel has its own reasons. It has been concerned about this new regime in Syria, regards it as a jihadist-dominated regime because the current president is a former jihadist. So Israel thinks that it has security concerns that it cannot trust this new regime. They think that this regime, backed by Turkey and Syria, is basically a future threat that Israel cannot just allow to stabilize the country and control the

whole country for the long run. On the other hand, Hassan, the transitional government itself led by President Al-Shara has been accused of its treatment of the Druze minority and we just talked about in the piece about a massacre against the Alawites a few months ago. So in both cases in March, when incidents happen or clashes between the Syrian government or pro-government forces in the Kosovo region, the Western region of Syria,

and now in the southern parts of Syria against the Druze or between the Druze and the government, both incidents were triggered, objectively speaking, by the Alawites and the Druze. But the violence that perpetrated against the Alawites and the Druze have raised concerns about how a new government treats minorities. This is a real concern for both Syrians and for outsiders, especially that many of these atrocities, at least according to the government, are committed by pro-government forces that are, you know, tend to be radical extremists, and they don't follow the orders. The orders from Damascus.

And yet there are a lot of international players, including the United States government, continuing to support the interim government and Al-Shara. Is the violence that we've seen in the last few days has gone existential to his ability to hold the country together? Personally, I don't think these, the problems in Sweda with the Druze or even in the coastal region with the Alawites are existential problems for the new order in Syria. The majority of Syrians, they believe that the return of the Assad regime or a new order that's not Sunni-dominated will not be accepted. So I don't think it's an existential threat in that sense, except if Israel and or the

Israeli policy becomes a U.S. policy, for example. That's when Damascus starts to be worried. Over the past seven months, the authorities in Damascus have tried to engage in peace talks, despite push sometimes, for example, from Turkey to attack the Kurdish, you know, dominated area and retake it by force. Damascus has tried to say, no, let's talk with them and kind of try to peacefully integrate these forces into the government. Even what's happening now, it's a mix of old problems with new complications and then you

have regional interests. What happened in favor of Damascus, the new regime in Syria, is that almost all countries have supported their stability and the US, Europe, Russia, even in Iran and others will all have said the right things in terms of our interest in stabilizing Syria and supporting this government. But this government has to act and behave like a government that represents all Syrians. That is Hassan Hassan of New Lines magazine. Hassan, thank you for your insights.

Thank you for having me. The Trump administration is starting to turn over personal data to immigration authorities to aid its crackdown on undocumented immigrants living in the country. The Associated Press reported today the administration is giving ICE access to data of nearly 80 million people enrolled in Medicaid. And a new report by ProPublica finds the Internal Revenue Service is building a computer program that would give immigration agents unprecedented access to sensitive taxpayer data, including home addresses.

For more on this, we are joined by one of the reporters on that story. Christopher Bing is technology and national security reporter at ProPublica. Christopher, thank you so much for being here. Lay out for us what you discovered. What kind of data does the IRS have and why does DHS want it?

The IRS is really seen within the government as sort of the holy grail when it comes to data. It has a ton of personal identifiable information for the vast number of Americans and also undocumented people that live in this country. And that information includes home addresses, familial relations, employment and information. It also includes information about their banking and financial situation. And so in the hands of immigration enforcement officers, it could really be a treasure trove.

For people who might be surprised by this, people who are undocumented in the U.S. are paying taxes and thus their data is with the IRS? That's exactly right, yeah. The IRS really encourages everyone in the United States who makes an income to pay taxes, and that includes undocumented immigrants. And there's a whole separate category

for immigrants to file taxes. And historically, the way it's been viewed is that these immigrants would pay taxes in the hopes that it would help them in immigration court. It would show their life here, the fact that they're paying taxes, that they're following the law, and they actually viewed it as something that would help them in the immigration process. They never expected that they would then be used against them in this way. So you saw the blueprints for this particular computer program. How would it work in practice? Yeah, it's actually, you know,

the system is still in development, but it is, the experts that we spoke to said it's quite crude in design, and it would basically just ingest a giant spreadsheet created by DHS and by ICE of their targets. This spreadsheet would need to have a few important pieces of information. You'd have the target's name. It would need to have at least the pieces of information. You'd have the target's name.

It would need to have at least the last address that ICE has on file. How complete that address would be is something that I think is still being figured out. It would need to have the criminal statute that they're being investigated. And so far from the discussions that we've had with our sources, it's been quite burdensome for ICE to meet this bar. And that's part of the push and pull that we're seeing internally right now. We know that Melanie Krauss, the acting IRS commissioner, resigned because of details about this coming out.

We've seen two other internal IRS officials, chief counsels, have been pushed out as well. How significant of a change would this program be in terms of IRS policy? The real number of people that have left as a result of this growing partnership with ICE is close to the hundreds, actually. There's been dozens of engineers that have left, lawyers, people in the privacy office, and many of them have left in part

because they view this as unethical. But another part of this is that they actually see the legal risk in doing so. Taxpayer data is among the most protected and strictly regulated in the United States government and disclosing it to an unauthorized party carries a felony of up to five years. So there's a lot of people who have left the agency and that's a little bit unique in the broader Trump administration in terms of the type of pushback that we're seeing. And you know, they're getting closer to launching the system.

It looks like it could launch by the end of July. And so the IRS is unique in that really culturally people are taught from day one that you have to be very careful with taxpayer information. And for them, for many of them, this whole effort kind of breaks that ethos. What has the IRS said in response to your reporting? The IRS has been fairly quiet. The Treasury Department has essentially denounced our reporting, as has the White House. They've said that this is all legal, that this follows with the president's priorities

to deport undocumented immigrants. And they said that there was a court that essentially said this agreement complied with the law, but that court did not review the blueprint that we have seen, and the court only ruled on the broad contours of the agreement. Your story notes, I'm going to read a quote from this, it says that the tax and privacy experts, quote, worry about how such a powerful yet crude platform could make dangerous mistakes. What do you mean by that?

What are the risks here? Yeah, the entire way that the IRS searches for individuals in its database is with an identification number. They have their own identification number and that's where they can find that the crisp thing that they're looking for is in fact the crisp thing that lives in Washington DC

that is supposed to pay this amount of taxes per year. By searching by name, there's an inherent amount of risk there because there could be multiple people with the same name in a specific county, in a specific zip code, and you have the risk of potentially identifying the wrong person. And eventually, in the wrong situation, potentially having deportation officers show up

to that address. And so the sources that we spoke with were concerned about that type of thing, a mistaken identity and of innocent people being caught up in DHS's dragnet. Christopher Bing, a tremendous piece of reporting for ProPublica. Thank you so much. Thank you. While President Trump promised an aggressive approach to immigration, a series of new polls finds public opinion on this issue seems to be shifting. A Gallup poll found just 30 percent of Americans believe immigration should be reduced.

That's compared to 55 percent last year. And a new AP poll out today finds just 43 percent of Americans say the president supports, say they support, the president's handling of this issue. Ali Rogan spoke with one author whose personal story connects to the larger questions many are asking about immigration in America. Amid the public outcry over President Trump's immigration policies, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas released a new edition of his memoir,

Dear America, Notes of an Undocumented Citizen. In 2011, he publicly revealed he was an undocumented immigrant and today is once again stepping into the spotlight to tell his story of how he left the US for the first time since he arrived as a child to begin his process of becoming documented. Here to talk about the questions he struggled with and that millions of others may be coping with now, I'm joined by Jose Antonio Vargas. Thank you so much for being here with us. Thank you for having me. You have a new edition of your book out. Why did you decide to write this new edition now?

This book originally came out during Trump's first presidency. And as you just mentioned, I actually had an opportunity last summer to take advantage of a process of a waiver. And so for the first time to get documented, to follow a process that was not available to me before, I left the country for the first time. You went to Tijuana because you had to be outside the country.

I had to be outside the country. And that was the closest place, right? To have your interview. That was the closest place. And Mexico was the closest place, and they tried to come back. So I was at the mercy of the consulate in Tijuana. So I was there for about six, seven days,

and then thankfully got approved. And so now I'm here. You know, I'm sure everybody knows about the Real ID Act. So if I had not gotten this, I would not have been able to get a Real ID. And I fly all over the country, so not having a Real ID would have been a real problem for me. Let's take a step back. Many folks may know that you revealed I fly all over the country, so not having a real ID would have been a real problem for me.

Let's take a step back. Many folks may know that you revealed your immigration status back in 2011, revealing that you yourself are undocumented. How has your life changed since then? You've written your memoir. You're now experiencing living in this country during this moment in the debate about immigration. The biggest thing, you know, I'm a journalist constitutionally since I was 17 years old. And the thing that I grapple with the most is how immigration is such at the center of

our national dialogue. And yet most Americans know very little about immigration as a process and the facts surrounding undocumented people, or what we call this administration, illegal aliens. So the fact that undocumented people pay taxes and contribute to taxes and have helped keep social security solvent. The fact that most states in this country

do not let undocumented people drive. Texas, 1.8 million undocumented people can't drive. Florida, 1 million can't drive. So if we can't drive, how can we vote? And yet that lie never underestimate how a lie can organize people. And the lies that have been told about undocumented people, the level of miss and disinformation, elected a president twice. And I want to ask you about sentiment which is being shaped

by this national dialogue. Some polls have indicated, including a Gallup poll, that this anti-immigrant sentiment that really has been percolating these few months has begun to die down. So where do you see it from your

perspective? Has it truly? I think what we're seeing is the public finally understands what ICE does. So the fact that ICE is picking up farmers, the fact that they're picking up people who are taking care of kids, the fact that we now are seeing what billions of dollars of immigration enforcement looks like.

And in many ways, silver lining is not the right phrase for this. But something is happening that for the first time in the 14 years I've been doing this work, I have not seen so many people say, wait, this is not okay. And how many, what, $140 billion just got passed so that in the next four years ICE can do what it does? The question now is, as far as I'm concerned, again, having talked to so many Americans in 49 states in the past 14 years, you are the media. You are in charge of the mis and disinformation

that surrounds you when it comes to this issue. You are in charge of stepping up, bearing witness. When someone's getting arrested in front of you, what are you gonna do? And we're seeing that happen, right? At hospitals, at schools, at farms, we're seeing people step up and say, wait a second, that's my neighbor, that's my classmate,

that's my coworker. So in some ways, the Trump administration is breaking this, and it's so broken that finally we can actually ask ourselves, what does a solution look like? Let's talk about some of those solutions. You founded an organization called Define American, where you're working to reshape the perceptions of undocumented people in media, in literature. Tell me more about that work and how it's changing those perspectives.

Again, such a journalistic point of view, which is we can't really debate an issue if we don't have a shared understanding of what the issue is. What are the facts? What are the contexts that shape those facts? And how do we be more responsible? Look, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Again, I've never voted because I'm not allowed to.

But when it comes to this issue, we are not on the same page about what the issue even is. So our job at Define American is, how do we tell stories that are accurate But when it comes to this issue, we are not on the same page about what the issue even is. So our job at Define American is, how do we tell stories that are accurate and they're humane, right? And I think that's been the big problem is the inhumanity that in many ways frames what this conversation is. So that's what we've been doing.

So if you're a Hollywood writer who's trying to make a movie or a TV show, if you're a book writer who's publishing a nonfiction book or a fiction book, if you're a Hollywood writer who's trying to make a movie or a TV show, if you're a book writer who's publishing a nonfiction book or a fiction book, if you're a playwright and you want to tell an immigrant story, you go to us and we help you make sure that what you're talking about when you're talking about undocumented Indian people or undocumented black immigrants, that you have all the information that you need

so you can do this in an accurate, humane way. And in some ways, our own colleagues in journalism have failed. I have to tell you, whenever I watch the White House press briefings and a White House official says something inaccurate about immigration, I'm watching those White House correspondents. Why can't they fact check in real time? Why can't we actually say, wait a second, that's not accurate, some people do it, but for the most part, we just, the lies, the misinformation, the disinformation

become such oxygen, it just becomes part of the air. Jose Antonio Vargas, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me. And that is the NewsHour for tonight. I'm William Brangham. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team, thank you so much for joining us.