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

Episode Date: June 17, 2025

The world holds its breath as the war between Israel and Iran escalates and President Trump convenes his national security team. Meanwhile in the U.S., officials grapple with how to address rising political violence, the Senate works to shape President Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ and pastors share how immigration crackdowns are taking a toll on Latino communities. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening. I'm Amman Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight. They should have done the deal. I told him, do the deal. President Trump urges Iran to surrender amid the prospect of direct U.S. involvement in its escalating war with Israel. Senate Republicans proposed changes to the president's budget bill with major implications for Medicaid and green energy. And farmers turn to artificial intelligence to help feed the world's most populous country. People think agriculture means losses, and I want to prove that it's sustainable with

short, middle, and long-term strategies. Welcome to the News Hour. President Trump convened his top national security aides today for a crucial meeting on Iran, as Israel's air campaign continued for a fifth day. The meeting came after Mr. Trump left the G7 summit early to fly back to Washington, and as the U.S. is sending fighter jets and a second American carrier strike group to the region. Across Israel today, a now familiar sound, the swell of sirens, signaling incoming missiles from Iran. A now familiar sight follows, plumes of black smoke after.

an impact. Crews raced to put out fires at a bus depot in central Israel after an airstrike left this crater in the ground. Nearby, explosions were seen around a Mossad building in a separate attack. Iran claims it hit the intelligence agency's headquarters, which Israel has not confirmed. To the north, a funeral for a mother and two daughters from the Khatib family, killed when an Iranian missile hit their home in the Arab-Israeli town of Tamra over the weekend. In the meantime, Israel said today one of its strikes on Iran killed the top military commander.

We eliminated Ali Shadmani, the war chief of staff, the most senior military commander of the Iranian regime. Parts of Tehran now lie in ruins. In Amin Ali in northern Tehran, Mojtzeba is back at his bakery, minutes after learning that his brother was killed in an Israeli air strike. People still need bread. They're not responsible for this war. This is my front line. Israel should know that with its actions, that will not succeed. Even if hundreds more die, we will still do our duty. Israel pounded Tehran last night and into today, prompting chaos in the capital city as thousands clogged the main roads trying to leave. President Trump has been messaging two Iranians

online. Last night, warning residents of Tehran to, quote, immediately evacuate. Today, claiming the U.S. knows where Iran's supreme leader is hiding, but, quote, we're not going to take him out, kill at least not for now. And later, calling for, quote, unconditional surrender from the regime. Trump met with top security aides after leaving early from the G7 meeting in Canada. On Air Force One, the president said he's less inclined to use diplomacy after Iran backed out of nuclear talks with the U.S. They should have done the deal. I told him, do the deal. So I don't know. I'm not too much in her who to negotiate.

He also directly contradicted his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who back in March said this. Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. Testifying on Iran's nuclear capability to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the president today. I don't care what you said. I think they were very close to happen. Meantime, the prospect of U.S. involvement is causing a rift in the Republican Party.

These are dangerous times. On Fox last night, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham called on the U.S. to use force, not diplomacy. Be all in President Trump in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear three. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations. But some prominent MAGA Republicans, like former Fox host Tucker Carlson, say U.S. involvement in Iran does not align with their America-first agenda. I'm really afraid that my country's going to be further weakened by this. I think we're going to see the end of American Empire, obviously. Other nations would like to see that, and this is a perfect way to scuttle the U.S.S. America on the shules of Iran.

Also breaking with the president, Georgia representative and Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Green, posting on X last night, quote, foreign wars, intervention, regime change, put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke and will ultimately lead to our destruction. All while the U.S. deploys more fighter jets to the Middle East to bolster its forces as the two regional powers continue to trade blows. Let's delve into this more now with Eric Edelman, who was. a career foreign service officer and served at high levels in the state and defense departments in both Democratic and Republican administrations and Karim Sadatpur. He's a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Eric Edelman, we've seen President

Trump's language towards Iran really ramp up over the last few days of Israeli strikes, threatening the Ayatollah outright, calling for surrender. What do you see here? Is this a U.S. that's pushing for talks or that's preparing for more of a military effort in some way? Well, I think the president obviously has expressed in the past that he would prefer a diplomatic solution, but has been frustrated in that effort for a variety of reasons. I think now the administration and the president and his colleagues today are facing up to a very difficult reality, which is that Israel has done enormous damage to Iran's nuclear program, but it is not able to completely eliminate it

because of a lack of certain military capabilities, which the U.S. possesses. And so the challenge he now faces is whether the worst outcome would be to leave an Iran that has been damaged, humiliated, but still has the capability of reconstituting its nuclear program. I mean, this is a country that since the revolution has been founded on the notion of death to America and death to Israel. So in that sense, the American and Israeli faith are entwined at this point. I want to ask you more about the U.S. capabilities in just a moment.

But Kareem, to bring you in here, tell us about how President Trump's messages are to evacuate Iran, calling for the surrender. How are they being received by the regime and by the Iranian people? Are they seeing that as pressure to negotiate or something else? Well, the population at the moment is living in a state of profound insecurity and fear. They're really spectators. They're not participants in this. And I think there was an initial hope that maybe these attacks could trigger the population to rise up. But as long as they're under aerial bombardment and they're being told to evacuate, that's not a high likelihood.

I think the Supreme Leader is in the most difficult position he's ever been. He's an 86-year-old man has limited mental and cognitive bandwidth at this point. And he essentially has two terrible choices. He's being told by President Trump that he either needs to agree to a total surrender, which for any dictator that wants to be feared by his own population, is an outcome which can have devastating consequences. Or he could pursue the path of defiance and resistance. And he's threatened as much tonight saying that Iran plans to retaliate.

And that could lead to his external destruction. So Ayatollah Khomeini is in the most difficult position he's ever been in his 36 years as supreme leader. So, Eric, given that context, you mentioned, not having the capability itself to fully take out Iran's nuclear program, what would the U.S. be able to do to help them do that? And should the U.S. take that action? Well, the U.S. has a capability, the G.B.U. 57, which is a deep earth penetrating bomb. It's a 30,000 pound bomb that can drill down into 200 feet of earth and rock. And since the remaining major Iranian facilities are built into mountains, whether you're

talking about the Fordow facility or the so-called pickax mountain facility, those would have to be destroyed by that kind of ordinance. And as far as I know, that ordinance can only be delivered by American B-2 bombers. And is that something, is that a step that you believe the U.S. should take? in order to fully wipe out the nuclear program? What would you recommend to the president at this point? I think at this point, the idea of allowing Iran to have a residual capability to reconstitute its nuclear program,

given everything that's happened, would be catastrophic for the region, for Israel, and for the United States. So I'm inclined to agree with Senator Graham. I don't think this is something actually a capability we can give to Israel because the B-2 bombers are, they're small in number, and they're a part of our nuclear triad or the air-breathing leg of our nuclear triad. I don't think it's something we can just lend to the Israelis.

So I think, unfortunately, the onus will be on us if we want to see this program destroyed. And this is not just, by the way, something that, you know, President Trump believes. This is, you know, the idea that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon is something that every American president going back to the, late 80s, early 90s, has said. So I'm not sure we have much choice at this point.

Karim, what's your take on that? Do you agree that the U.S. should get involved in that way? And what would the impact of that kind of U.S. intervention be? You know, I think Eric would agree that there's profound risk of inaction and there's all obviously risks of action as well. As Eric laid out well, if the regime remains intact And that nuclear facility, which is half a mile underground and four-door remains intact, there's a real danger that when the dust settles, they will try to race for nuclear weapon.

So that's the risk of inaction. The risk of action is oftentimes much more unpredictable, and it can have consequences for decades to come, whether that's Iran unleashing everything it has in the Middle East, destabilizing Persian Gulf, destabilizing global trade, or it's the impact that it has on Iran's internal politics. You know, these types of actions and interventions oftentimes have unforeseeable consequences. So I'm reminded of something that Henry Kissinger once said, that when you're in government, a lot of the big decisions are 51-49, and, you know, I think this is going to be an incredibly consequential decision, which will have negative externalities either way.

Karim, I have less than a minute here, but I just have to ask, do you see the real possibility for regime change here in Iran? That's within the realm of possibilities, but one thing we would need to look for are signs of internal fissures within the regime, defections, fissures. You know, regime instability and regime implosion requires not only popular tumult, but those types of fissures. So far, we haven't seen it happen, but certainly this is a population in Iran. I would estimate up to, you know, 80% of Iranian society would like to live under a government

whose ethos is not death to America and death to Israel, but long live Iran. Karim Sajadpur and Eric Edelman, thank you both so much for joining us. We appreciate your time. Thank you. We start today's other headlines in New York. There were dramatic scenes at an immigration court as the city's comptroller Brad Lander was arrested by federal agents. Sir, you don't have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens.

Video provided to the News Hour by his campaign. shows a group of ICE and FBI agents struggling with Lander as he tried to escort a migrant out of the building. Lander, who is also a candidate for mayor, is heard in the video repeatedly asking to see a judicial warrant before he's pushed into a wall and arrested by the agents who are not wearing uniforms or displaying badges. Immigration lawyers say warrants are not needed in immigration courts because they are public spaces. Lander was released several hours after his arrest. Meantime, a federal appeals court in California heard arguments today on whether the Trump

administration can keep using National Guard troops to prevent protests and protect immigration agents in Los Angeles. The hearing by the three-judge panel came just days after a lower court ruled that Trump's use of the guard was illegal and ordered those troops returned to California's state control. The Trump administration appealed that decision, saying it was within its rights to bypass Governor Gavin Newsom to maintain order. Those guardsmen are necessary on the ground today to prevent breaches of the federal buildings to protect ICE officers when they are conducting their law enforcement operations.

The guardsmen are not conducting law enforcement. They are charged with a protective mission, not a law enforcement mission. Meantime, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted her curfew for parts of the city that were roiled by last week's protests against immigration rates. Turning now to the war in Gaza, Palestinian health officials, say at least 51 people were killed and more than 200 others wounded as they waited for U.N. trucks bearing much-needed food. This is not aid. This is an ambush. This is not aid.

This is an ambush against the youth, not to feed them, but to kill them. Eyewitnesses spoke of an Israeli airstrike and gunfire in the southern city of Kani Unis. Israel's military acknowledged reports of several casualties and said they are investigating. Russian missiles and drones killed at least 15 people and injured more than 150 in Ukraine overnight, the vast majority of them in the capital city of Kyiv. Hours after the attack firefighters were still struggling to put out blazes, rescue teams searched through the rubble of crushed apartment buildings for survivors. Officials say it's the deadliest attack on the capital this year.

As peace talks between the two countries falter, Ukraine says, Russia has stepped up assaults on civilian areas. Keeb's mayor declared that Wednesday will be a day of morning. Another attack by Russian barbarians. We hope that no casualties will be found under the rubble, but this cannot be guaranteed, and the number of dead may rise. Meantime, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy secured $1.5 billion in new military aid from Canada's Prime Minister today.

Zelensky has been trying to rally support from Western allies at the G. 7 summit. He was supposed to meet with President Trump today, but that was canceled after the president headed home early. Food giant Kraft Hines announced today that it will remove all chemical dyes from its products by the end of 2027. The company says the shift will affect about 10% of its brands that includes Kool-Aid and crystal light plus jello and other desserts and beverages that contain specific dyes. Kraft Hines is the first company to announce such plans since health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in April that his agency would work with companies on removing artificial dyes by the year 2026. On Wall Street today, stocks slipped after a weaker-than-expected report on U.S. retail sales.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 300 points on the day. The NASDAQ slipped nearly 200 points. The S&P 500 also closed in negative territory. Still to come on the news hour, pastors weigh in on the Trump administration's ongoing immigration raids. the nationwide risks posed by a rise in political violence. And what led to the mass resignation of the Fulbright Exchange Program's board? This is the PBS News Hour 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.

It's crunch time in Congress, where Senate Republican, have released their latest version of the president's so-called big, beautiful bill, and it differs notably from the version passed by House Republicans. Lisa Desjardin is here to unpack the latest proposed changes and the political sticking points. Good to see you. Good to see you. So tell us about the changes that the Senate made. What are they? First, one note, I want to remark that today there was an unusual atmosphere on Capitol Hill. It felt a bit like a place on edge. Part of that are the stakes in this bill.

It could be one of the historically largest in history. So I want to talk about Senate Republicans draft of some key provision. So let's look at what they would change from House Republicans. First of all, they would increase the child tax credit and make it permanent. They would make some business tax cuts permanent as well. For Medicaid, more cuts in this Senate draft than there are in the House passed bill. And for solar and wind, those tax credits that are being cut, the Senate would slightly delay them more, but ultimately they would still eliminate them, Senate Republicans. One more change that is notable, one of my fellow reporters this first. There's gun provisions in this bill. Remember in the House bill that they

ended taxes on silencers. Well, in the Senate bill, they do that, but they also extend that to short-barreled shotguns and rifles, so no taxes and also no regulations. Those would no longer be firearms in this Senate bill. Interesting. So we know the president wants this bill passed by July 4th. Where does this stand in Congress? Is it on track to do that? Right now, it's going the other way. We've seen more Republicans move away from the bill in the last day. I'm going to give you five reasons why. Let's look at these five senators in particular who are opposed to some of the Medicaid cuts in this Senate bill. One of them you may not have seen before, Jim Justice there on the top row of West Virginia. He came out today and said

these increased Medicaid cuts in this Senate draft. He doesn't like them as much as he liked the House provisions. Now, that's just one part of the issue. There are other senators with other problems in this bill. In all, they want to get through both chambers by July 4th. I think it would be a win for Republicans if they can get it through the Senate by July 4th. You've also been reporting on rising tensions, rising security concerns, especially for lawmakers themselves, and that's following this weekend's horrific shootings in Minnesota. What are you hearing for lawmakers on this? This is what I'm talking about also, a place that was on edge and even felt a little

bit afraid on Capitol Hill. Now part of what senators are reckoning with, of course, the murder of those two state lawmakers in Minnesota, the shooting of two others there, they are been talking about this. told me that there were two lists of lawmakers, one in the gunman's car, and then one also where he lived. And that included many members of Congress. So we saw yesterday, Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, there's one of the photos there from my colleague, Jamie Dupree, talking to Senator Mike Lee of Utah. He had put out on social media the idea that Democrats were

to blame for this. And that caused outrage across parties. Today, Mike Lee took those social media posts down. He said it was the right thing to do. I talked to Senator Smith, extensively. She said she still hadn't gotten her apology. This was on a day when there was also a security briefing for members that left many of them sober. Threats against members of Congress have risen to 9,000 in the last year, many of them calling for more protection. They don't have the resources for that right now. You've also been following the story of the California senator Padilla. He was handcuffed last week when he interrupted a press conference at the Homeland Security Secretary was hosting in Los Angeles. What's the latest on the senator?

That's right. I also spoke with him today. And he spoke to the public going to the Senate floor today, giving a speech on his experience where he detailed his experience, being handcuffed, pushed down to the ground. And I learned today that he had a National Guard representative and an FBI member escorting him into the room. What Democratic senators are talking about a great deal is the fact that neither that FBI agent nor the National Guardsman stood up for him or protected him. And that's something that I've had members of both parties say was a concern. He was trying to identify himself, but those who were with him in official capacity did not stand up for him. And finally, I think all the things you're covering, Lisa, the Senate passed a major bipartisan compromise today on cyber currency. What should we know about that?

Let's talk about this quickly. It is important. This is a bill called the Genius Act. I'm going to talk to you about what's in it. Let's go through it quickly. This would be, this is something that regulates something called stable coins, which are cyber currency attached to a real asset like gold or dollars. Now, this would include consumer protections for this very nascent industry. This would be the first cyber currency law if it gets all the way through. Congress, it bipartisan, just past the last couple of minutes in the U.S. Senate, last hour or so. It's significant because some people say, oh, cyber currency is that serious? Here's U.S. Congress taking it seriously. If this bill or some form of it gets through all of Congress, some people think the floodgates will open in that industry. One last thing, this bill does say U.S. members of Congress cannot profit off of stable

coins, but it doesn't say whether the president can. And some Democrats say that's a huge problem for a president whose family clearly is getting in that business. Lisa Desjardin, quite literally covering it all on Capitol Hill. Lisa, thank you. You're welcome. The Trump administration's hardline immigration policies have sparked protests across the country and have had had a professional. profound impact on many Latino communities. We're going to hear now from two pastors on the front lines offering support and helping families navigate the fear and practical challenges that come with immigration enforcement. First, we're joined by the Reverend Carlos Malave, president of the

Latino Christian National Network, representing evangelical and mainline leaders across the country. Thanks for being here. We appreciate it. My pleasure. Thank you for the opportunity. So what concerns you the most about the way the ICE deportation raids are being carried out? I would say that we, as a nation, and especially the Latino Committee in the U.S., is at a crossroads at this moment. Our people are systematically being repressed. And the level of fear that our community is experiencing is at levels that we have never experienced as a community. in this country, at least we never expected that we will be here in this moment.

But the suffering of our people is real, and we didn't have to come to this point. So we are accompanying our people as spiritual leaders in this cross-road moment in our nation. When you say this isn't something that you ever expected, Donald Trump ran on greater border enforcement, mass deportations. Those were the two biggest pledges he made, as a candidate, in fact, at the Republican National Convention, there was a sea of people holding signs that said mass deportation now. I mean, doesn't his aggressive immigration approach

align with what the public was told to expect in the event that he won? In a sense, that's true, but there are nuances to that, and there was a rhetoric that was used, and it's even still being attempted to be used, the rhetoric that what the administration wanted to do when the president was to deport criminals.

And so based on that, we can ask, what does the president administration consider criminals? Because what we see every day through social media in our communities and even through the regular media is that families, children, workers, people who are normal people, who've been a blessing to our community are being repressed. and harassed and persecuted. Your organization filed a lawsuit to stop ICE from targeting places like churches and schools.

The federal judge refused to block that new policy. What effect has that had on the community? The community, soon after the inauguration, when we began to hear all this rhetoric and the intentions of the administration, our church members enter into actually a real deep fear mode. And that began to affect them to the effect that many, many thousands must stop going to churches, not only going to churches, going to even to hospital, to doctors visits, sometimes even to the market. But then that subsided a little bit for a while, for a few months, but now when we see the increment of this vicious acts of the administration,

not be real, people are really living in real deep fear. When you speak of fear, do you think that's deliberate on the part of the Trump administration creating fear as part of this strategy for immigration enforcement and deterrence? We have no doubt, at least those leaders that work with us have no doubt that this is a fear campaign, that is intentional to confuse our people. And it's intentional. The very sad part of this is that our people are being persecuted and inflicted fear over just for the sake of being Latinos. We strongly believe that there is a strong component of racial prejudice on this.

And we have seen this again and again. The Reverend Carlos Malave, President of the Latino Christian National Network. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. And for another perspective on this, the Reverend Sam Rodriguez is back with us. He's president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and senior pastor of the New Season Church in Sacramento, California. He's also an advisor to the White House on faith issues.

It's good to have you back. Thanks for being here. Thank you for having me. So when you and I spoke back in November, just after election, Day about Trump immigration policies. You said you had assurances from the Trump team that their focus would be on deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Here's what you said at the time. Now, I could tell you right here to your audience, I would be the first one, vociferously protesting if the administration comes after families

that have been here 20, 25, 30 years, 15 years, God-fearing, hardworking, not living of government subsidies since children were born here. So did you protest? when I started arresting and deporting long-settled families and farm workers? I can't necessarily express how I protested, but I can say with clear conviction and with a love to God and integrity in my children, I can go to sleep at night knowing that I was faithful to my word. I was given assurances, and I commend and applaud President Trump for pivoting for making a declarative statement as it pertains to,

please, target the criminal element, and his wording, not mine, leave the good people who are hardworking, and he was referencing farm workers in California, but others likewise, leave them alone. Let's find a solution out there, but just target the criminal element. I agree with President Trump's clear articulation that the priority should be exclusively those involved in the Ferris activities.

President Obama deported far more undocumented immigrants than President Trump has, even earned the nickname Deporter in chief, but he focused on recent arrivals and undocumented immigrants with criminal records. And you were an advisor to former President Obama at the time. So how do you compare with what happened then to what you're seeing now, especially with these high-profile raids that critics say are designed to provoke and escalate and instill fear? These high-profile raids may very well be the outcome of sanctuary cities and sanctuary laws. Let me put it in perspective.

If sanctuary states, cities, and laws would not exist, Department of Homeland Security, ICE would have access to prisons and jails and to information and cooperation from local law enforcement. When that is no longer present, they have to go with this large net, this incredible net. Now, that was explained to me specifically and directly, as I asked the same identical question. And I was told explicitly, the only reason this is happening, the rates are directly proportional to sanctuary laws. if you're not cooperating, we're going to have the, we're going to have the capsule large net.

And in that large net, unfortunately, may be, and I'm quoting here, an air quote here for purpose, innocent bystanders, meaning those that came in here undocumented, but not have not, that's not but engaged in affairs activities, and maybe family members to the criminal elements being picked up. When you say that you spoke up, you expressed your concerns to the Trump administration, what was the response that you received? Again, for ethical purposes and for purposes of preserving my relational dynamic with the current administration, I cannot share the specifics of how, when, where, who, what I can tell you is that I did express my angst and my consternation, because I'm hearing it from pastors. I really am. I'm hearing it from pastors. There's great concern. And we're talking about pro-Trump pastors, conservative Christian pastors, the 64% that supported his re-election in 2024.

And there's great anxiety out there because their parishioners are living in fear. So really, if Homeland Security would execute President Trump's instructions, the fear would go away, and we would work on a congressional solution. I'll put to you the same question I put to Pastor Malave. I mean, do you think the fear is by design? Is the fear by design? It's the fear by design.

I don't deny the fact that there may be a strategy to prompt people to self-deport. And in order to prompt people to self-deport, there may be an element of a fear or fear-mongering that may be part of the algorithm currently in place. And I'm not here to justify President Trump's policy. I'm here to tell you firsthand in conversations, that's not President Trump's directive. It isn't. It may be others, but it's not his. He's still president, no?

But he is president, but right now, I'm going to be honest. There are a couple, and this is important, of course, to all of us. But, you know, Israel, Iran, the U.S. engagement, there are some pretty important things happening simultaneously right now, where this issue may not be front and center as a priority item list as of today. But there are others who are executing. And as you mentioned previously, there seems to be a disconnect between his directive and the execution of policies currently. So I do hope they place themselves in perfect alignment with the president's petition, for lack of a better term.

The Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, senior pastor of the New Season Church in Sacramento, California. Thanks again for your time this evening. Thank you for having me. This PBS NewsHour podcast is supported in part by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Life sustains itself by cell division, so does cancer. Breast cancer cells multiply faster because of CDK-4-6 proteins. But what if we could block those proteins and stop runaway cell division? To that end, Dana-Farber laid the foundation for CDK-4-6 inhibitors,

drugs designed to treat many advanced breast cancers. Dana Farber keeps finding new ways to outmaneuver cancer. Learn more at Danafarber.org slash everywhere. The shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses this weekend are just the latest instances of targeted political violence in America. A trend experts say is being exacerbated by increased polarization and heated rhetoric from public figures. William Brigham joins us now with more. Omna, as you say, these disturbing acts are part of a pattern that we've seen playing out over the last few years. A congressman at a baseball practice, the family of the former Speaker of the House, Pennsylvania's governor, and candidate Donald Trump, all targets of graphic political violence.

To help us better understand the root causes and potential solutions for this, we are joined again by Cynthia Miller Idris. She's a professor at American University and the author, most recently, of Man Up, the new misogyny and the rise of violent extremism. Cynthia Miller Idris, so good to have you back on the program. Before we get into this broader trend, I want to ask you about this attack over the weekend in Minnesota. We know that the alleged suspect there, targeted Democrats and their spouses, and his list of potential victims were also all Democrats. Is there anything else about his history that gives us some clues as to his motivations?

Well, thanks for having me. It's good to see you again, William. You know, the history of this particular attacker included some very anti-LGBQ statements and very strong anti-abortion stances, including language in a speech in sub-Saharan Africa that depicted sort of gendered change. in the U.S. as motivated by the enemy, like the enemy has seeped into their souls kind of language. So what you see is somebody who is motivated not just to attack progressive causes or politicians,

but also really saw gender and women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ issues as a kind of existential threat. And is that a more common theme that emerges with these kinds of attackers? I mean, it's so common that it's sharp that it's shocking how often we silence it or ignore it, to be honest. It's very hard to think of an example of a mass shooter or terrorist attacker in American history over the last two decades that did not involve some prior history of domestic and intimate partner violence,

anti-LGBQ statements, harassment, stalking. So everyone from the Parkland School shooter to the Evaldi, Texas shooter to the Maryland Newsroom attacker, just to name three examples that often aren't included in that, had some history of gendered misogynistic or sexist actions. In an op-ed that you published recently, you talked about increased political polarization as being a big driver of this violence as well. What does that mean, practically speaking? Practically speaking, the biggest problem that we're seeing is the... use of language that demonizes the other. And this happens both on the Republican and the Democratic side, but particularly using language like describing the other as evil, as demonic, as an

existential threat to the country, to the future of democracy, or as the enemy within, to use language that President Trump has used in his campaign period of time leading up to the election. that's really the kind of language that can make it seem like someone feels like they have to take action. They're compelled to take what they think is heroic action or patriotic action. In fact, we saw in response to this Minnesota shooting, several conservatives employed that exact kind of language. They seem to be doing the exact thing you're saying exacerbates violence. Yeah, there's an absolutely right way, unequivocally right way to respond to acts of political violence like. this across the partisan spectrum, what we need is immediate condemnation of violence. So we did see that

from President Trump. We did see an immediate statement, but a lot of other leaders, you know, we have seen that kind of rhetoric that continue to demonize or paint it as if it were deserved. And we saw that when President Trump's first assassination attempt happened too. We saw language like, you reap what you sow, right? That kind of language that says political violence is somehow justified. or valorizes it, or blames the other, is extremely dangerous. But as any student of American history knows, we have a long history of this. Civil wars, lynchings, assassination attempts. Is there anything unique to this moment in your mind, or is this just part of our long, dark history?

We have a long dark history of political violence, and we've had periods of time like this before. Or, you know, when you think about the assassinations of Martin Luther King or Kennedy, right, the political assassinations of the 1960s is the kind of thing that we're seeing now. I think what's different is that this is part of an uptick that dates back about 20 years. We now see a 2,000 percent increase in targeted violent plots over the past 20, 25 years. That's now three plots a day, according to data from the University of Maryland Start Center. that's different than what we saw 20 years ago. So we're in a cycle in which this isn't the only time we've had it, but we're definitely in a more dangerous and high-risk environment for political violence.

All right. That is American University's Cynthia Miller Idris. Always great to talk with you. Thank you so much. Great to talk with you, William. Thank you. A week ago, 11 of the 12 members of the board overseeing the prestigious Fulbright program, which promotes international educational exchanges, resigned, citing political interference by the Trump administration in their work.

In a statement, the board members said they chose to resign rather than endorse unprecedented actions that we believe are impermissible under the law, compromise U.S. national interests and integrity, and undermine the mission and mandates Congress established for the Fulbright program nearly 80 years. years ago. Joining us now is one of the former members of the Fulbright Board, David Price, former Democratic Congressman from North Carolina. Congressman, it's great to have you here. Good to be here. Thank you. And we should explain for the unfamiliar. The Fulbright is overseen. It's funded by the State Department as the government's flagship international educational exchange program. How would you describe the political interference that you experienced by the Trump

administration? Well, when the program was first set up almost 80 years ago, Senator Fulbright himself wanted to safeguard against political interference in the program, in the selection of scholars, interference with academic freedom, on the part of any administration in the future. So the board was written into the statute with precisely that mission. It's an unusual mission for a board, but we were given final authority over the selection process. And we went through that, as we always do this year. We had the awards ready to go in the middle of March. But the Trump administration's political appointees told us that they intended to review our work and to make their own judgments. And that was ominous. But we watched that

process. We tried to communicate with them when we got wind that they were going to be canceling a number of the awards. We objected and cited our statutory responsibility and the values underlying it. And we got silence, no response whatsoever. So finally, when all this became clear in the middle of May, two months late, over 200 applications had been canceled by the Trump appointees. And another 1,200 or so were under review. At that point, it was clear that the Trump administration wasn't responsive to our questions and they were ignoring their legislative mandate. And we didn't think there was more we could do. Indeed, we just could not remain in position and appear to legitimize the gross distortion

for the first time in 80 years, the first the gross distortion of this program, the political interjection of politics into the selection process. Well, our team reached out to the State Department for comment on all of this. A statement provided by a spokesperson reads in part this way, the 12 members of the Fulbright Board were partisan political appointees of the Biden administration. It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's executive orders. How do you respond to that argument?

I'm saying that President Trump's executive orders cannot override the statute and that the board is established by that. statute precisely to protect the integrity of the program. So as usual, they're kind of turning things totally on their head. Yes, we're presidential appointees, and that's always been the case. But this is a board with a particular charge, a particular charge written in statute, and the charge is precisely to avoid what the Trump administration, what the first time in history, they have done what Senator Fulbright most feared. To your point about all of this being written in statute, the board has resigned. So what recourse is there at this point, if any?

It's a very precarious situation. By the way, there is a small Fulbright program that's administered by the education department. That one has gone away simply because the Doge guys fired all the people who were administering it. And now the president has zeroed out the Fulbright program in the coming budget. Now, when he did that in his first term, Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, wrote the program back into the appropriations bills. And of course, we very much hope that will happen. So we hope for funding, but of course then there'll still be the question of the impartial administration of the program, which preserves academic freedom and preserves the diplomatic strength of this program, which deserves the diplomatic strength of this program, which is lives in its integrity. It's worldwide respect. It's just been a mainstay of American foreign

policy ever since World War II. And the thought that this would be distorted in this way, let alone that it would go away, is just unthinkable. Well, I was going to ask you how you see this affecting the Fulbright's global reputation, its long-standing role in public diplomacy. But beyond that, I mean, do you see a longer-term risk to U.S. academic exchange programs like the Fulbright? Yes, and yes. There's no question this has been a mainstay of American soft power, so-called, a major diplomatic, major source of goodwill and strong ties of friendship, association with this country all over the world.

The list is very, very long of Fulbright scholars who went on to become leaders in their countries. It is just a linchpin of American diplomatic relations. And of course, it's also an important academic program. Thousands of U.S. students and young faculty are able to go abroad and strengthen their education. And there too, it depends, though. It depends on its integrity and the academic freedom that's always been respected. David Price. Always great to speak with you.

Thanks for being with us. Thank you. I appreciate it. One of the largest challenges facing the world's most populous nation is food security. How to sustain food production for 1.4 billion people in India amid deteriorating soil conditions, diminishing water supplies, and climate change. For some, including hundreds of artificial intelligence startups, the challenge represents a business opportunity.

From India, Fred de Sam Lazaro reports. From all appearances, this vineyard looks very healthy, but its owner must stay constantly on guard for pests or disease that can wipe out a crop. Another challenge, persistent water shortages. Water is very scarce. Especially water management is very difficult. Just over a year ago, Naraynapa Murthy signed on to a service that for between $30 and $70 a year offers a bounty of useful data.

A sensor constantly monitor soil and leaves for moisture, which, along with weather data, is analyzed with artificial intelligence to provide guidance precisely tailored to this farm. It's led to big savings. 50 to 60 percent cut. So you have saved 60 percent in your water bill? Water bill and power bill. Murthy has branched out to grow pomegranates and added a newer model of the water bill.

newer model of the sensor made by an agriculture tech startup called Philo. Irrigation all the way, it will be the same. Philo has seen robust growth since its founding five years ago. We are working with almost 10,000-plus farmers. Sri Ogh-Norlawar, Philo's sales chief, says in many cases the company's product has made the difference in keeping farmers in business. The usage of water is four to five times excessive than it should be. So we have saved around 90 billion liters of water.

The smartphone app tied to their devices is accessible in multiple languages, he says. We have developed modules for all kinds of crop for its irrigation management and for its nutrition management also in addition. AI has enabled the ability to interpret massive amounts of raw data collected in the field or via satellites. Today we have like 0.5 billion records of farm data from 103 countries on 500,000. crops and 10,000 varieties of these crops. In 2010, Krishna Kumar founded Kroppin, another among scores of agriculture tech startups. Now this model predicts the future. Most of his clients are large, multinationals like Walmart and Pepsico, who are provided

real-time intelligence about supplier farms across their far-flung supply chains. What is the risk approaching? What disease can hit your palm in like 7 to 15 days? What yield you can expect? We layer thousands of variables on every unit of the farm. And then we scale that to a country in the supply chain. So you can packet the data for various use cases, whether it's a sourcing decision, policy-making decision.

You want to go to a newer country to grow a newer variety, how that variety will perform in that country. Based in India's tech capital, Bangalore, Cropin, Philo, and others have generated lots of interest in financial markets. The question is, are they really improving this country's food security? For the majority of India's farmers who own only small plots of land, artificial intelligence might hold some promise, but their problems go well beyond the scope of AI. It's no use knowing when to irrigate, for example, when you don't irrigate your farm and depend on rainfall. It's no use knowing what market prices are when your produce can't get to the market on time.

Almost 80 to 90% of our farmers are small holders. Amit Prakash teaches technology and ethics at the Indian Institute of Information Technology in Bangalore. When we start looking at them as problems, who need a solution that comes to them from either Bangalore or California or anywhere else or New Delhi, then I think we have started with a bias. And that bias against small rural farmers has been the pattern for some decades when it comes to bringing technology to agriculture, he says. Data cannot capture the whole picture. For example, sending a farmer advisories that they can get a better price for their produce in Market 2 instead of Market 1. They would still take it to Market 1 because they have been transacting with a person, a commission agent in Market 1,

since their grandfather's time. Those kinds of relationships matter quite a lot. Smallholder farmers, many living in poverty with little formal education, can ill afford risk, he says, and so they rely heavily on such relationships, the familiar. That applies to getting advice as well. Knowledge absorption is better if I hear it from someone who I have seen or who I am able to relate to better. And trust, basic.

Trust, yeah, and proximity. The person who is talking about whatever they have done on their farm is also a farmer like me. We saw how farmers learn from one another through information social networks. That peer-to-peer approach is used by a group called Digital Green. We are very clear. We are addressing the smallholder farmer. Niddi Bhasin leads the nonprofit group, started in 2008, and now serving farmers in India and parts of Africa.

It began with YouTube videos, with farmers sharing insights with each other, but has now evolved to a chatbot called Farmer.chat. We have built a multilingual AI chatbot. AI chatbot assistance. Offering vetted expertise, weather and market information in the farmers' native languages. Localize, cost-effective information advisory, which will help them to increase their incomes. We are also sending them certain information, which is very contextual. It's less foreign to the farm. Yes, it's less foreign.

Chandrakala and husband Keshavamutti have used it to help plan a climate-smart, sustainable farm, with livestock, timber, fruits, and vegetables. People think agriculture means losses, and I want to prove that it's sustainable with short, middle, and long-term strategies. They showed me how farmer.coma-chat guided them to find a natural cure, Neme oil, for a disease threatening their lemon trees.

I can use the phone to ask any number of questions. Digital Green has tried in particular to reach women farmers and to work in more impoverished regions like India's Bihar state. In all, it serves 160,000 farmers in India and East Africa. Meeting a tiny fraction of the need, Niddi says. The group is trying to look to partner with private for-profit players. We also want a good balance between the two approaches. Do you need to make those partnerships in order to scale further, you think?

Yes, from a scale point of view. Professor Prakash agrees all AI players should have a role in sustaining small farmers, and it will take government, too, he says, to update farm policies and infrastructure. Most of all, it will take farmers, he says. We have to bring in the small farmers. We have to hear what they have to say, not from the perspective of providing them with a solution, but designing a solution along with them.

Along with them, at 150 million smallholder farmers, most of them marginal and struggling, but still a critical pillar of India's economy. For the PBS News Hour, this is Fred de Sam Lazaro in Bangalore. And Fred's reporting is a partnership with the Undertold Stories Project at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Amna Nawaz.

And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us. Thank you.