PBS News Hour - Full Show - June 11, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: June 11, 2026

Thursday on the News Hour, President Trump calls off a third night of strikes against Iran, citing progress on peace negotiations. Protests flare in Albania against a bid by Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner to build a luxury resort on a protected island. Plus, SpaceX goes public, the first of three AI-driven companies launching massive IPOs this year. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amnavaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, President Trump calls off a third night of strikes against Iran, citing progress on peace negotiations. Protests flare in Albania, against a bid by Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner to build a luxury resort on a protected island. I'm a tour guide, and I go into that island like 60 times per year. I want to go another 60 times more. We need it. It's ours. We don't want to set it. In SpaceX goes public, the first of three AI-driven companies launching massive IPOs this year. Welcome to the News Hour. President Trump this afternoon called off a third straight night of airstrikes on Iranian targets,

after saying this morning that he would order more such attacks. In the Oval Office, he said, again, that a deal was close between the U.S. and Iran, and that it might be signed this weekend. Earlier in a social media post, Mr. Trump said he ordered the attack statement. stand down because of progress being made in negotiations. Mr. Trump has often claimed such progress. Iran said no agreement has been finalized. William Brangham unpacks a dizzying day to begin our coverage.

It's a great deal. You know why it's a great deal? Because they will never have a nuclear weapon. In the Oval Office late this afternoon, another change of tune from the president. They've all approved the deal. Everybody's approved the deal. Now we'll get it finished up. And hopefully that'll be done.

The president had earlier threatened continued airstrikes, but then relented. We're going to hit them even harder tonight. They knew that. We told them exactly what we were going to do. I really believe it's a regime change because I find these people to be much more rational than the people that are no longer with us. We knocked out the first team of leadership, the second team of leadership. This is a different group.

Trump said he'd spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who, in a state, expressed appreciation for Trump's commitment to peace, but added that Israel is not party to this proposed interim deal. The top spokesman of the Iranian foreign ministry, Esmail Baghe, said no final decision had been made on an agreement and that Iran would not compromise what he called red lines. He did say that much of the deal text had been finalized, but that American demands kept changing during the talks. Last night, for a second night, U.S. missiles streaked across Iran's skies. Explosions echoing around its port cities. Yet another demonstration that, despite a stated ceasefire, the fire never ceased. U.S. Central Command said it targeted several Iranian military sites in, quote, response to Iran's

unwarranted and continued aggression. This morning on Fox News, the president said the strikes would continue. and even escalate, threatening an attack on Karg Island, the key site for Iran's oil exports. My preference has always been take Karg Island. I don't know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with you. He had to make a fortune. But just a few hours later, the president reversed himself, citing progress in talks with the Islamic Republic that he claimed had been approved by, quote, the highest level of Iranian

leadership. He wrote, I have as president of the United States of America. America canceled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening. He added, the naval blockade will remain in full force and effect until this transaction is finalized. Karg Island is located far from the Strait of Hormuz. It sits across the Persian Gulf from two key American bases in the Middle East. 90% of Iran's oil exports pass through Karg.

Early today, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps said, it launched attacks on at least 18 U.S. military targets and air bases across the Middle East, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Iran's foreign ministry today blamed the U.S. for violating the ceasefire, calling the American strikes, quote, acts of aggression. The United States' illegal and criminal attacks have effectively rendered meaningless the ceasefire of April 8, 2026. In the meantime, the war's consequences continue to be felt around the world.

In a small town in India, a family mourned one of three soldiers killed in a U.S. strike on an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman earlier this week. India's foreign ministry condemned the attacks, demanding that they must stop. U.S. officials said its military issued warnings before firing at the ship, accusing the tanker of trying to evade the U.S. blockade. This marks the ninth vessel American forces say they had to disable. The back and forth strikes between Iran and the U.S. brought global condemnation. China is seriously concerned about the current situation.

Resorting to the use of force will only further aggravate tensions and military action cannot resolve the underlying issues. The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz continues to royal global energy supplies and drive up fuel and other prices worldwide. Back in Iran, city streets are plastered with reminders to hold fast in this conflict. For some Iranians, hope for a resolution comes mixed with defiance. They want our nuclear material. Our scientists work so hard, and then enemies come and martyr them. We shouldn't allow them to obtain this easily.

For the PBS NewsHour, I'm William Brangham. For perspective on all these developments, we get two views. Retired Army Colonel Joel Rayburn served in the first Trump administration on the national security staff with a focus on Iran. He's now at the Hudson Institute. And Suzanne Maloney served on the State Department's policy planning staff during the George W. Bush administration. She's now director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution and focuses on Iran and the Gulf Energy Economy. to you both. And Suzanne, kick us off here. You saw the president canceled strikes on Iran just hours after threatening more. He now says a deal is approved. Do you believe him?

Thanks so much. I don't know what to believe at this point. It's been a pretty wild week. And I think that what we've seen is that, you know, there have been negotiations underway for some time. There has been much public talk, particularly by the president, that a deal is near. But I think both sides also believe that the use of force can accelerate the negotiations or amplify their own position in those negotiations. So I would expect that even if we get to a first phase of any agreement, we're likely to see continued unrest and turmoil and potentially sporadic, tit-for-tat exchanges like we've seen over the course of the past week. Joel, what about you? What's your reaction? Do you believe the president when he says a deal has been approved? Well, I believe that, first of all, I believe he's an eternal optimist, and he's going to cast things in a positive light. And I think from the U.S. perspective, they feel probably, and via Pakistani interlocutors and Qadari interlocutors, that they've got the Iranian interlocutors in a place that's very close.

The problem is that the Iranian regime, of course, their pattern is to move the goalposts when they get into that zone. Their pattern also is to appear accommodating when they're under severe military and economic pressure, and then as soon as that pressure is relieved, then to try to erase the red lines, soften the red lines. So I think the devil's in the details here. I also think that Lebanon is the issue on which the IRGC in particular might try to thwart a deal, move the gold posts, and try to hold on to Lebanese Hezbollah as an instrument. I want to get to Lebanon in just a moment, but Joel, to stick with you. To be fair, very close to a deal is not what the president is saying.

He's saying a deal has been approved. If you don't think we're there yet, what do you think it would take for the U.S. to get Iran to a deal? Look, if they are, if the Iranians are ready to accept a deal that's acceptable to President Trump, then it can only be because last night he demonstrated something that I think they didn't believe before last night, which is that he's willing to return to the use of force. So he reestablished, I think, the credibility of the threat of force. There was also another very important revelation that he made yesterday,

which is that essentially Project Freedom, which we all thought had been called off at the behest of the Gulf and in anticipation that Iranians might retaliate a few weeks ago, that actually something like it has been continuing clandestinely, and there's been some leakage of the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which also explains, I think, which if the Iranians have to take that into account, they have to realize that their timetable, their pressure

on trying to generate economic pressure in the global economy may be leaky. So that could affect their calculus as well. Suzanne, you agree with that premise there that it would take additional U.S. military force to push Iran to a deal, a final deal? Look, I think the Iranians need and want to deal, but they want to deal on their terms

and they want to be able to set a new strategic equation across the region that includes their own hegemonic role. And here we see, as Joel referenced, their efforts to try to insulate their proxies, to use their power to insulate their proxies, rather than using their proxies to extend their influence. I think that tells you about their mindset. I don't think that whatever limited success project freedom might have had

has really changed the extent to which Iran is capable of truly harming the global economy and creating ripple effects for the American economy, We saw something like statistics of perhaps 200 ships that may have transited under some U.S. guidance without their transponders on. And so there has been a bit of leakage. But contrast that with 130 to 160 ships that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz prior to President Trump's decision to try to promote regime change through the use of military force on February 28th in Iran. I think the reality is the economic pain is much tougher on the United States. the international economy.

The Iranians believe that they can be resilient because they've built an economy that has been structured to evade U.S. sanctions and economic pressure over the course of the past 47 years. Joel, to that point of what Iran could agree to and what they are pressured to agree to right now. You mentioned Lebanon. We reported earlier, Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel said they're not part of the deal. If we take that to mean Israel's war in Lebanon continues, why would Iran agree to that?

after they repeatedly tied the ending of that war to any deal with the U.S.? I think what the Iranians will try to do is to reach a deal that basically is a trading of their blockade for our blockade so that the Strait of Hormuz opens up. They get relieved of economic pressure and the blockade, but then they try to kick the can down the road on disposition of their nuclear program and certainly on things like their missile and drone capacity. and then most of all, Hezbollah. I wouldn't say the rest of the proxies.

Hezbollah is so qualitatively different from the rest of the proxies. Hezbollah is so important to the Revolutionary Guards, especially to someone like Ahmed Vahdi, who's the new commander of the Revolutionary Guards. I think they will go very far, almost to the end, almost to collapse in the service of trying to preserve Hezbollah

because Hezbollah is so important to their ideology, the Islamic Revolution, and their projection of power. Suzanne, is that kind of deal, one that would essentially reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but does not include specifications about the nuclear program. Is that one worth the U.S. signing? Well, look, I think that's not the deal that President Trump would prefer to sign. It's not the deal that any American president would prefer to sign,

but it is likely the deal that is on offer right now. And we are coming to a point at which the physical disruption of energy supplies from the Gulf is going to begin to hit the entire global economy, not just Asia and Europe and jet fuel, but really here in the United States, already seen the impact on gasoline prices, on inflation rates. The president has a larger agenda that he's trying to advance. And it is, you know, unfortunately, the miscalculations that informed the military campaign are ones that really can't be undone at this point. The challenge he will have is moving from a reopening of the strait, however modest and

incremental it may be, to, you know, a meaningful new. agreement that constrains Iran's capacity to move toward weapons capability. It took two years to negotiate the 2015 deal. That was 159 pages of very dense text. I don't think that this administration necessarily has the patience to engage in something that detailed, and we're going to have to see what the Iranians are prepared to really put on the table with respect to the nuclear program. Joel, I'll give you the last word here in less than a minute or so we have left.

on that miscalculations point, the U.S. has miscalculated before, on how long this would take, on how much economic and military pressure Iran could sustain on whether or not they would be infighting in the regime. Could they be miscalculating again? Well, listen, I think actually of the two parties, the one that's more prone to miscalculation, misjudgment and overreach is the Iranian regime. They're very insular. I don't think they understand the world beyond their borders very well. They certainly don't understand the U.S. And they've misjudged President Trump over and over again. Looking back at the time, for example, of the Kossum Soleimani raid,

Kossum Soleimani and the Supreme Leader didn't think the President Trump was going to use military force in that case. I think last night he tried to dispel them of that miscalculation in order to set the table for the deal. So I would look more of a miscalculation on their side than on ours. Joel Rayburn, Suzanne Maloney. Thanks so much to both of you for joining us tonight. We start the day's other headlines in the Midwest.

Thousands remain without power after severe storms swept through the region disrupting travel and causing at least one death. And more bad weather is in store tonight with Chicago and Milwaukee among those at the highest risk of hail damaging winds and even tornadoes. Earlier today, blinding sheets of rain and hail hit parts of Minnesota. The storms peeled off part of a roof outside Chicago and toppled trees and power lines from Wisconsin to Ohio. And then there's the heat. More than 80 million Americans are facing potentially dangerous temperatures and high humidity through the weekend, especially along the East Coast. The gunman who killed Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark,

pleaded guilty today in federal court. Bance Belter agreed to a deal with prosecutors that would spare him the death penalty. The 58-year-old was disguised as a police officer when he went to the Hortman's home last June and carried out the attack. He's also charged with the non-fatal shootings of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife. The attacks added to nationwide concerns over politically motivated violence. As of today, the war in Ukraine has now officially lasted longer than World War I. It's been more than four years and three months since Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Ukraine.

Many thought the country would fall within days. The conflict has also drawn comparisons to World War I, especially the return of trench warfare, grinding artillery battles, and front lines measured in yards rather than miles. There is no end in sight to the present-day war. Just today, flames spewed from this apartment building in southern Russia after an overnight drone attack. Also today, Britain's defense secretary, John Healy, resigned unexpectedly. He cited low military spending at a time of what he called rising threats, including from Russia. The Interior Department says it's investigating what appears to be a large anti-Trump message,

appearing in dead or discolored grass of the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Seen from above, the faint outline of the numbers 8647 can be seen. 86 is slang for a remove or to get rid of something, and Trump is the 47th president. Officials say they take any threat against the president very seriously. 86.47 is the same term that former FBI director James Comey once shared on social media spelled out in shells. He's been charged with making threats against the president, which he denies. On the south lawn of the White House, a giant octagon cage is now ready for this weekend's UFC event.

The mixed martial arts fight is timed for President Trump's 80th birthday and is part of celebrations for the 250th anniversary of American independence. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and UFC head Dana White signed a partnership today, formally recognizing the sport as a tool of American deployment. diplomacy. And the venue itself was open to the press today with the news hours Liz Landers getting a sneak peek. This arena right here is going to hold more than 4,000 people. Another 120,000 people will be in other places on the South Lawn and in the ellipse here. The cost of this, around $60 million. We've learned that seven federal agencies, including the FAA and the Department of Homeland Security, have been involved. A lawsuit was filed this past weekend by two Virginia residents who say the administration ignored federal rules about hosting public events on government property, but it's not expected to derail Sunday's fight. In New York City, the Knicks are now just one win away from their first championship in more than 50 years after staging the biggest comeback in NBA finals history. This tip-in by Oji Ananobe sealed the win after the Knicks eliminated a 29-point deficit against the San Antonio Spur.

That set off an eruption among fans inside Madison Square Garden and beyond. Fans danced, cheered and sang in celebration, but some scenes turned rowdy with police arresting dozens of people. The Knicks now lead the best of seven series three games to one. They head to San Antonio for game five on Saturday. On Wall Street today, stocks rebounded after President Trump called off his threats to strike Iran tonight. The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged nearly 1,000 points. jumped more than 600 points or 2.5%. The SMP 500 posted its best day in two months. Still to come on the news hour, President Trump taps U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton is Director of National

Intelligence after a standoff with Congress. Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Devlin Barrett details the transformation of the Justice Department under the Trump administration, and the World Cup kicks off with a challenge how to contend with dangerously hot weather. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubin's studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of BBS News. The president has made his permanent pick to oversee U.S. intelligence, and the choice comes as a key surveillance tool is about to expire. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA Powers, must be authorized by tomorrow night.

But Congress has refused, with concerns over privacy and the interim intelligence Chief Trump appointed previously. Our congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin is here with more. So Lisa, where do things stand with this intelligence program? Is it going to expire? Almost certainly it will. As you say, it's slated to expire tomorrow night at midnight. Today, the House failed to pass a short-term extension.

It didn't even get a majority vote. 19 Republicans and most Democrats voted against it. And then the House left for a week. So that's really basically the endgame for FISA being extended right now. The President is offering one idea. He says he might be able to extend it by executive order. However, it's not clear that's legal or that private companies would really acknowledge it. But another thing is just before, hours before the House left.

The president did something Speaker Johnson and others have been urging him to do to help break that standoff over FISA. He named a nominee as his permanent pick for the director of national intelligence. Tell us more about him and why that matters. He's not a traditional national security figure, but who he is right now is the U.S. attorney, the federal prosecutor in Manhattan. Now, he has there handled terrorism and national security cases. Now, Jay Clayton was involved with the review of the Epstein documents. He was in charge, in fact, Omna, of making sure to protect victims' identities.

That's something that has been controversial. In addition, he is someone who's known as a confidant of President Trump's. He golfs with him. He's also a vocal supporter. In fact, just this week, he echoed Trump's baseless claims that the California election should be questioned as fraudulent. Now, how will he do in Congress? Well, interestingly enough, tonight, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee,

Jim Himes, has said he's a terrific choice. But he also said this choice comes too late, because Democrats still object to the man who is about to be in the job in a short-term way. That is Bill Pulte, who we've talked about before. He right now runs the federal housing programs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He has no national security experience at all. And that is, by the way, required by law to be in that position. So here's the thing, why this is all affecting FISA.

To pass this FISA authorization, Democrats are needed in both the House and the Senate. They see Bill Pulte as a problem for national security. There's some Republicans who have civil liberties concerns. Together, that's blocking everything up probably until J. Clayton can be confirmed. The Senate's moving fast. Already we just in the past few minutes heard he's got a confirmation hearing next week. And remind us that FISA, this intelligence program, especially the warning. list section. How does it work? Yeah, this is one of these things I think people have trouble

understanding, but you can simplify it. This is called Section 702. This is the one that gets the most attention. It's a powerful piece of law. It allows the FBI and other U.S. agencies to gather communications, phone calls, emails from foreign sources overseas, only foreigners. It, by law, is not supposed to collect data on Americans or people in this country. However, we know sometimes it has, and that's the civil liberties concern. The Intelligence Committee, Omna says that this program is responsible for 60% of what's in the president's daily briefings. FISA has never had even more than a few days of a problem being extended. So if or when it expires, what does that practically mean?

Yeah, we spend a lot of time trying to search us out. There is really actually a debate over this. Let's first talk about what we know. FISA's search parameters under 702 make it so that it is allowed, it is confirmed for a year. and when it is put into operation. Now, that happened in March. So current orders, all of that, in theory, mean that all of the current search parameters

are allowed for another year. But there is a concern that telecommunications companies, AT&T, T-Mobile, and all of those, may think that that doesn't protect their liability. This has come up in the past. I reached out to some of them. T-Mobile got back to me, and they said, we are closely reviewing and monitoring this situation.

So they're not committing to whether or not they will still give the data that the U.S. needs. It's going to be a real question for our intelligence agencies. Now, some see this, of course, as being very dangerous in a vulnerable time. Here's Senate leader John Thune. At a time when we're hosting the World Cup, we've got 250th anniversary celebrations going on around this country. This is a time of risk for the American people. And so we're going to shut the lights off on this program and put at risk.

the American people. But others disagree and say that there are other programs that can be used and that much of what's happening now can still happen. This is Pat Eddington of the Cato Institute. The lapse of that will create a slight issue ultimately for the U.S. intelligence community, but not something that, you know, people should be completely freaking out about or engaging in a lot of, you know, kind of over-the-top rhetoric, as we've seen a lot of House and Senate members do. What I think is important about this, you know, to kind of understand is that not all of FISA goes away here. Bottom line, this will expire, and we don't really know how dangerous it

will be. All right. Congressional correspondent Lisa Deshaudan. Thank you so much. You're welcome. White sand beaches, blue waters, flora, and fauna. The island of Sazan is a jewel in the Adriatic sea, the westernmost point of Albania. But the former Cold War era base is now in a vibrant nature preserve. It's also an inviting prospect for real estate developers, chief among them Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner. And their plans are running headlong into Albanians who want to keep what's theirs. Special correspondent, Simon Ostrovsky, and producer Katia Patton report now from Albania on a small island at the center of a big controversy. It's week two of the biggest protests in Albania in years. And most of the people out here want to

speak out against corruption in their government. But there's also a sense of disappointment with Albania's biggest ally, America, and the way members of Donald Trump's family are treating this country. This is the video that sparked the uprising people are now calling the Flamingo Revolution. Private security guards violently detain an activist protesting against a luxury development in a protected nature preserve, that is a home for the iconic pink bird. It's a luxury development that U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner are backing.

In 2024, Kushner shared these renderings of the lavish proposal on his Instagram account. You know, it's not even a business for me, despite the scale of it. But the plans didn't generate a lot of international attention until recently, when Ivanka made an appearance on a podcast that angered the citizens of this economically struggling Balkan nation. Not only the island, but we have five miles of beachfront. Directly across from the island, this beautiful peninsula with a lagoon on one side, the ocean on the other, beautiful white sand beaches.

But those white sand beaches are on protected land. And the island, it's not private. It is, in fact, public property. The couple's attempts to appropriate it have elicited much anger here. But Ivanka's claims that she accidentally stumbled upon it have generated even more eye rolls. She said she discovered the Iceland, but died, we look to us. How did it make you feel when you saw her talking about the island?

I was mad because the island is ours, not hers. It's an unbelievable, beautiful 1,400 hectare private island in the middle of the Mediterranean. We were on a friend's boat and we stopped for a swim. Effectively, that's how we found it. She discovered the island, right? Yeah. That was very funny.

And the set at the same time. Well, we have only one island. Yeah. And I'm a tour guide and I go into that island like 60 times per year. Yeah. I want to go another 60 times more. We need it. It's ours. We don't want to sell it.

Beriana Bino heads a think tank in Albania's capital, Tirana. She told the news hour, Albanians were most concerned with the apatian. concerned with the opacity of the proposal and that the government of Prime Minister Eddie Rama had quietly worked with Kushner and Trump to make this project possible. Ivanka Trump comes to Albania, has this private visits, meets privately with the Prime Minister and with architects. What is this project? What is the plan of the government? Who is this investor? We saw construction work there. That's why environmentalists protested and citizens protested. But there was no permission. There was no official documentation

For us, the citizens of Albania, this is an issue that has to do with this system, this political elite and the lack of transparency and accountability that affects our daily lives. The podcast appearance of Ivanka Trump was kind of just the straw that broke the camel's back. The anger has built up for a long time. The inclusion of Jared Kushner in Vanka Trump is like the symbol that made it something that could not be bearable anymore. Albania may be small, but its love for America is big.

This tiny country regularly polls as one of the most pro-American nations in the world. It contributed 3,000 troops to America's war on terror, and at the UN, it votes in lockstep with the United States. But this foray into the local real estate market by the president's son-in-law, who also doubles as a special envoy for peace, has started to tarnish more than just the Trump family name. You know, there's been tension in the crowd between people protesting and people holding American flags. Yeah? Because basically what we are against right now is this American investment, that's what it is.

But we are against the president's daughter and his Saudi law investing in our cause. People here for a long time looked up to America. Do you think they still look up to America in the same way? What Albanian people and most of European people love about America is their principles. So the land of the free and democracy, it is very sad to see the American government not stand up to them. Albanians expect more from one of their closest allies, says Robin Brooks. She's a global policy professor and a former U.S. National Security Council Director for the Balkans and Central Europe. influence in this country that is predicated on what historically has been our shared values and our shared commitment to democracy, democratic institutions, and rule of law. So when the

United States is investing in a way that is not transparent and it seems potentially to violate Albanian law, it tarnishes our image with the people of Albania and with and our ability to exercise that leverage in the future. For now, the billion dollar price, The project continues as the White House claims the private business activities of Kushner and the President's daughter have nothing to do with the administration. That's no consolation for people like Yanni Vorsby. He's an ecologist with an environmental watchdog in Albania and showed me around the protected area.

It's a city, 10,000 rooms. It's going to completely alter the face of this entire place. Yep. So we don't talk anymore about negative effects. effects on nature. It's wiping out nature. And we're talking about the only island that Albania has. Repeat that again. You're saying this is Albania's only island and that's the one they want to make private? Yes, exactly. That only island is now at the center of furious public debate, as many here fear for the future of one of the country's most pristine places. For the PBS News Hour,

I'm Simon Ostrovsky in Zvernet's Albania. SpaceX, the rocket company founded by Elon Musk, will be going public on Friday and is expected to become the largest initial public offering, or IPO, in stock market history. With the sale of more than 555 million shares, Musk and the company are looking to raise roughly $75 billion. That would raise the company's valuation to about $1.7 trillion, automatically making it the world's most valuable publicly traded company. NASDAQ and larger index funds will also allow trading and investing in this company much earlier than normal within three weeks. Individual investors alone have already requested more than $70 billion worth of shares. There are lots of questions about all of this, and for more we are joined now by Ron Insana, MS Now Senior Business Analyst, and author of the message of the markets on Substack.

Ron, it's always good to see you, especially on a day like this as we await this IPO. What is it about SpaceX that investors are willing to value it at a level we've never seen before? Well, I think to give Elon Musk a great deal of credit for being an innovator and a business genius, if you will, having taken over Tesla in its early days, having built out Starlink, which is one of the key components of SpaceX going public, and having very successfully built and launched rockets into space at a fraction of the cost that we've seen others either attempt in the private sector, or even in government operations as well. So they're banking on his vision of the future where we're going to have data centers in space

that will provide power for artificial intelligence operations and hoping that he can grow into that $1.7 trillion valuation, which might actually be larger tomorrow once the stock starts to trade and deliver the types of revenues and profits that would support a valuation that high. Well, right, after reading the prospectus, my question to you was, are investors buying the company as it exists today or a vision of what it could become?

And at what point does optimism just become speculation? Well, I mean, I think the two go hand in hand. And they are certainly buying the vision. They are not buying the company as it exists today with about $18 billion in revenue. And last year lost about $4.2 billion from operation. So, no, this is not the type of company. If you look at it from an earnings perspective, that you would accord a $1.7. trillion dollar valuation. They're hoping that they can grow into that number, as some other companies

have, obviously, whether it's Microsoft or whether it's a Google's parent alphabet, Invidia, that's happened over an extremely long period of time. This is happening much more quickly. There are concerns, of course, that this is, you know, part of a speculative frenzy that's going on with anything associated with artificial intelligence and that the valuation on this, which, you know, when taken in sum, is larger than the market valuation of all the, the IPOs, I believe we've seen since the year 2000. So this is a very big deal and people are going to make their bets and see whether or not in the long run that vision will be fulfilled. Well, right. On your substack and on your TikTok videos, you've been warning retail investors

to be careful. What should regular investors know, especially folks who are interested in buying shares or at least trying to get shares? Well, if they've already gotten an allocation, they've gotten that allocation of the price of $135, which was set officially today. What often happens, and we've seen this, the chief investment officer Truist, pointed out that, you know, from the top price that you see early in an initial public offering for hot stocks like this, whether it was meta or Alibaba or some of the other big tech names that we know, a year later, those stocks were down on average about 55%. So, you know, there are some restrictions on flipping for individual investors, which means

buying it and selling it immediately after the IPO. But they should be prepared for a fair amount of volatility unless you see just a surge in revenues, a surge in profitability at SpaceX that would support the valuation that may exceed $2 trillion tomorrow. We're not quite sure exactly where it's going to open. Some estimates are as high as $165 a share, which would provide individuals with an instant profit. Remember also, there are a lot of early investors who are taking profits from their initial investments in SpaceX and the other components of that company, they too are exiting. So you don't want to be the bagholder if indeed this does not live up to its expectations.

Meantime, Open AI and Anthropic are also preparing to go public. Are we witnessing the beginning of a new AI investment cycle similar to previous technology booms? Or is this something else entirely? Well, I think we're in the middle of one. And again, this already dwarfs kind of the, the capital requirements that we saw, even in the buildout of the railroads in the 1870s in the United States.

This is the enormous capital commitment. At least this year alone, we'll see about $800 billion put to work for data centers and other AI infrastructure necessities. Some are estimating that we could see a trillion dollars spent next year. Now, whether or not that comes to pass remains to be seen. The one caveat I'd put on this is that

it's not just these companies selling equity in their firms. to raise money. They're also using a fair amount of debt, which again, if the companies don't live up to their profit and revenue expectations, we can see a financial market event down the road if they cannot service that debt or if they don't meet earnings expectations that could harm their stocks rather significantly. So I think individuals really need to do some serious homework around this and make sure that they're not in the midst of an investing mania and instead making very rational decisions about how much money they allocate to these AI plays.

Ron Insana, MSNNALSNANI, senior business analyst and the author of The Message of the Markets on Substack. Ron, always a pleasure. Take care. Same, Jim. Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Devlin Barrett of the New York Times has covered federal law enforcement for more than two decades. His new book pulls back the curtain on Trump's Justice Department and the way the president has used it as a tool to settle political scores. I spoke earlier today with Devlin about that book, The Department of Revenge. Devalin Barrett, welcome to the News Hour. Thanks for being here. Hi, thanks, Amher. I'm for having me.

So one of the key points underpinning all your reporting in the book is how different President Trump's approach is to the Department of Justice in his second term as compared to his first. You write in the book, his rage against the Justice Department was also deeply personal, a visceral, instinctive reaction to his own experience. What did you mean by that? I mean, I have covered federal law enforcement for a very long time. And one of the things you see happen over and over and over is when a person is charged by the government, when a person is investigated by the government, that person also comes out of that experience, very angry and bitter about what happened to them. And I think one of the things that is really important about understanding what Trump is doing to the Justice Department and why is that he is a former criminal defendant who is now in charge of these agencies. and he is still very angry and very suspicious of federal law enforcement. He describes himself at one point as the hunter now.

And within the DOJ, you report that officials there would refer to the president as the department's chief client. What does that come to mean in terms of how they approach and do their work? If you think about the department, the Department of Justice is different than all the other agencies in the government. It's not like the Department of Agriculture. It's not like the Department of Commerce, because the Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing the criminal laws of the country,

basic issues of right and wrong. And when people join the Justice Department or join the FBI, they take an oath to defend the Constitution. What's so different about what is happening in the Trump Justice Department right now is that all those lawyers and all those agents are being told very explicitly, your oath to the Constitution means you must always do what the president wants. And that has never been how that oath has been. interpreted before. And so that's why so many Justice Department people have left, some have been fired, and that's why there's so much turmoil inside the department. There's a new detail in the book

I want to ask you about a never-before-released secret recording of a meeting in which Emil Bovey, you said, suggested that people who signed off on a motion that would dismiss this action against then New York City Mayor Eric Adams, if anyone signed that motion, they could get a promotion. Tell us about what happened there. Right. So there's a confrontational meeting early into the Trump administration when Emil Bovis meets with the public integrity prosecutors, a very important part of the Justice Department

that handles corruption cases. And basically, he's at that moment of that meeting, he's already forced out a number of federal prosecutors in New York because he's trying to end a criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. And they were forced out because they refused. They refused to go along with that. They refused to put their names on a motion to dismiss their own case saying that was wrong,

and they wouldn't be a part of it. So then Amel Bovi takes that same demand to the public integrity prosecutors. And in a meeting, he says, I'll give you an hour, but I want two people to sign this motion. And he really wants career prosecutors to do it. It's important to him to have careers do it. And he says, whoever signs this will emerge as leaders. of the public integrity section. And my reporting shows that everyone in that conversation

understood that to mean, if you sign this document for me in this, you know, very contentious issue in this case, I will promote you. And is there evidence that happens? Yes, because the person who ultimately agrees to sign the motion, who does it for, I think, some understandable, not dishonorable reasons,

that person does become promoted. that person is running what's left of the public integrity section today. And the recording is important because Bovi is asked about this in congressional hearings. What does he say? First, he says he doesn't understand the question, then he says he doesn't remember. But finally he says, no, he didn't do that. And that's really important because the recording is clear. And I know people who were in their original meeting who watched Bovie's testimony.

And in that moment, those people certainly believed that Bovie wasn't. telling the truth to Congress. Can you give us a sense of what's happening among the career attorneys around these kinds of instances? It's not the only one you document in which people are pressured to sign off on things or take steps that they say are unethical or there's no evidence for, right? And yet they always seem to find someone who will sign off on something or will move forward with the prosecution. So what's happening with the attorneys at this point? What you see time and again is career prosecutors saying you don't have the facts

to support the charges you want to file here under the law. And the political leadership of the department pushing and saying, file the charges, find a way, get it done. And what you see time and again repeated is that the people running the Justice Department in a certain sense are on a kind of fishing expedition. That term historically means prosecutors who are just looking for dirt, and they don't have a good reason to investigate, they're just looking for dirt. This, I would say, is a different kind of fishing expedition.

This is a fishing expedition for prosecutors who are willing to lower standards and to charge cases that other career prosecutors will not charge. You also report on how badly depleted the workforce has been within the department. Can you quantify it? What would you say is the current status of the Justice Department? I mean, parts of the Justice Department are functioning almost like ghost ships at this point. They are so understaffed and a lot of the people in charge are fairly green, fairly inexperienced. and there has been a tremendous exodus of legal experience, legal talent. So, for example, more than half of the lawyers in the Civil Rights Division have left. If you look at the criminal division, one out of five of the lawyers there have left.

If you look at individual sections like, for example, the National Security Division, they've lost a tremendous amount of the senior lawyers. And in that division especially, you're talking about terrorism and espionage cases. it's hugely important to have people who have done a lot of terrorism and espionage cases before. And so there's a tremendous lack of personnel now within the department. And the result of that really is you have a great more uncertainty in the department. You have a lot more confusion in the department as to who's doing what and why. And you have one person described themselves and themselves and their,

colleagues as mole people just trying to stay out of the eye of this of the leadership of the department and I would like to make one thing clear which is that there are still a lot of very smart very ethical people doing very good work in the Justice Department and the FBI. There are a lot of things that the Justice Department FBI do that really don't deal with corruption or political issues or anything like that and there's a lot of good work being done in those areas. But I think even in those areas, you talked time and time again to lawyers and agents who are terrified that any day they could get a call assigning them to some case that makes no sense and feels wrong. And they are told they have no choice but to obey.

The book is the Department of Revenge. The author is Depplin Barrett. Delon, thank you so much. Thanks, Anna. The World Cup kicked off in Mexico today as South Africa squared off against Mexico, which is, one of this year's host countries. Matches get underway tomorrow in the two other hosting countries, that's the U.S. and Canada. Notably, several American cities hosting these opening matches will be sweltering this weekend,

making stadiums feel more like a sauna than a playing field. The heat and humidity can take a major toll on player performance and fan safety. Climate Central's Ben Tracy shows us how extreme heat is changing the game in our warming world. It's part of our series, Tipping Point. Follow through where you want the ball to go. Perfect. Marissa Abegg has always gotten her kicks on the soccer field. You're going to take that touch across your body and then pass it back.

Kept me sane as a kid, got to run around a ton. For her, the World Cup was must-see TV. I didn't even really know what Super Bowl was growing up, right? The 99 World Cup was absolutely my Super Bowl. A-Beg cures it. She played two seasons of professional soccer, where sometimes the rival, got too heated. In a sliding tackle from AVEC.

You just know how miserable is to run around in hot weather. It plays such a huge impact on the way you play. This summer, extreme heat could be a real risk for both players and fans at the World Cup. It has the potential to be some of the most extreme environmental conditions for soccer in the history of America. Doug Kasa runs the Corey Stringer Institute, named after the NFL player who died from heat stroke in 2001. Pick the population. If they have to do their job or sport in the heat, we're studying them.

Here we go. Inside their heat labs at the University of Connecticut, researchers study how athletes and workers can stay safe and still perform in extreme conditions. So we're here at the Corey Stringer Institute. Before the 2021 Tokyo Olympics, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team trained here to prepare for Japan's oppressive heat and humidity. and humidity. Which World Cup sites are you most concerned about? Without question, Miami.

It could easily be 100-degree day and 80% humidity. Climate Central analyzed temperature trends at all 16 World Cup sites, including this outdoor stadium in Miami, which now sees 14 more extremely hot June and July days due to climate change. Heat and humidity push an athlete's core body temperature higher, giving those playing indoors an edge. If your temperature's lower, they just perform better. They can cover more distance, have more sprints, faster sprints. All of those things can happen if you're less dehydrated and you're less hypothermic. So you're blowing heat into the room right now to make this uncomfortable?

Yes. I can feel it. Here we go. KSI chief operating officer Rebecca Stearns showed me how quickly heat can impact performance. In the heat, your heart rate is showing much higher stress. by cranking up my pace and the temperature. So right now, 50 degrees. So it's like going for a run in Phoenix.

Yes. The test measures how fast my body heated up. And your body temperature right now is 102.5. All right, so it's toasty. Yeah. And we don't want to go above 104? 104 is the max. Above that, the risk of heat stroke rises,

potentially leading to organ failure or even death. The outcome of our heat stroke all boils down to the number of minutes that the body is above approximately 105 degrees. We literally don't know of anyone yet on planet Earth who's ever died from a heat stroke if their attempt gets under 104 within 30 minutes. Kasa says a World Cup heat stroke is unlikely, but believes FIFA's new three-minute hydration breaks don't go far enough. That is just absolutely not long enough to have an impact. My suggestion would make that five or six minutes. Players have been trying to acclimate to warmer temperatures before the tournament begins. FIFA says it's limiting outdoor matches during the hottest parts of the day and adding cooling areas for fans.

But CASA is still concerned for stadium workers and spectators, especially those in sunbaked locations like Miami. I believe two of their games are happening at 5 p.m. But because we're near the summer solstice, 5 p.m. is basically like the middle of afternoon in Miami and so a big chunk of the stadium is still going to be in full sun. So I asked myself the game that's scheduled for 5 p.m., why are we not playing at 8 or 9 o'clock at night? Look at you. Oh my gosh. Is your name actually me a hand? Marissa Abegg is now coaching youth soccer. Nice.

Just before our interview, she canceled practice because of a heat wave. I think it's just going to play more and more of a role as we go forward. She still has World Cup fever, but is trying to keep it cool. cool. I think we're going to a game in Boston in June, and I'm already considering like, well, what's the temperature going to be like? Do you feel for these teams that are going to have to play in Miami in the middle of the summer? Oh my gosh, 100%. Like, I don't even want to watch in that weather, right? For the PBS News Hour, I'm Ben Tracy with Climate Central. Be sure to tune into a special one-hour edition of Washington Week tomorrow night.

America celebrates its 250th birthday, and we take stock of this extraordinary time in our nation's history. This July 4th, we will mark two and a half centuries of liberty and triumph. Join moderator Jeffrey Goldberg and six of the country's top journalists for a special hour-long discussion in front of a live studio audience for Washington Week with the Atlantic, the next 250. Friday, June 12th at 8 p.m. And join us again back here tomorrow night for a conversation with Bruce Springsteen on the opening of his new American Music Center and how he sees his place in the

continuum of American song. And that is The NewsHour for tonight. I'm Omna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett for all of us here at the News Hour. Thanks for spending part of your evening with us.