PBS News Hour - Full Show - July 23, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: July 23, 2025

Wednesday on the News Hour, the White House cuts artificial intelligence regulations in an effort to compete with China in a technological arms race. The director of national intelligence pushes claims about former President Obama and the 2016 election as Trump faces pressure over the Epstein files. Plus, national parks across the country struggle under drastic funding and staffing cuts. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening, I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the NewsHour tonight, the White House cuts regulations for artificial intelligence in an effort to compete with China in a technological arms race. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard pushes baseless claims about former President Obama and the 2016 election as the White House faces pressure over the Epstein investigation. And national parks across the country struggle under drastic funding and staffing cuts. Our national

parks are really the place that preserves our history and national park Rangers are the most beloved and important storytellers in this nation. Welcome to the NewsHour. More than 100 aid and human rights organizations are warning of an increasingly dire situation in Gaza, as they watch Palestinians, including their own colleagues, quote, waste away from mass starvation. In an open letter, the groups say Israel's restrictions, delays and fragmentation under its total siege have created chaos, starvation and death. Experts have warned that Gaza is on the brink of famine for months now.

Israeli officials dismissed today's letter accusing the groups of, quote, echoing Hamas's propaganda. In the meantime, local health officials say Israeli strikes killed 21 people overnight and into today, including women and children. Israel says it targets militants and blames civilian deaths on Hamas. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky says he's reversing course on a controversial bill that aimed to limit the powers of two anti-corruption agencies, but not before rare protests against his leadership. From Kiev to Kharkiv, Ukrainians voiced their opposition to the bill, which Zelensky signed

into law yesterday. It gives the prosecutor general new powers over two anti-corruption watchdogs. Today, Zelensky said he would submit a new bill to Parliament to restore independence to the agencies. This week's protests are by far the largest anti-government demonstrations since Russia's invasion more than three years ago. There are reports tonight that Attorney General Pam Bondi told President Trump earlier this year that his name appeared in files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

That's according to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The disclosure reportedly came as part of a broader briefing of the case for the president, and his name was one of many cited in the files. White House Communications Director Stephen Chung today said that any suggestion of wrongdoing by Mr. Trump is, quote, fake news. Separately, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena today for Epstein's associate,

Ghislaine Maxwell, to appear for a deposition next month. A subcommittee also voted to subpoena the Justice Department for files on the Epstein investigation, that subpoena still has to be drafted. And a judge in Florida rejected a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from grand jury investigations into Epstein from the years 2005 to 2007. A similar request for the work of a different grand jury in New York is still pending.

The man who murdered four University of Idaho students in 2022 has been sentenced to four consecutive life terms without parole. Brian Coburger broke into a home and brutally stabbed Madison Mogan, Kaylee Gonzalves, Zana Kernodel, and Ethan Chapin. He had pleaded guilty earlier this month in order to avoid the death penalty.

In a Boise court today, friends and family members of the victims described their grief, with some addressing Coburger directly, including a stepfather of one of the victims. You're gonna go to hell. I know people believe in other stuff. You're evil. There's no place for you in heaven.

You took our children. You are going to suffer, man. No official motive has been made clear, and Coburger declined to speak at his sentencing hearing. The State Department is launching an investigation into Harvard's eligibility to host students and faculty from abroad, through what's called the Exchange Visitor Program. In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio didn't give a reason for the probe, but said his agency would review whether Harvard is acting, quote,

in a manner that does not undermine the foreign policy objectives or compromise the national security interests of the United States. It's the latest move by the administration to pressure the university, even as the two sides hold talks aimed at ending their months-long dispute. A federal judge in Maryland is blocking the Trump administration from immediately taking Kilmar Abrego-Garcia into immigration custody if he's released from jail. That comes as another judge delayed his release from criminal custody in Tennessee for another 30 days.

Abrego-Garcia's lawyers want him out on bond while he awaits trial for human trafficking charges, but only if ICE does not immediately take him into custody to deport him. His case became a focal point in the debate over President Trump's immigration policies after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March. In Florida, a black man who was dragged from his car and punched by officers says he is still recovering from the February incident. Can you call your supervisor?

All right, go for it. 22-year-old William McNeil's recording of the encounter shows him asking why he was pulled over before police break his window, punch him and pull him from the vehicle. At the time, officers said McNeil was pulled over for not having his headlights on, even though it was during the day. The local sheriff says the video lacks context. At a press conference today, McNeil's lawyers said the incident was racially motivated and unlawful. McNeil himself spoke briefly saying he was afraid to exit his car. That day I just really wanted to know why I was getting pulled over and why I needed to step out of the car. And I know I didn't do nothing wrong.

I was really just scared. An investigation by the Florida State Attorney's Office determined yesterday that the officers involved did not violate any criminal laws. Turning now to the environment and a landmark opinion from the UN's top court on climate change. The International Court of Justice says countries may be violating international law

by not taking steps to protect the planet. The nonbinding opinion also said that countries harmed by the effects of climate change could be entitled to reparations. And it opened the door to allowing countries to sue each other as well as letting activists file lawsuits against their own governments. In The Hague today, the court called climate change an existential threat to everyone.

The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment results from the interdependence between human rights and the protection of the environment. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is therefore inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights. The case at the ICJ was led by the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu, which has warned for years that it could disappear into the ocean due to rising sea levels, and it was backed by more than 130 countries.

On Wall Street today, stocks jumped on news of a framework trade deal between the Trump administration and Japan. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added more than 500 points. The Nasdaq tacked on more than 100 points on the day. And the S&P 500 closed at a new all-time high. Still to come on the NewsHour, the White House announces a new trade deal with Japan that lowers tariffs on cars. Iran says it will continue uranium enrichment despite United States strikes on its nuclear facilities.

And Judy Woodruff speaks with an activist about an alternative to calling out people who disagree with each other. 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. President Trump today unveiled his broad approach toward faster development of A.I. with new proposals that he says would reduce regulation, accelerate innovation, and position the U.S. ahead of China. The president spelled out his vision at an AI summit in Washington a short time ago, surrounded by some of the biggest names in tech, including Silicon Valley entrepreneur

and White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States of America Whether we like it or not, we're suddenly engaged in a fast-paced competition to build and define this groundbreaking technology Sachs. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of

America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the

States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the States of America, President of the United States of America, President of the States of America, President of the United States of America, President of America, President of the United States of America, President of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it.

President Trump also planned to sign three executive orders on AI. One reportedly targets what the administration called ideological bias in AI chatbots. Another aims to make it easier to build massive AI data centers and the energy infrastructure they require. And a third encourages the export of American AI tech to foreign countries. To help us understand the implications and questions around this approach, we're joined by Will Oremis.

He is tech reporter at The Washington Post. Well, thanks for joining us. You were watching the president's speech just moments ago. Before we dig into the details, just big picture here. What is the vision of AI that President Trump is laying out and how different is it to the approach we saw from President Biden? It's a complete 180. So under President Biden, there was an effort to balance the potential

of AI to benefit society with what we're seeing as the potential grave risks of this technology that might overturn many areas of human endeavor in disruptive ways. That executive order that President Biden had signed on AI was tossed out the window on President Trump's first day of his second term, and now we're seeing what President Trump's vision looks like. It is very much about a race. We are trying to beat China in AI. He envisions a future where American firms

and their technology become the global standard for AI around the world. And this plan is designed to speed that. So from the folks you've talked to, are there concerns about the downstream effects of unshackling this industry, of pulling back a lot of the restraints that have been there. Yeah, well to be honest there aren't a ton of restraints there now, but what restraints are there?

Maybe in some peril after this plan, what Trump wants to do is in his words roll back a lot of the red tape that is holding back wants to do is in other words, roll back a lot of the red tape that is holding back innovation. And one way that this plan proposes to do this is to try to withhold federal AI spending from states that enact what the administration considers to be burdensome regulations on AI. Now, they haven't spelled out what they consider burdensome.

They also say they want to leave room for prudent regulation of AI. So there's a lot of subjectivity in there, but the basic idea is that President Trump doesn't want states passing laws, for instance, that may deal with AI and privacy or may deal with discriminatory applications of AI or may try to require transparency on the part of AI developers. He would prefer to see one federal standard that all the companies have to abide by.

But, of course, that would likely require Congress agreeing to pass a law, which is always difficult these days. AMNA NAWAZANI And we're expecting those executive orders as well, one to boost AI infrastructure, another to increase the amount, as you mentioned, of U.S. AI technology that's exported. And as you note, the White House is arguing all of this is to get rid of regulations that they say hinder innovation. There's also this executive order expected on

removing woke AI bias. Tell us a little bit about that how the White House views it and whether that's seen as something that has hindered innovation. Yeah you know until a year or two ago when you talked about AI bias, you were usually talking about the tendency of AI tools like ChatGPT or Dali or Google's Gemini to generate

images or text that reinforce harmful stereotypes. And that's because these models are trained on writing from across the internet. So they imbibe misogyny, they imbibe racism, they imbibe all sorts of unsavory material, and they spit that back out. More recently, the efforts by some of the tech companies to counteract those inherent biases in the training data have led to episodes that have been seen on the right as evidence of the tech companies trying to impose

a liberal bias on these tools. So one landmark example of this was in 2023, someone found that Chat TVT would compose a poem praising Joe Biden, but it would not compose a poem praising Donald Trump. In 2024, Google's Gemini image creator injected false diversity into historical images. So it showed, for instance, black Vikings, which was historically inaccurate.

Some folks on the right have seized on that as an evidence that there's this danger of woke AI that the tech companies are pushing. And so they're trying to dissuade them from doing that. Now, it turns out it's not so easy to counteract the biases of an AI tool in either direction. So how that will actually play out in terms of the tools that we all use is not yet clear. Well, I've got about 30 seconds left, but I have to ask you, overall, two years ago, you had the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, testify before Congress, effectively saying this needs more regulation.

There seems to be a complete 180 on that among all the CEOs and policymakers in Silicon Valley. Why the change? Yeah, you know, under the Biden administration, their message was, we're developing this amazing technology, but it could also be really dangerous and it needs to be regulated. Under Trump, from almost from day one,

the message has been, we're developing this amazing technology Forget about the dangers. It's gonna be great Let's go full steam ahead and give us a bunch of money to help do it and that's exactly what this plan sets out to do Will Arimas tech reporter for the Washington Post. Thank you for joining us. Appreciate your time Thanks for having me. The U.S. and Japan announced they've reached a major trade agreement. President Trump hailed the breakthrough as a significant victory for American companies

and consumers. In return, he said the U.S. won't impose punishing 25 percent tariffs on Japan at the end of this month. William Brangham has more. While the exact text of the Japan deal has not been released, President Trump says Japan has agreed to open its markets more to American cars and trucks, as well as rice and other agricultural products. It also agreed to invest $550 billion in the US.

In exchange, the US will not impose its threatened 25% tariffs on Japanese goods coming to America. Those will instead be set at 15%. So for more on what this deal means, we are joined by Kate Kalukowitz. She's senior managing director at McClurdy Associates, which is an international trade consulting firm.

Kate, thank you so much for being here. Again, as I said, we don't really know the granular details of this deal, but is it, as President Trump has said, a major opening of the Japanese market to American goods? Well, you know, as you say, we don't have all the details. It does represent, if we take the president as his word, it represents some significant market wins that he's been seeking, notably on U.S. agriculture, which the Japan market has notoriously been closed to US goods, as

well as some important commercial purchases, such as airplanes. So the sectors, tell me a little bit more about the sectors that might benefit most from this. Well, it appears that the president was successful in attaining some concessions from the Japanese on rice. This was a sector, of course course of top interest. The rice market in Japan is quite protected. They allow a certain amount of rice to enter the market without paying tariffs but once they hit this quota, tariff rates exceed 700%. This has been a very

significant area of interest for the U.S. agricultural community. So you know increased access there would represent a fairly significant market opening. The other sector that the president has sought increased access in is autos. You've heard the president talk over and over about the auto sector, in particular, his view that the Japanese market is closed to U.S. cars. Now, it's notable that the U.S. car market is not impacted by tariffs. The Japanese famously don't charge tariffs on vehicles coming into the market, but they maintain really significant regulatory differences, which have really impeded the access and growth of the U.S.

auto sector in Japan. So commitments to relax or to adjust some of those regulations could also be meaningful to the U.S. auto sector. So this would seem to support the argument that the president has always made that he threatens tariffs in order to force other nations to bring down what he argues are unfair tariffs on American goods. That's true. And I think if we look at the range of trade negotiations that the United States is currently engaged in, you really can divide those into markets that are quite developed like Japan, the EU, the UK, Korea.

These are markets that don't employ very high tariffs, but have very high regulatory challenges for the United States. The other group of trade negotiations are happening with countries like Indonesia or Vietnam, which do have exceptionally high tariffs. The president and his agreements with those nations have succeeded in lowering those. So it's all about the different types of barriers to access. But the president has been quite clear. He wants U.S. firms to be able to sell more into these markets and it does seem like he's achieving that. The president also said that the Japanese have agreed to invest or basically purchase

$550 billion of US products. What are those purchases likely to be and then who might be making those purchases? Yeah, there are two interesting, you know, provisions that we've heard the president talk about. I think the 550 billion refers to an investment fund, which is quite novel. And I think we don't have all the details there. Secretary Letnick, the Secretary of Commerce

for the United States, has come out today saying this will be essentially a finance fund, a loan from the Japanese government to finance investments in the United States. I'll look forward to getting more detail on that. The other part of this are these purchases that you referenced, and these are purchases of Boeing planes, of weapons. These have a dual purpose, I think, in terms of both offsetting the trade deficit, which is an interest of the president, selling U.S. commercial goods of interest, but also, you know, the defense sector and defense burden sharing with our allies

has also been a key issue of interest. And so this likely satisfies the president's interest in Japan committing more to its defense. On the automobiles part that you mentioned before, some American automakers have expressed displeasure about this deal. Do you help us understand what is their concern? Well, their concern is that the president, you know, several months ago imposed a different set of tariffs on autos and auto parts. These are tariffs that are related to national security.

They are intended to promote reshoring of manufacturing in the United States auto sector. Those tariff rates were set at a global level at 25%. So U.S. auto manufacturers are concerned that as part of this negotiation, Japanese competitors will have preferential access to the United States at a 15% tariff rate. So I assume what they're concerned about is that if we award preferential access to foreign automakers, we will erode the protections that the president sought to create for the U.S. manufacturers under these other tariffs. All right. That is Kate Kalukowitz of McClarty Associates. Thank you so much

for your help getting us through all of this. My pleasure. Thank you for having me. Iran's nuclear program led to direct military confrontation against Iran last month from Israel and the U.S. Now the Islamic Republic is trying to stabilize its nation, its program, and its negotiating stance with the West. Our Nick Schifrin was among a group of reporters who sat down in New York this morning with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, and he's here with us now. So Nick, what did he have to say? The bottom line is that Iran is maintaining its insistence on enriching uranium domestically,

and that is the core of what the president and his administration is trying to prevent. The briefing this morning in New York, as you said, Jeff, was from Qasem Gharib Abadi, one of Iran's deputy foreign ministers. He laid out a hard line, as expected perhaps, before Iran and Europe meet next, at the end of this week, for the first time since the war. He said that Iran was, quote, more determined than before the war to maintain its right to enrich domestically, that he would not accept a regional consortium of enrichment outside of Iran as the Trump administration has raised.

He said Iran did not trust the U.S. to resume any kind of direct negotiations. He also said there was no Iranian formal assessment of the impact of those U.S. strikes on the nuclear facilities, even though his boss, Foreign Minister Abbas Aranshi, earlier this week admitted that those strikes, quote, seriously damaged the facilities. But he did say that a technical team from the Iran nuclear watchdog would soon be in Iran to talk about possible future verification. Yeah. And Nick, stay with us as we shift our focus to the White House now, where Director of

National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ramped up efforts to sow doubt about the investigation that found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Today, Gabbard briefed reporters on what she called the most egregious weaponization of intelligence in American history. They manufactured findings from shoddy sources. They suppressed evidence and credible intelligence that disproved their false claims. They disobeyed traditional tradecraft intelligence community standards and withheld the truth from the American people.

So manufactured findings from Shoddy Intelligence, what is she talking about? Tulsi Gabbard today released a previously classified House intelligence report that questioned the intelligence community assessment about 2016 that Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. The report was written by Republican staff in 2017 and amended in 2020 and concludes quote the judgment that Putin developed a clear preference for candidate Trump and aspired to help his chances of victory did not adhere to intelligence community standards because it came from information that was

quote unclear of uncertain origin, potentially biased or implausible. That echoes a document released by CIA Director John Ratcliffe last month, you see it right there that accused former CIA director John Brennan of coming into conclusion that Putin preferred Trump with a quote, highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentalization and excessive involvement of agency heads, all of which led to departures from standard practices. Jeff, I've talked to former intelligence officials who worked on all of these reports, and they stand by the conclusion that Putin preferred Trump. But they do acknowledge that that specific conclusion was from a single source, and there

was a debate inside the intelligence community about the level of confidence about that conclusion. I also talked to Democrats on the House Intelligence community today, and they say that that report from Republican staff was, quote, politicized and that the fundamental facts are not in dispute, that the Russians interfered in 2016 and displayed a clear preference for Donald Trump. But Republicans, Gabbard today, John Ratcliffe, director of CIA in the past, have said that the source for that specific conclusion about Putin for Trump was unreliable, was biased, and they're using that specific point to question what President Trump, of course, calls the entire

Russian hoax. Well, zoom out for us, because President Trump won the presidency twice. There's a question as to why he's really litigating this now, but is there a question as to what the Russians actually did back in 2016? Let's go through a few of the reports that the U.S. government has produced over the years into what exactly the Russians did in 2016. The first, of course, is the Robert Mueller report. That's a two-year-long investigation.

He concluded of a Russian campaign of disinformation and hacking and leaking and concluded quote the Russian government Perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome unquote a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report co-led by then committee vice chair Marco Rubio Of course now Secretary of State National Security Advisor Also released that report and they concluded, quote, the committee did not discover any significant analytic trade craft issues in the preparation or final presentation of the intelligence community assessment. In addition to those two reports, Jeff, special counsel John Durham, appointed, of course, during the first Trump administration, found no evidence to undermine the intelligence

community assessment. And the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded there was no political bias or improper motivation in that specific early 2017 intelligence community document. Gabbard, by the way, also recently tried to argue that there was no Russian influence because there was no Russian meddling in the actual vote totals, which of course has never been the intelligence community assessment at all.

And taking all these reports together, Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee today accused Gabbard of releasing a partisan report to please President Trump. And the report today risks some of the most sensitive sources and methods of our intelligence community. So what then is the administration proposing to do about any of this?

Well Gabbard specifically said that she had referred President Obama personally to the Department of Justice for any kind of criminal investigation. And yesterday, when asked actually about Jeffrey Epstein president Trump said this It's Sort of a witch hunt just a continuation of the witch hunt the witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold after what they did to me and Whether it's right or wrong. It's time to go after people Obama's been caught directly so people say oh, you know a group. It's not to go after people. Obama's been caught directly. So people say, oh, you know, a group.

It's not a group. It's Obama. And what they did in 2016 and in 2020 is very criminal. It's criminal at the highest level. So that's really the things you should be talking about. Yesterday, President Obama's spokesman, Jeff, said, quote, nothing undercuts the conclusion Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election. Nick Schifrin, our thanks to you as always.

Thank you. Well, President Trump is marking his sixth month in office this week, touting his policy agenda and transformation of the federal government. But he faces a public skeptical of his biggest accomplishments and a growing focus on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. For more, I'm joined now by two of our regular contributors. That's Democratic strategist Faz Shakir and Republican strategist Kevin Madden. So great to have you both together here at the table again.

Kevin, let's start with this Epstein issue. Obviously, this is not leaving the president anytime soon. You saw the headlines today. You know how Republicans on the House Oversight Committee subpoenaing Ghislaine Maxwell to come be deposed, a subcommittee going after more files. On top of that, the reports that Attorney General Pam Bondi told Mr. Trump in May, his name is among those in the Epstein files. Is it surprising you how sticky this issue is and how potentially damaging is it?

It's not, but I will say, like a lot of Americans, I've actually made a real effort, a concerted effort and strive to avoid reading about Jeffrey Epstein and try not to watch anything about it. And I simply cannot. It's the omnipresence of this story, whether it's mainstream media, conservative media, liberal media, you name it, it's just out there. And I think that omnipresence is what is creating the great distraction. I think even a lot of the president's critics would say that in the first six months,

he's had a very clear agenda for what he wanted to do on everything like immigration, taxes, doge, and he's achieved a lot of it. And a lot of those achievements have been because he's been working very well with Republicans up on Capitol Hill. Now, a lot of that is put at risk because it's a distraction and because it's starting to create this tension, not only for the president inside the White House, but with his allies up on Capitol Hill.

And I think that's the real peril for him going forward. Fez, after months, I think it's fair to say, of Democrats kind of struggling to get around one cohesive message, House Democrats are really leaning into this issue right now. Is that the right move for them? Yeah, of course. I mean, Trump wound this up, first off. I mean, it wouldn't really be an issue if not he had campaigned on it, talked about it, talked about the release.

Then, of course, I mean, most famously brought right-wing influencers into the White House, 15 of them, gave them white binders. They walked out of the White House and it said on the front cover of that binder, the Epstein files phase one, they were urging their allies to talk about this issue and winding them up. And now of course, many of those people feel like they've been played for suckers. And the reason why I think that it's sticking so much is that much of the American public is losing a sense of integrity in government officials.

And some of that narrative, I think, that behooves Democrats at this point is, well, you did Medicaid cuts, you did tax cuts for the rich, you did some tariffs, you did, you know, all these things on Doge, all these things you're doing. What's the narrative? What's the framework by which we should think about what you're doing? And Epstein provides it, a sense that when it's wealthy and well-connected people, we go to the mat to protect them. And when it's not, oh, we go to war against them.

And I think Epstein is gonna help feed this narrative, help it make it clear to a lot of people who Donald Trump fights for most aggressively. It happens to be people like Jeffrey Epstein. When you take a step back now, we're six months in to Mr. Trump's second term here. The things he wants to be talking about, Kevin, to your point, are the points you've said he was the core issues he was elected on, right? Immigration and the economy. He's underwater on both.

And when you look at recent polling from CBS, he's got 56% disapproval on immigration. 70% of those polls saying that President Trump is not focused enough on lowering prices. This is where I remind you, after the election last year, you said President Trump and Republicans had a lot of political capital coming into office. Have they mishandled that? Well, look, I think the other thing I predicted back then was, given the political volatility of the environment right now, that no matter who's going to be elected president was going to be underwater and face a very partisan Congress.

So I think that was kind of sort of baked into the cake. But look, in politics, one of the most valuable commodities you have is time. And right now, the president's had a very good streak over the last six months.

But now with these distractions, is it going to take away some time where he needs to focus on the top issues? The President and the Senate and the House Republican allies, they have to go out there and sell the merits of the one big beautiful bill. They have to sell the merits of what they're going to do on things like housing, prices, inflation, right? And so those type of distractions right now, that's the biggest challenge that they have is how do they work to value that commodity of time and use it more efficiently? And that's one of the big challenge that they have is how do they get how do they work to value that commodity of time and use it more efficiently? And that's one of the big challenges that they have is it a messaging thing or is it that people aren't seeing it impact their everyday lives?

They haven't seen prices come down yet. Well, I think that's it I think well inside the polls you can see some good things the intensity that the president has with his own supporters That's a very good thing But I think we talked about this all of during the campaign, all during 2024. The big middle of the American electorate is still where you make or break political

majorities that are going to help you in the Congress and where they're going to help you get that, keep and manage that political capital. The most troubling part of the polls was that the president has sort of shed his support with

independence. And I think that's what he has to get back by talking about the issues that those voters care about. Bazz, meanwhile, Democrats have faced their own frustration from their base, arguing they're not doing enough to fight President Trump's agenda. You said after the election, the party brand is suffering, it needs repair. Are you seeing that repair work being done?

Not yet. And there's a reason for it. There's a tension within the party right now, unfortunately. There are some who say we should play dead. We should not say or do anything. We should let the Republicans dig their own grave. They're not dumb people. These are intelligent people making an argument that Democrats should just lay low.

And the problem there is that you could potentially win a midterm election off of that. You can be the other party and gain seats because voters want to deliver a verdict, particularly motivated voters and voters in the midterms want to say, hey, we want to get off this Trump train and move to a more rational sense. But for those who care about the Democratic Party, how are you defining it? How are you making that an appealing vehicle that people want to support? Right now, if I had to ask you on the network, what are the main things that Democratic majorities want to do if they were governing?

You couldn't answer it, not many people could answer it. At this same time, in 2005, you know, George Doug Bush was president, Democrats said, we're going to come up with an agenda, 6406. Here's six things we're going to do. One of them happened to be the minimum wage. They wanted to raise the minimum wage. That was the last time, Amna, that we raised the minimum wage, was when Democratic majorities came in, worked with President Bush.

My point is, right now is the time for Democrats They want to repair the brand before something come up with an agenda say this is what we will do You're saying going into the midterms being the anti Trump Party isn't gonna be enough not to not to repair a brand of definition What is it that you stand for? That's what the Democratic Party needs to repair right now, Kevin Meanwhile, I've heard over and over this idea of a distraction for the Republicans, right, that they are not talking about the things that they want to be talking about. How do they change the narrative over the months ahead? Do exactly what I mean.

I think the counterpoint will be which one of these parties does a better job of talking to the voters that really matter the most in this election. Donald Trump and Republicans won because we have inherited and done a good job with working class voters now. They have migrated over to the Republican Party largely because of some culture issues, also because some of economic issues. It's those economic issues that are going to be the salvation for winning in November of this year. So how are you talking about bringing down prices, creating jobs, housing, childcare, health care, energy prices. That's going to be the core, those are going to be the core issues that decide the midterms next year.

Comes back to the economy again. Always, always. And again, Kevin Madden, Vash Keir. Great to see you both. Thank you. Appreciate it. Summer is the height of the visitor season for the National Park Service. Last year, there were nearly 332 million visitors to U.S. national parks, monuments and historic sites, a record that will likely be broken again this year. Stephanie Sy has this report. That surge in visitors continues despite staff and budget cuts imposed by the Trump administration, with no end in sight.

The big, beautiful bill rescinded $267 million earmarked for park improvements, and the administration has proposed a further 38% budget cut next year. Advocates say it's already having a dramatic impact on park operations. We spoke to some of them. My name is Jesse Chakran. I am the current executive director of the Fund for People in Parks. Previous to that, I spent over 20 years working for the park service between Denali National Park and Yosemite.

My name is Kevin Heatley, and I'm the former superintendent of Crater Lake National Park in Klamath Falls, Oregon. My name is Ken Yeager and I've been in Yosemite since 1976 and I am currently the president and founder of Yosemite Climbing Association. I will say that morale is as low as I have ever seen it in 24 years. Many friends and colleagues are near tears or in tears on a daily basis. It is heartbreaking to say the least. The inability to hire additional permanent staff to replace people, the disruptions that occurred with respect to our ability to make purchases for vital essential items,

the open hostility towards public sector employees. It was an unacceptable, untenable situation. You cannot operate efficiently in that kind of environment. And I knew that in long term, this was being set up to fail. And I didn't want to be a part of that. An area can stay really clean for most of the year. And then once trash starts getting dumped there, then people add to it because they figure, oh, somebody else dumped it there. Somebody's going to come along and clean it up. Well, got news for you.

People aren't being paid to clean it up. There are so many jobs that people do not see in national parks. It's like running a small city. And so every Reduction in staff leads to a reduction in services. The public may show up and the doors are locked. The beaches are less safe Now the trails are going to have more litter. The trash cans will be empty less frequently You know, these things feel like small things if you talk about them individually. In aggregate is the fracturing of the foundation of the national park system that is entrusted with the democratic ideals of our country.

These directives were not coming through the National Park Service. They were coming from DOJ or they were coming from the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. So they do not understand they didn't take not understand, they didn't take the initiative, they didn't take the time. If you were going to do an efficiency study and come into an organization and try to enhance efficiency, the first thing you would do is get on the ground and understand how the organization works. And they did not do that. I think the end game is to get rid of the park service. If you can make them so poorly

organized and so poorly run that people don't, you know, can see it and they is to get rid of the Park Service. If you can make them so poorly organized and so poorly run that people don't, you know, can see it and they want to get rid of the Park Service, it'll be that much easier for them to, hey, let's defund the Park Service and we'll just take a percentage of the concessionaire. I have a feeling they're going to put concessionaires in charge to run the whole operation. And that's like putting the wolf in the chicken coop. I hope that the American public will continue to care about and advocate for their national park system. It is truly a treasure of the world and it is one of the beating hearts of our democracy. Joining me now to discuss the state of the national parks is Teresa Pirno she's the president

and CEO of the national parks conservation association. Teresa your organization put out a report earlier this month that found that the national park service has lost twenty four percent nearly a quarter of its permanent staff since January. There are nearly one hundred vacant superintendent positions and seasonal hiring is not filling a lot of gaps. You just heard others, Teresa, describe the impacts on morale. How major are these staffing shortages and how do you think park visitors will be experiencing them? I think as you heard from others, the parks are at a real crisis

point. I mean, not only were they going into this year understaffed, but then there's a hiring freeze. Then you see a reduction of 24% is enormous, over 4,000 staff members. And then there's still the potential for even additional

reductions. Besides that, the hiring freeze continues. So we have many superintendents, hundreds of superintendent positions vacant. Maintenance workers, workers that do the essential jobs within a park so that a visitor can have an excellent experience, are vacant. And they can't fill them. And the other thing, they can't spend any money without permission. So it's a really difficult demoralizing situation. Well, the Interior Department,

Teresa sent us this statement saying it is implementing necessary reforms to ensure fiscal responsibility, operational efficiency and government accountability. They say the National Park Service is diligently working to meet the evolving needs of visitors, ensuring memorable and meaningful experiences for all. Are these efficiencies what's needed? Well, absolutely not. They're not efficiencies it's in

no way efficient to take a beautiful jewel a crown jewel of this nation our national park system that is beloved by millions of people across the country. And not only demoralize the staff and reduce the staff to the point where the leadership

has been eliminated in many parks where the maintenance the ability to be point where the leadership has been eliminated in many parks, where the maintenance, the ability to be able to even bring visitors in, open campgrounds. We've seen parks have to close parts of the park and change hours and things like that because of the fact that it's so understaffed. And what we're also have to recognize is that for every dollar invested in our national parks, it returns $15 to the economy. And that's in the hotels and the food service and all of the things that people do when

they come to our national parks, the communities around the parks. Thousands of people are hired in jobs that are connected to the visitors of the parks. I want to ask you something else another executive order that the president has put out has instructed the Park Service to review plaques, displays, remove materials that are deemed quote inappropriately disparaging of

Americans. The New York Times as you may know reported this week that Park Service employees have been flagging descriptions and displays at scores of parks for Trump administration review. Zoom out bigger picture what is

the mission of national parks who are they for and how do these changes the budget changes and potentially the display of names and displays fit into all of that? Well, I think as most people understand, our national parks are really the place that preserves our history.

And National Park Rangers are the most beloved and important storytellers in this nation. The historians, the people that talk, if you go to some of our sites like Gettysburg and walk through that hollowed ground and hear about the battle and hear about what happened, what were the real details, it's something that will move you,

you will remember for the rest of your life. And so to erase and to even think about erasing history and erasing these stories or changing how you tell them so that they no longer are actually factual or follow what the history has told us is is just unfathomable. Where do you go to learn about those things? It's our national park sites and so we have to protect them. Teresa Pirna with the National Parks Conservation Association. Thank you.

Thank you so much. As our national politics grow increasingly polarized, Judy Woodruff explores one approach to transforming divisive conversations into meaningful dialogue. It's part of her series, America at a Crossroads. I've been an activist since I was 16 years old. Loretta Ross was once known for her fiery temper, shaped by more than 50 years on the front lines battling racism, sexism, and sexual violence.

But by the time I got to my 60s, I began to feel that how we did the work was more important than the issues that we worked on. Ross, now 71, says she came to understand there's a more effective way to engage people she disagrees with. That realization is at the heart of her new book, Calling In, How to Start Making Change with Those You'd Rather Cancel. When you're calling people out, that means you're intentionally publicly blaming and shaming them for something you think they've done wrong and you want to hold them accountable. But the problem with the call out is that instead of inviting them into

a conversation, you've invited them into a fight. When I started thinking about calling in, I said, we can achieve accountability, but we don't have to be angry to do it. Because I think I've had as many blessings as I've had obstacles in life. A survivor of childhood rape, Ross managed to channel her trauma into a driving force for her advocacy. Because I'd been through so much as a child, I had to make the decision that what I'd been through wouldn't determine what I would become. I mean, I couldn't let the man who committed incest against me just make me a teenage statistic, pregnant with no options. I just couldn't let these other people's dirty fingerprints determine who Loretta Ross is. And do not ask me where it comes from. When somebody told me I couldn't, that fueled my passion for I could. In 1979, at just 25 years old,

Ross became the executive director of Washington's DC Rape Crisis Center, where she worked to support victims. It was also there that she experienced a pivotal moment after receiving a letter from a man in prison in Lorton, Virginia, just south of Washington. I got this letter from a man in prison in Lorton, Virginia, just south of Washington. I got this letter from a man called William Fuller and his letter basically said,

outside I raped women, inside I raped men. I'd like not to be a rapist anymore. And I swear when I got that letter, all I wanted to do was call him out because we didn't have enough resources to help victims. And here's a perpetrator calling for help? I mean, how dare you? So my motives weren't clean when I went to Lord, and I actually went there to curse him out,

and to say, I told you so. Everything that's happened to you, you deserved. And I reprocessed what I went through then, and realized that this rapist called me in because he could see how afraid I was. She says that day would be a turning point. Because I was only expecting one and there were six of them with them telling the stories about what they'd been through. And once I started hearing what they'd been through, how they had entered Lorton as teenagers,

become victims before they became violators. And that just changed everything I thought I knew about rapists. Now, I'm not trying to excuse the fact that they raped and murdered women, but I began to understand the patterns that they had been caught up in as well as the patterns I had been caught up in. This led Ross to reflect on what drives people to call out others. Practice, she says, often entrenches existing beliefs and deepens divisions.

Now a professor at Smith College in Massachusetts, she teaches courses on the subject here and online. And I find that a lot of the call-out culture is not driven by malice, but unhealed trauma. And we feel we have to hurt people to prove we've been hurt, which is not a good way to walk through life, but that's the autopilot that a lot of us are on. And so I'm hoping that we can deal with our trauma, deal with what we've been through in more productive ways, because it's not doing us any good and it certainly isn't doing any good for the people that we need to be in relationship with. She's particularly concerned about how national divisions have strained relationships within

families. I'm trying to teach people, don't go home and turn over the Thanksgiving dinner table just because they don't realize the role of pilgrims and stuff like that. This just is not how you do that. And so the phrase I use is, learn how to handle your passion with compassion. But I believe you can say what you mean, and you can mean what you say. You just don't have to say it mean. How would a conversation go if you're talking to somebody you know they've been speaking

in a way that you think is hurtful, harmful? What would that sound like? The most important three words you can use in a conversation is tell me more. If you bring your honest sense of inquiry, you can have a conversation with anybody. I swear, people love telling you about themselves if you give them an invitation, and you're having a conversation instead of a fight. It's just that easy, really. And while it's sometimes easier to practice this with family, Ross says she came to see it as a tool that could be used more broadly to help people discover common ground.

So before you wrote this book, the books you wrote have been about politics and about issues and policy. This is a different book. What made you think that this was something that you wanted to get out there. What's really bad about this time is that our opinions have become our identities. Now we make enemies of people who don't perfectly align with us. And that's why they call our culture so dangerous, because we take people who we largely agree with and unnecessarily make enemies out of them,

because there's not that perfect alignment and heaven help us if they're really on the other side of the political divide then we demonize them. As you think about what's going on today is one side or another is at the right or the left that's more guilty of this too much calling out? Well the difference I think between the right and the left is who has the levers of power to impose their prejudices

on others. And what I have seen is that the left can be mighty intolerant, but we have a tendency not to weaponize the law and the police against everybody. We don't tolerate. We don't have a tendency as much to ban books or to say that human beings are basically illegal. I mean, we just don't take it that far.

Given how deeply polarized we are right now in this country, is this the kind of thing that can make a difference, do you think? I work on the assumption that most people are capable of compassion and being good. It just may be they have a very narrow circle to which they extend that compassion and kindness. But I also believe that most people can be encouraged to write in that same circle. You know, because we do it for strangers in an earthquake. Can we do it with the neighbor who has the rainbow flag? We can actually have a sense of shared need and shared values, even though we have different

solutions to the problem sometimes. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Judy Woodruff in Northampton, Massachusetts. assets. And that is the NewsHour for tonight. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS NewsHour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.