PBS News Hour - Full Show - July 24, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: July 24, 2025

Thursday on the News Hour, as Palestinians face mass starvation, the U.S. says it's leaving Gaza ceasefire talks, blaming Hamas. In a rare move, the president visits the Federal Reserve, ratcheting up pressure on Jerome Powell to cut interest rates. Plus, Columbia University agrees to pay the Trump administration and crack down on student protests in exchange for federal funding being restored. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening, I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Nawaz. On the NewsHour tonight, the United States says it's leaving Gaza ceasefire negotiations blaming Hamas while Palestinians face mass starvation. This is famine. They bring us aid on these trucks and all these young people go to get some aid. My kids go with them too. If you're going for a bag of flour, you're walking to your potential death."

In a rare move, the president visits the Federal Reserve, rationing up pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell over interest rates. And Columbia University agrees to pay the Trump administration and crack down on student protests in exchange for federal funding being restored. Welcome to the NewsHour. President Trump's Middle East envoy today announced that he was bringing his team home from Gaza ceasefire negotiations. Steve Wittgoff blamed Hamas and warned the U.S. and Israel would now pursue, quote, other

means to release Israelis still held hostage more than 21 months after the October 7 terrorist attacks. Nick Schifrin has been following all this and joins us now. So, Nick, tell us, what do we know about what led to this decision to walk away from those talks? Earlier today, Israel announced that it would withdraw its negotiators from Doha to, quote, for additional consultations in Israel. And this afternoon, Witkoff made the announcement that you just said, saying he, too, was bringing

his team home for additional consultations. And he used this word. He said Hamas's latest response, quote, shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza. Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. But sources I talked to tonight say that it's not clear that this is the end of negotiations. A U.S. official tells me that Hamas's latest response

demanded that Israel release 200 high-profile Palestinian prisoners rather than 125, as Israel had offered, and also adjusted slightly the map exactly where Israeli troops would go when that ceasefire began. And that this official says that the mediators, including Qatar and Egypt, did not see that as major changes and actually thought that the momentum was positive toward a deal. And there are Israeli officials tonight who are indicating this is actually just a tactic, a ploy to get Hamas to move back toward the Israeli stance.

But there is also that very clear threat that Witkoff made in the statement that you read that we will, quote, pursue other means to release hostages. That suggests a renewed offensive by Israel in Gaza. And tonight Israel is criticizing an announcement just the last few hours by Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, who said that France would recognize an independent Palestinian state next week during a high-profile U.N. event. Meanwhile, on the ground in Gaza, as you've been reporting, humanitarian organizations

and others have been sounding the alarm about malnutrition and famine. UNICEF today issued a dire statement. What did they say? It did. UNICEF said today that in the last 48 hours, four children have died of starvation. UNICEF said, quote, these deaths are unconscionable and could have been prevented. The UN, of course, is continuing to demand

that more aid be allowed into Gaza. The number of children admitted for treatment for malnutrition, according to the UN, reached the highest level of this conflict in the last year and a half. The UN says nearly all of Gaza's two million people are hungry. And the most vulnerable, of course, are children, but also pregnant women.

One in four children and breastfeeding mothers are malnourished. And we have a story now and a warning. The images in this story are disturbing. Marwaft Al-Najjar only had three months with her son Yaya. The baby is wrapped in his mother's arms and wrapped in a shroud. The family is burying him, a victim of war killed not by missiles but by malnutrition. We couldn't provide food for him and his older siblings. We couldn't provide milk.

This week across Gaza, cries for help. Urgent appeals to save starving children. Like Aya Aziz, she is four months old, but weighs less than seven pounds. Look at her, you can see her bones. There's no milk available anywhere. What am I supposed to do? Is it just because she's from Gaza? MAHDOUH AL-MUTAWI, Palestinian Health Officer, Gaza, United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United

Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United

Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United

United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations United Nations At the beginning of the war, at least 115 Gazans, mostly children, have died from hunger, a quarter of them in recent days. And finding food can be deadly. In the last two months, the U.N. says nearly 900 Palestinians have been killed outside humanitarian aid sites. Where there is hunger, 35-year-old Karam Sob searches through scraps to find sustenance. He collects trash that his extended family uses to bake bread.

There are a lot of mouths to feed, eight children, for whom every drop of water is precious, who have to worry about what should preoccupy no child, how to survive, how to eat. Atet is Karam's brother. ATET, Brother of Kar's brother. This is famine. They bring us aid on these trucks, and all these young people go to get some aid. My kids go with them, too. If you're going for a bag of flour, you're walking to your potential death. The situation is very, very difficult.

Life is very depressing. We can stay a whole week without bathing, no water, no flour, no food. Israel blames Gaza's hunger on Hamas. It says violence at aid sites is Hamas-instigated. And Hamas steals food to either feed themselves or sell to fund new fighters. But hunger now stalks the most vulnerable. At the neonatal ICU in Gaza City's Al-Shifa Hospital, babies battle for breath. They are born into war, into a place that cannot provide what they need to live.

The card reads, time of death, 1130 a.m. Sadly, we lose babies every week. Last week we lost a baby because of loss of electricity. The baby is on a ventilator, so it doesn't receive oxygen. So the ones that survive, we call the miracle babies. Dr. Joanne Perry is the Gaza medical team leader for Doctors Without Borders. This is her third trip to Gaza in the last year and a half, and she says the situation is increasingly catastrophic. We spoke to her from Gaza City.

The rates of malnutrition in all our patient populations are increasing weekly. These malnourished mothers are having high-risk pregnancies. And the consequence of that is many of them are having their babies early. So our neonatal ICU is full with premature babies. Our babies are sharing incubators, which is really unacceptable. The mothers themselves are exhausted, they're frail, we're supporting them in breastfeeding. When you're hungry and malnourished, you're going to produce less milk, so babies are struggling. We have the baby in the natal ICU that was born three months early, and the mother died

in the explosion, and the father arrives every day on his crutches because his leg's been amputated and comes to see his baby every day. She says the hospital is short on supplies. Baby formula is day by day, only two diapers a day for newborns. And so a ward once full of hope is now full of fear. Many families in Gaza are large, children are treasured. And it actually gave me hope a year ago when in the delivery room and the mothers were happy

and they had a new child. But now we don't see very many smiles. They're worried, how are they gonna feed the baby? How are they gonna diaper the baby? How are they going to die for the baby? How am I going to care for my other children when I have no food to offer? So it's not such a happy occasion anymore. And it's legitimate, it's valid.

They don't see a future for their newborn baby. But these babies can't yet feel that fear. And so they will fight for life as long as they can. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Nick Schifrin. The president continued to dial up the pressure on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell during a visit to the Fed today. President Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of getting rid of Powell and then backed

off but continues to press him to cut interest rates. The president's public remarks and personal insults about Powell are a major departure from past presidents and his approach has sparked questions about whether the Fed's independence could be undermined in the months ahead. Tensions were evident again today when the President and Powell got together late this afternoon in front of the cameras. A sight not seen in modern times. We're looking at the construction and we're with the chairman.

As you know, chairman, come on over. President Trump arriving today at the Federal Reserve Building. Late this afternoon, the president visited the Fed's construction site, a building undergoing its first major renovation in nearly a century amid intensifying criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. The tour had originally been planned for a handful of administration officials, including budget director Russell Vogt. But late last night, the White House announced that the President would be joining them.

The President and Powell today disagreeing in front of the press on the overall price tag for the renovation. It looks like it's about $3.1 billion. It went up a little bit, or a lot. So the $2.7 billion is now about 3.1 billion. It went up a little bit, or a lot. So the 2.7 is now 3.1. I'm not aware of that. It just came out. I haven't heard that from anybody at the Fed.

You're including the Martin renovation. That's our entire capital. You just added in a third building is what that is. That's a third building. It's a building that's being built. No, it was built five years ago. We finished Martin five years ago. It's part of the overall work. Some analysts believe the visit was less about bricks and beams and more about POW. President Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration with the Fed chair and is now using the project's

$2.5 billion cost, nearly $700 million over a budget, as political ammunition. As a real estate developer, what would you do with a project manager who would be over budget? Generally speaking, what would I do? I'd fire him. The Fed attributes the overruns to inflation in construction costs, toxic soil contamination and long overdue infrastructure upgrades, including asbestos removal, new utilities,

a parking garage and historic preservation work. Chair Powell has publicly defended the renovations and called for an independent inspector general to review the plans. Still, it may not shield him from the president's ire. Mr. Trump has made no secret of his desire to see Powell gone. But we have a guy that's just a stubborn mule and a stupid person that is making a big mistake. Even today, the president continued to push for a steep interest rate cut. Well, I'd love him to lower interest rates. This year, the Fed has kept interest rates steady at 4.3

percent after three cuts in 2024. Last month, Powell defended his approach before the House Financial Services Committee. Policy changes continue to evolve, and their effects on the economy remain uncertain. The effects of tariffs will depend, among other things, on their ultimate level. Legally firing Powell would be difficult.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that a Fed chair can only be removed for cause, such as misconduct or a violation of the law. But if today's visit made one thing clear, it's this, the pressure campaign is only intensifying. And for more, we're joined now by Julia Coronado. She's the founder and president of Macro Policy Perspectives. That's an independent market research firm.

And she's also professor of finance at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas, Austin. Thanks for being back with us. We appreciate it. It's my pleasure to be here. So react, if you will, to what you saw and heard from the president today at the Fed. What do you make of it? I mean, it's as you noted in the piece, it's unprecedented in modern times to see the president so openly and so persistently applying

pressure on monetary policy. It's a lesson that we learned from the 70s that doing so and forcing the Fed to be beholden to elected politicians can lead to inflation. It can lead to weakness in the dollar and just bad trade-offs for the economy. So it's a dangerous zone that we're in. And Chair Powell is not the kind of man that will necessarily bow to that pressure, but his term only lasts through May of next year.

And then President Trump gets to name his replacement. It was striking to watch Powell push back on President Trump's assessment of the cost overruns. Powell in that moment in many ways asserting his independence and the independence of the Fed.

Talk more about the consequences if the Fed even loses the perception of being autonomous. Yeah, I mean, so the Fed sets short term interest rates, but longer term interest rates that determine things like mortgage rates and business borrowing rates are really a combination of what the Fed is doing and the credibility that it has over a longer horizon. What investors expect the fed to do in terms

of navigating and managing the U. S. economy. So if. The investors lose faith that the fed will keep inflation under control over a longer horizon. Even if the fed cuts rates you might actually see longer term interest rates go higher. And

that's really where the pain. Lies we all most consumers we the Fed cuts rates, you might actually see longer term interest rates go higher. And that's really where the pain lies. We all, most consumers, we look at mortgage rates or auto loan rates or credit card rates, and those are longer term interest rates. And so the credibility of the Fed is an essential ingredient to keeping those under control. Well, you almost answered my next question

because I was going to ask you, the president repeatedly today said that lowering interest rates would be a good thing for American home buyers, people who are in the market to buy a home, it'd be a boon for the economy overall. I mean, does he have a point? Do economists tend to agree with him on that?

No, no, we don't agree with him because again, those longer term interest rates are a function not just of what the Fed is doing today, but how much we trust the Fed to keep those forces under control over a longer horizon. So the more politicized the Fed becomes and responsive to political pressure, again, you could actually see the reverse of what the president wants to see, where the Fed cuts interest rates, but longer term interest rates go higher because people expect more inflation down the road.

So it's not a simple, you can just lower interest rates and borrowing costs. It really depends on the credibility of the monetary management framework. It's something that we've learned hard, hard lessons about through our history. And one of those lessons came in the 70s, and then that required double-digit interest rates to control inflation, to bring it down in the early 80s, deep recession. That is not where we wanna be. And so it's better to take a little pain in the near term to keep that inflation under control

so that the economy is able to navigate on stable ground over a longer horizon. And many administrations have given the Fed that independence over the last 40 years. And now we're dancing close to the edge of losing that independence and the credibility that comes with it. Just drawing on your experience as a professor

and someone with deep knowledge of this kind of thing. I mean, executive branch efforts to influence the Fed are not new, maybe certainly not to the degree that President Trump is trying to do it. But if the Fed chair is not easily influenced, there might be people who would say, well, what's the harm? What's the harm then of any of this? To which you would say what?

To which I would say the harm could be the credibility of the US government, the full faith and credit that keeps our markets strong and our borrowing costs low. Julia Coronado, always great to speak with you. Thanks for being with us. My pleasure. Music Music In the day's other headlines, the Trump administration is suing New York City and its mayor, Eric Adams, over its sanctuary city policies. In a 37-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn, the administration writes that,

quote, New York City has long been at the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country's immigration laws. The president has often sparred with Democratic leaders in cities like New York over laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Separately, President Trump signed an executive order today making it easier for cities and states to remove homeless people from the streets. And he signed the bill to cancel $9 billion in foreign aid and funding for public broadcasting, including for PBS.

Also, today, we're following changes at two separate federal agencies. foreign aid and funding for public broadcasting, including for PBS. Also today, we're following changes at two separate federal agencies. First, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rawlins announced a plan to move most of the agency's staff out of Washington, D.C. She said an estimated 2,600 workers would relocate to five regional hubs around the country. A union representing federal workers immediately criticized the plan. Changes could also be coming to FEMA.

A bipartisan bill announced in the U.S. House today would make the head of the agency report directly to the president instead of the Homeland Security Secretary. The bill comes at a pivotal time for FEMA, with President Trump saying he'd like to shut it down completely. In Ukraine, two women were killed and more than a dozen people were injured in the eastern Donetsk region following the latest Russian strikes. Separately in the northeastern city of Kharkiv, officials say at least 33 people were injured by Russian glide bombs.

While in the port city of Odessa, Russian drones ripped through the walls of this apartment building. In Russia, 48 people are dead after a passenger plane crashed in the country's remote Far East. The plane came down in the dense forests of the Amur region, just north of Russia's border with China. There were no survivors. Aerial video showed a column of smoke rising from the woods.

Officials say the Soviet-era plane was operated by a private Siberian airline. Investigators are looking into the cause. Plane crashes are becoming more frequent in Russia, as international sanctions and the war in Ukraine hinder Russia's plans to upgrade its aging fleet. A major escalation in clashes between Thailand and Cambodia killed at least 12 people today, mostly civilians. Thai officials say fighting broke out this morning near an ancient temple in a disputed border area and has since spread. In Thailand, villagers ran for cover during Cambodian attacks, which left a gas station on fire. Cambodian officials said today they were defending their territory

as Thailand launched airstrikes on Cambodian targets. The countries have a long history of disputes along their shared 500-mile border, though today's violence was much more severe than most. On Wall Street today, stocks ended mixed after Tesla boss Elon Musk spooked investors by saying the carmaker has some rough times ahead. The Dow Jones industrial average lost more than 300 points. The Nasdaq managed a slight gain, adding nearly 40 points. The S&P 500 added to its recent record run.

And we have two passings of note this evening. We start in the world of jazz and the death of musician Chuck Mangione. The trumpet player and composer enjoyed widespread success with his 1977 classic, Feel So Good. He won a Grammy that year and then a second over a career that saw him release more than 30 albums. Mangione also enjoyed success as a voice actor appearing in the animated TV show, King of the Hill. In 2009, he donated his memorabilia to the Smithsonian and then retired a few years later. Chuck Mangione was 84 years old. And wrestling

legend Hulk Hogan has died. Hogan, whose real name was Terry Bulea, was arguably the biggest star in professional wrestling in the 1980s and 1990s. He won at least six WWE championships and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2005, though he was temporarily expelled for using a racial slur. Hogan's success in the ring led to appearances in movies and on TV, including his own reality show on VH1 called Hogan Knows Best. In 2016, a jury in Florida awarded him more than $100 million in a privacy case against

Gawker Media. And then of course, there was this. Enough was enough! Hogan making a mainstage appearance to support President Trump at last year's Republican National Convention. It was a memorable moment for the man who often positioned himself as the embodiment of the American dream. Authorities in Florida say they were called to Hogan's home early today after he reportedly

suffered a cardiac arrest. Hulk Hogan was 71 years old. Still to come on the news hour, amid political backlash, the Justice Department meets with Jeffrey Epstein accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. A freshman Republican congressman gives his take on the president's agenda six months into this term. And the federal government starts cracking down on people who have not repaid student loans. government starts cracking down on people who have not repaid student loans. 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.

Columbia University and the Trump administration have reached a deal that restores federal funding and research grant money to the university. As part of the agreement, Columbia will pay $200 million to the federal government over three years and an additional $21 million to resolve alleged civil rights violations against Jewish employees. The university agreed to suspend, expel, or revoke degrees from some 70 students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and it will issue a report to a monitor to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion is not promoted on campus.

Columbia, which was at risk of losing billions of dollars from the government, says it retains its academic freedom. For a closer look at this agreement and what it means for higher education in the U.S., I'm joined by Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University. President Roth, welcome back to the NewsHour. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. So, let's just start with your initial reaction.

When you heard the news and the details of this settlement, what did you think? Well, I felt like one must feel when you've paid a ransom in the kidnapping situation and the person who's been kidnapped is returned safely. You think, thank goodness the kid's okay or the person kidnapped is okay. But I wouldn't praise the agreement that led to the liberation of the kidnapped person. And so in this case, I was pleased that this particular moment of assault on higher education by the Trump administration has been resolved, at least for now, though who knows these agreements come and go with this White House. And I am distressed that in this country today, the executive branch of the federal government

wants to be able to dictate terms to private universities, law firms, newspapers, TV stations. And so all of these things are evidence that the current administration is trying to erode support for institutions and civil society. Let me put to you, if I may, what the acting president of Columbia University, Claire Shipman, said in an interview on CNN this morning, defending the terms of the deal. I think there are a couple of really important things about this agreement from our point of view. One, it doesn't cross the red lines that we laid out. It protects our academic integrity that was of course essential to us.

And two, it does reset our relationship with the federal government in terms of research funding. And it's not just money for Columbia. I mean this is about science. It's about curing cancer, cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity. President Roth, do you believe that after this deal, Colombia can move forward with full academic freedom, as President Shipman there is saying? And what do you believe the downstream effects of making a deal like this are for other universities? Well, it's very clear that if you annoy the White House in this regime, you could get

sucked into a process of litigation or fines that bear no relation to the facts of the matter, but just become a way of expressing loyalty, of conforming to the wishes of the government. We saw it at UVA just a week or two ago. You see it now at George Mason. This is an effort to tell universities, as they've told law firms, as they're telling newspapers and as they've done with TV stations, telling these organizations, you are not independent. If you contract with the federal government,

we the government has a right to tell you what to do. This agreement does protect many things at Columbia. And again, I'm not criticizing them for signing it. I don't criticize the parent for paying a ransom to get their kids back. They're getting their science back. But they're also telling the federal government, you can tell us how to run our Middle East Studies program.

Telling the federal government, you can tell us how many police officers we should have at a minimum on campus or how students should be disciplined. The White House has determined how students should be disciplined at a private university. This is massive overreach. This is an assault on the independence of civil society in America. And conservatives, liberals, moderates, they should all be concerned when a White House tells you how to run your private associations. So, you're saying they should be concerned, as you know.

Columbia is not the only university that's been targeted by this administration. Harvard, as we've been covering, has actually been fighting the administration in court, but we know there's also settlement talks going on. Do you believe universities and colleges will have no other choice but to make some kind of deal in order to move forward? Well, I do think that when you're dealing with a very, very powerful entity like the federal government, especially when it doesn't obey its own laws. I mean, there are no findings of fact here about what the specific actions of anti-Semitism

were or discrimination against white people. There's no findings of facts there. It's just you give us $221 million and then we allow you to compete for grants. I mean, it's a very old-fashioned game. You pay the powerful figure so that you can go along and continue to operate. Now you operate in a way, of course, that you don't want to annoy that powerful figure or that powerful organization. And it sends a chilling message across America that if you have a late-night comedy show,

if you have a law firm, if you are working in an educational institution or a library or as we read today in a museum like the Smithsonian, if you don't please the president, you are at risk. And again, I don't blame them for trying to make the best of that situation, but as Americans, I'm not worried about Columbia, I'm not worried about Westland. I'm worried about the country where we are being subject to a White House that thinks it could tell us what to do at every turn. As you know, the administration has long argued that this was about combating anti-Semitism on campus. This was a deal welcomed by Colombia's Hillel Jewish Organization. The executive director said, in part, the announcement's

an important recognition of what Jewish students and families have expressed with increasing urgency. Anti-Semitism at Columbia is real. It has a tangible impact on Jewish students' sense of safety, belonging, and their civil rights. I guess the question, President Roth, is, if it makes Jewish students and staff feel safer, did the administration pressure and the deal do what it intended to do?

How does paying the government $220 million to do basic science make Jews safer? As a Jew, I find this horrific. I know anti-Semitism is real, and I know it was real and is real in Colombia, as it is in Congress, as it is in most places in the United States. But the idea that you pay off the government in order to get them off your back so you can do cancer research, and that's good for the Jews, I think it's ridiculous. We don't need the White House to tell us anti-Semitism is real.

Two weeks after the Defense Department contracts with GroK, Elon Musk's artificial intelligence entity after it appraised Hitler. This is an administration that is not concerned with Jewish welfare. I am concerned with Jewish welfare as a Jew, as a professor, as a college president. I think it's really important to call out anti-Semitism, but to

pay up basically protection money in a way that's supposed to make Jews safer, I think in the long run, it's, as we say in my community, it's not good for the Jews. AMNA NAWAZ. That is Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, joining us tonight. President Roth, thank you for your time. MICHAEL ROTH. Thank you for having me. The Jeffrey Epstein scandal surrounding President Trump is intensifying, fueled in large part

by growing Republican defiance. Today, Todd Blanch, the second highest ranking Justice Department official, met with Ghislaine Maxwell at a U.S. Attorney's office in Tallahassee to discuss the Epstein case. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted for her role in helping Epstein recruit, groom,

and abuse underage girls. Here to discuss the latest developments is Carrie Johnson. She's the National Justice Correspondent for NPR. Always good to the latest developments is Carrie Johnson. She's the National Justice Correspondent for NPR. Always good to see you. Thanks, Jeff. So let's start with this meeting today between Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell. Everything about this meeting is highly unusual, starting with the fact that the Deputy Attorney General, the person who runs the day-to-day operations at the DOJ, would even take a meeting like

this. What more should we know about it? Well, Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted and is serving a 20-year prison sentence. Her case is actually on appeal and the Justice Department is contesting her appeal. And yet we have the second highest in command at DOJ traveling down to Florida and conducting an hours-long meeting with this defendant. It's really unusual and it may be the start of conversations that lead somewhere with respect to her case and its resolution.

Well, it's hard to see how Maxwell would provide or the DOJ would release any information that would be negative about Donald Trump. What could she potentially tell them, or should we see this meeting as part of an effort to give the impression that the Trump administration is really sleuthing this entire thing out? You know, one of the interesting things about this

is that she and the Justice Department apparently never have had plea negotiations in advance of her trial. And so this may be the first time she's really sitting down with senior government officials to share some of what she may know. And there's a lot of interest on Capitol Hill and elsewhere about other people who were engaged in activities with Jeffrey Epstein and uncharged individuals.

The Justice Department and the FBI have said they conducted a thorough review of all of these files and they didn't find any other areas of investigation or any other people to charge. They said that earlier this month, and yet here we have the Deputy Attorney General meeting with Ms. Maxwell. And I think some of those conversations or information is on the table now. And of course, yesterday, the New York Times

and the Wall Street Journal reported that the president was briefed back in May that his name was mentioned multiple times in the Epstein files by the AG, Pam Bondi. We should mention that being named in the files doesn't necessarily mean that there's any wrongdoing. But how does that help us understand Bondi's decision to not release more details about the Epstein files?

Yeah, one of the situations the DOJ and the White House are confronting here is that their messaging has been mixed over time. You know, Trump and the attorney general and others in the administration, at the FBI and the attorney general and others in the administration at the FBI and elsewhere have said publicly in the past that they want to release all the information about Epstein. And then they have this meeting with the White House in May where Trump's name comes up. And then they changed kind of their public tune and

said they weren't going to release any additional information. And that's the problem they're trying to grapple with now. It's a communications problem and a legal problem too. On another matter, Carrie, the Senate today moved closer to final confirmation for two close Trump confidants, one being Janine Pirro to be U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., the other, Emil Bovi, to be a federal appeals court judge. Both are controversial picks. What stands out about these two selections? Janine Pirro was a prosecutor in New York,

but she hasn't actually prosecuted case for more than 20 years. She's better known as a Fox News personality. And in her questionnaire to the Senate, she basically said she was not aware that President Trump had issued pardons to rioters who assaulted police on January 6, 2021.

That raised a lot of hackles among Democrats. As for Bovi, he's basically been the right-hand man inside the Justice Department this year at the center of a lot of controversies, from firing January 6 prosecutors to the decision to walk away from the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams to a whistleblower complaint about the department's handling or mishandling of immigration and deportation cases. Bovi is on a glide path to confirmation, it seems, with only two Republicans voting against him today in a procedural vote.

That means very soon he could have a lifetime tenure job as a federal appeals court judge. And PRS Carrie Johnson. Carrie, thanks for being here. Thank you. The U.S. House of Representatives is headed for August recess after Speaker Mike Johnson cut House business short amid the political furor related to Jeffrey Epstein. House Democrats, meanwhile, have spent this week introducing amendments for a full House

vote on whether the federal government should be forced to release documents related to the Epstein investigation. To discuss that political battle and House Republicans' priorities, we're joined now by Republican Congressman Mike Herodopoulos of Florida. Congressman, welcome to the NewsHour. Thanks for being here. Great to be here.

I'm honored. So at this point in time, six months into the Trump administration, the second Trump administration, the president's passed a major budget bill. He had great NATO meetings overseas, the successful Iranian strikes. I know Jeffrey Epstein is not what he wants to be talking about and yet many in his base many in the party Want more information and want him to make good on the pledge to release that information should he do that? I think so. I think that's the progress we're making towards today I think the quicker the better

We of course want to make that they the innocent their names redacted who are not involved in this mess But we've heard about it for years I wish that by Biden administration had done something the last four years when they held onto these files, but that said, I think that transparency is the ultimate disinfectant. So the reason why I created what's called the Ledger Act where every dollar should be online,

let's put everything out in the sunshine and let the cards fall as they may. I think that's the best way to restore trust in government. So why do you think there's been this hesitation we've seen so far? The attorney general basically saying, I have the files on my desk. They're coming out and then saying, we're not going to be releasing them.

That's what's fueling this frustration among some in your base. What's behind that? Well, I think that's the fair assessment. I think people are frustrated. They've waited a long time. They thought it would come out. I think we're in the last throes of it. Our speaker, Speaker Johnson, wants the same.

He wants it out transparent. I think once we get back from the August recess, which is already planned, this is not something that people didn't expect. But I think hopefully... It was moved up a bit, to be fair. Yeah, but by a day. I mean, we got our agenda through, as you know. But that said, I think in September we should expect to see all of this. Again, let's keep the innocent out of it. Let's redact some names who are not players in this. But people who have been abusing kids potentially, they need to be exposed.

This is a horrific act that supposedly happened on these islands, and I think the more transparency we have in this, the better. And, Ken, let's be honest, if there was something really bad about President Trump and this thing, I think the government would have used it, or I should say the Biden administration would have used it a long ago. They tried to go literally put him in prison many times. If they had something really bad, I think they would have released it. So you're saying by September,

we should be seeing the release of those files, even if they involve President Trump's name related to those files. Look, we have to let the cards fall as they may. And my belief is, based on what we understand, if there was something really bad about the president, the Biden administration would have used it against them. So six months in, as I noticed, I need to put to you

where the rest of the country is looking at the president right now. The latest Gallup polling shows President Trump's disapproval rating has dipped to its lowest of the term so far. It's 37 percent. It's just above what you'd call his all-time worst rating of 34 percent at the end of his first term. And that rating, Congressman, has fallen 10 points since the beginning of this administration.

What do you think is behind that? Well, I think it's just a lack of information for this reason. You started our show today very strongly. We passed the big budget, but we actually kept our promises to cut taxes on tips and overtime, let alone Social Security for people who worked for a lifetime. We had a major strike against our longtime enemy, that being Iran. The enemy, the thorn in our side since 1979. The stock market is at record highs.

We don't have the inflation that people thought would happen with the tariffs. There's a lot of good news out there. I can't wait to get back in the district and talk about our success over the last six months. We made a set of promises and we kept those promises in the big, beautiful bill. That's not a common thing in history, let alone in politics. I'm a former history professor myself. Isn't it nice and refreshing to have elected officials say, this is what we're gonna do in Washington, and that's exactly what we did.

When people actually see that line by line in the big bill, I think they're gonna like it a lot. A 10 point drop though, since the beginning of this administration 10 months ago, you attribute that to people not getting the right messaging? Well, I contribute just welcome the politics. If there was an election tomorrow, I'd be really nervous. It's not going to be.

When we go back, and a year from now, when I can say, guess what? We didn't cut Medicaid for the most vulnerable. Guess what? We did give a tax cut to the people who needed it most after four years of higher prices. Guess what? We actually turned the tide against Iran for the first time since 1979. This is the luxury we have, the facts on our side. It was so disappointing to see the other side saying, we're going to cut Medicaid for the disabled. That's an

outright lie. You can go to page 630 of the bill and it shows specifically that most of them will be untouched by these Medicaid changes, only the people who either refuse to work or are illegal aliens. As you know, a lot of the concern around Medicaid's got to be all surrounding people who may not be able to meet some of the work requirement, paperwork requirements, and we can have that longer discussion at another time, because I know those won't go into place until after the midterms, most of those cuts as well. But on the signature budget bill, you haven't really won people over yet.

And I wonder if that's a messaging problem or something else, because when you look at the numbers, over half of all Americans believe that it hurts the middle class more than it helps them. So there's skepticism there, right? And there's concern not enough is being done. People are worried prices aren't coming down. Are you worried that you will lose many in your Republican base if they don't start to see changes in their lives that they voted for, for the economy in particular?

Look, that's a fair question. And that's what we have to answer over the next 18 months before the next election. And I think what we like to say is pretty simple. These cuts in taxes will actually be retroactive. So then you earn those tips and over time and let alone tips and Social Security, you're gonna get that money, you're gonna feel it in a positive way. And yet they think it's gonna hurt the middle class. Why is that? And that's, again, I think that's our problem because we're not marketing it well enough. That's why we need to get back to the district and educate folks that remember if we did

nothing you would see it on average a 23% tax hike. If we did nothing because you go back to the old higher Obama tax rate. So we need to do a better job of quote marketing or politics, whatever you want to call it. But we believe in this. We really believe we invest in the middle class. That's when you cut taxes on tips and overtime and social security. People are going to save, invest, and spend. We think the economy is going to grow.

Can I just ask you, we're six months into this second Trump administration. You're six months into your first term in Congress, and you came here to be part of this legislature. It's worth pointing out almost every major accomplishment we've seen from Republicans so far, far though has been either pushed by executive action or has been something the president has asked for and Republican lawmakers have then seen through, including ceding some of your own constitutional power, the power of the purse. Is this what you envisioned it would be at your time in

Congress? Well I would say this, when we were in a lot of crisis in the Great Depression, FDR changed the dynamic. And he said, we have this agenda. The American public has changed dramatically. The Republican party is known as the blue collar party now for the first time in my lifetime. And we really focused the new tax cuts on the middle class. I felt like the president had a mandate.

It's a new Republican party. He was really focused on the middle class who were hurt by higher grocery prices and gas prices. And I really felt like it was, we're gonna do the kind of the old 100 days of FDR, which took six months, welcome to modern America. But it's been an agenda that we believe in, and we think we are gonna really show the results when we have low unemployment rates,

we have low inflation rates. And we're also telling countries around the world, treat us as an equal. The reason why the tariffs, I think, are having some positive effect with the revenues coming in, because prices aren't going up, because America is the number one market in the world. And for too long, they were charging us higher tax rates than we were charging them. Treat us fairly, and we think we can compete quite fine. I guess the question is, would you be OK if Democratic lawmakers did the same with the Democratic president?

Of course not. Welcome to partisanship. I'm with you. I guess the question is, would you be OK if Democratic lawmakers did the same with a Democratic president? Of course not. Welcome to partisanship. I'm with you. It's modern politics because, unfortunately, I want to see more of the bipartisan operations. I work with a lot of Democrats in issues like cryptocurrency. We just passed a major piece of legislation that they couldn't get done in years past. I'm a big tent guy, and the more we can work together with Democrats, America is better

off. But I believe in tax relief, and I think we really provided that and the more we can work together with Democrats, America's better off. But I believe in tax relief and I think we really provided that and more importantly backed up our campaign promises, which is not a common thing in Washington, D.C. Appreciate your candor. At the very least, Republican Congressman of Florida Mike Herodopoulos, thank you for being here. My pleasure. Thank you. The Trump administration is making significant changes to how it deals with student debt.

Its resumed loan collections from past borrowers and those changes could have a major impact on paychecks and credit ratings for lots of people. This month, two million overdue borrowers could be facing those penalties. Economics correspondent, Paul Solman has more. About a year before the pandemic hit, they started garnishing my wages. They were garnishing about 150 bucks from every paycheck. Sarah Bundy was in default on her student loans,

but she was making just the minimum wage in New York State while working at a home for people with disabilities. They garnished those payments for about a year, which brought me below minimum wage. And then COVID hit and the garnishment stopped. Garnishment, as in pulling loan payments out of a borrower's paycheck before she or he receives it. As student loan collections resume this summer, Bundy expects garnishment to resume too. When the garnishment start again, it's going to tip us over into the poverty line. OK, let's take a step back for a second.

How did we get here? At the dawn of the pandemic, the Trump administration had paused all student loan repayment requirements to help provide economic relief. JOE BIDEN, President of the United States of America, President of the United States Student debt relief. And I'm honoring that commitment today. PAUL SOLMAN, Former President of the United States of America, President of the United States The incoming Biden administration kept in place the payment pause, while seeking to cancel some student loan debt altogether. That was ultimately shot down by the Supreme Court.

So, Biden then rolled out a program that enabled some borrowers to have their loans forgiven after a certain number of years. And then the payment pause expired in the fall of 2023. If you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. It's very simple. Fast forward to April of this year, when the Trump White House announced it would start collecting. The Trump administration has made a decision to put back in place the previous system for loan collection, which includes wage garnishment. Beth Acres studies the economics of higher education at the Conservative American Enterprise Institute. Unfortunately, I think these loan collection mechanisms that feel unsavory are a necessary part of the system. If borrowers have the resources to repay their loans, it's unfair for taxpayers

if they don't make those loan payments. And so sometimes the federal government needs to use these means in order to collect those dollars. The federal government needs to use these means in order to collect those dollars. Akers argues, as does the Trump administration, that the Biden administration was too soft on borrowers. Ultimately, they used this sort of backdoor solution, which was to just make student loan repayment programs really exceedingly generous so that, in effect, people don't pay back their loans, even though they weren't technically forgiven. Many borrowers we spoke with said they had been paying back their loans, but could only afford to cover the interest. Not a one had made much,

if any, progress on the principal. I took out like $13,000 in loans, and I'm at $12,000 that I still owe. And I've been paying for about nine, 10 years now. Kelly Castillo is a teacher and mother of two in Fresno, California. I'm okay paying my money back because I took it, I used it to pay for my tuition. But at the same time, like I've been paying

for many years and it hasn't even gone down half. There's another problem borrowers have with the new payback push. The official policy quote is committed to keeping borrowers updated with clear information about their payment options to put them on a productive path toward repaying their federal student loans unquote. Those words sound like we're coming after you and we're letting you know. We're gonna put it in big bold writing that we're coming after you. So I'm nervous about it. I can't say that I think

it's going to happen one way or another because I haven't been communicated with. Rochelle Brooks is a high school principal in South Central LA. She has six figures in student loan debt. Her payments suspended temporarily during COVID. The drastically cut back Department of Education's guidelines? Hard to follow or perhaps even comply with. A lot of borrowers are falling through the cracks where we don't know where we lie. We don't know what the future is. We don't have any answers. Like whether or not the undergraduate loan debt she took out to go to now-disgraced, discredited

Westwood College is actually forgiven, as she was told it would be. I haven't received an update in years. Why not I? So I was pretty lost. I was living on my own, not making good decisions. And I met a recruiter, and they said, hey, this is a school we can help you. You'll finish your degree quickly. We'll give you financial aid, and we'll give you a job. And I said, OK, this is a school we can help you. You'll finish your degree quickly. We'll give you financial aid and we'll give you a job.

And I said, okay, that sounds really good. Sounded really good, but wasn't for thousands of borrowers in similar situations. Well, a lot of people that come from poor families, the recruiters from these private for-profit institutions find us and they know we're eager to get jobs, high paying jobs, and it sounds good. And we just don't have the knowledge base to know what a predatory

institution looks like. As to the future, we heard the same lament time and again. It's very confusing for what happens next. Timothy Runkel still owes $32,000, the principal on loans he took out more than 20 years ago. I haven't received a letter or an email from my loan servicer in over eight months or any information from the U.S. Department about what will actually be done. The main issue right now is running the existing system competently. Economist Susan Dynarski. At the beginning of the pandemic, the Trump administration suspended all student loan payments, which made sense at that time. But that freeze kept getting extended by month, by month,

year by year. So think of how many addresses change over four years and banking details and all of that information that you need to have up to date in order to make sure the payments go through properly. To immediately move to wage garnishment in the midst of this, I think is an unwise move. People should be paying back their debts, shouldn't they? I don't disagree that people should be repaying their loans. I disagree with the way it's being done. You don't deal with your frustration with people not repaying by grabbing their paychecks.

What are the macro implications? That is, for the American economy as a whole, if garnishment becomes widespread and people are suddenly paying loans that they weren't paying for four years? That's money that's not available to pay for groceries and for rent and for buying cars and washing machines. So it has a deflationary effect. It causes the economy to contract. Think of adding a 15% tax for 5 million people between now and September.

At the borrower level though. I don't know what they expect people to do. I just want to tell my elected officials like, here's my household budget. You tell me what to do here. I just don't see how we're going to be able to scrape it together. I just don't. To which, says Beth Acres, If there were no repercussions for not paying, nobody would repay these loans. And unfortunately, student loans that are not repaid either by choice or because they're unaffordable for

borrowers become a burden that ultimately gets shouldered by taxpayers. So in the end, an age-old economic problem. Who pays for debts? A little from everyone? Or a lot from those who took them on but can least afford to pay them back? For the PBS NewsHour, Paul Solman. And that is the NewsHour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett.

And I'm Amna Nawaz. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team, thank you for joining us.