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

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Monday on the News Hour, Iran launches missiles at a U.S. base in the Middle East in retaliation for the strikes on its nuclear facilities. New York City prepares to vote in the Democratic mayoral primary that could have national implications. Plus, Alaska's Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski discusses her new memoir about adapting to Washington politics and the Trump era. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. I'm the Navaz is away. On the news hour tonight, President Trump announces a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, hours after Iran launched missiles at a U.S. base in the Middle East in retaliation for the strikes on its nuclear facilities. New York City prepares to vote in the Democratic mayoral primary that could have national implications. In many ways, they represent the two polls that are vying for the direction and the compass of the National Democratic Party. And Alaska's Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski discusses her new memoir about adapting to Washington politics and the Trump era. When I'm here in Washington, D.C., I feel not only physically far from home, but just kind of I'm away from who I am, my identity, my roots. Welcome to the News Hour.

It was a dramatic day in the Middle East. Iran launched a series of ballistic missiles at a U.S. military base in the Middle East, but it simultaneously indicated a desire to de-escalate. And this evening, President Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which began this recent conflict. when it attacked Iran and its nuclear program 12 days ago. Nick Schifrin starts our coverage. Above Doha's skyline tonight, the first ever Iranian attack on the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. The U.S. says Iran fired more than a dozen short and medium-range ballistic missiles at Al-Udid Air Base, nearly all intercepted and causing no casualties.

Al-Udid is usually home to more than 10,000 service members, but much of it was evacuated before tonight's attack, which Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps broadcast, claiming complete success. The Islamic Republic of Iran will not leave any act of aggression against its territorial integrity, sovereignty, or national security unanswered under any circumstances. But Iran warned Washington and Qatar before the attack. It did not try to choke off global oil supplies.

Nor did it try to strike off global oil supplies. Nor did it try to strike. any other U.S. base in the region, and it signaled a desire for de-escalation, saying in a separate statement, it used the, quote, same number of missiles as the number of bombs the United States used in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, even if that claim was inflated. At the White House, after meeting with his national security team, President Trump called Iran's response, quote, very weak, and wrote, I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed

to peace and harmony in the region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. As of this morning, that was not what Israel was signaling. Smoke towered over Tehran's tallest buildings. After what Israel called its most widespread air strikes on Tehran, including symbols of Iran's theocratic power. In northern Tehran, an air strike hit the gates of the notorious Evan prison, which holds many domestic and foreign political detainees. Israel also said it struck the headquarters of the IRGC in Tehran and of the Basij. The regime's paramilitary troops who enforce the silencing of all dissent. Analysts say today's attack is a message to Iranians who want to protest their government.

They should feel free to do so. IDF's spokesman, Brigadier General Effie DeFrin. The internal security forces are a significant part of the security and immunity of the Iranian regime. We will continue to target every component and layer of the regime that is involved in activities that threaten the state of Israel. Israel today also struck the access routes to the Fordo enrichment site, where this weekend the U.S. dropped a dozen bunker-buster bombs that entered two precise sites before

exploding deep underground. Today, the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog said the U.S. attack appeared. to be successful. Given the explosive payload utilized and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred. And our Nick Schifrin joins us now. So Nick, let's talk about this newly announced ceasefire. What more do you know? President Trump posted that the ceasefire would start about midnight tonight, Eastern. So in the morning in Iran and Israel, that Iran would start a 12-hour ceasefire. President Trump said then Israel would start a 12-hour ceasefire. So in 24 hours, there would be a complete ceasefire.

And at that point, he said, quote, the war would be ended. It would be declared the 12-day war. Now, I just checked with Israeli officials. There's no confirmation of this at this hour. But presumably, this is the agreement that has been set by Israel with President Trump. and the Iranians have agreed to this. President Trump wrote, this could have gone on for years, but didn't. The assessment of the, quote, 12-day war, if that actually catches on from Israel's perspective, will be a severe degradation of Iran's nuclear capacity and missile capacity as well. And a demonstration, perhaps, as we've been talking, Jeb, by the IDF,

that they can reach into Israel and attack regime targets that go beyond nuclear and missile sites. Perhaps the lasting legacy for Israel of this 12-day war, again, if that name holds, is that the United States got into it. And that specifically, the degradation that only a U.S. weapon could do, that 30,000-pound bomb dropped by a B-2 bomber, 12 of them on Fordo enrichment site, two of them as well on Natanz, 30 more missiles at Isfahan, that is something that Israel could not do. And so the legacy of this 12 days is that Israel will have gotten the United States into this war and the U.S. did something that only the U.S. could do really degrade the program that the U.S.

believes is now set back by years. And the Vice President this evening, Nick, J.D. Vance, he gave an interview where he shared more details about that U.S. attack. What did he have to say? So he spoke to Fox just a few minutes ago on the East Coast. And he said that Iran was, quote, now incapable of the U.S. of building a nuclear weapon with the equipment that it had because the U.S. had destroyed it and, quote, obliterated it.

There will be a debate about whether he is accurate about that. But what he is talking about is the U.S. claim or assessment right now that the Iranian program that uses centrifuges to spin fuel to create highly enriched uranium, which has created 60% uranium, which is one step below 90% weapons grade, they no longer have either the access to those centrifuges or those centrifuges have been broken beyond repair. That was his word. His word is that, and then separately he said, the stockpile is buried. Why that is important is that if Iran were to use what it has now to try and create a nuclear bomb,

it would need that 60% highly enriched uranium. What Vance is saying tonight is that stockpile is. actually buried. What he also said is that this is a new opportunity to pursue peace. And that's what we've been discussing also. Could this moment lead to some kind of new negotiation? It certainly could. Iran has been saying that it was willing to negotiate if Israel stopped. So that box is checked. However, before Israel's campaign started 12 days ago, there was a deadlock. The United States was demanding that Iran give up any domestic enrichment and instead go to some kind of regional consortium where they would import the nuclear fuel, import the uranium. Iran was insisting

that it domestically enriched, and in fact, that insistence, they repeated just in the last few days after all of these attacks. So if there is an opening for negotiations with the war ending, then that's fine, but the deadlock, Jeff, that existed two weeks ago still remains. or thanks to you for that reporting. Thank you. And for analysis, we're joined now by retired Vice Admiral Kevin Donagan. He commanded the U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain. He's now a distinguished military fellow at the Middle East Institute. Thank you for joining us. I want to start with your reaction to President Trump posting on social media this evening, what he called a complete and total ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Yeah. So for those of us around the world that look hard at the Middle East, there's one certainty, and that's that we're going to be surprised. You know, we were surprised at the way that Israel started this. And when they started it, we were surprised at the way that the U.S. entered this. And now we're surprised again here because this is just a few hours after this retaliatory strike on Al-Deed. We now have this announced ceasefire. And, you know, I think it's a good thing. Anytime you can get a conflict to pause and have a ceasefire, it prevents an opportunity. So now the question, as Nick was clearly laying out, is can we take advantage of that opportunity? I want to add one more piece. It's a different Iran now than it was before this started. Its IRGC is weakened. Its nuclear capability is degraded to the extent that it will be determined in time. And as a result, the regime is somewhat.

weakened from where it was before. So when you add that to the fact that Syria is now no longer an ally of them, that Hezbollah has been decimated, that Hamas has been destroyed, and the Houthis are weakened, you can see that the opportunity for maybe a potential change in the Iranian stance is out there, the time's going to tell. Well, on that point, I mean, who is calling the shots in Tehran right now, given the fact that their senior military leadership was decimated? I mean, And what does all of this say about their command, control, capacity? Well, first, I think we know who's calling the shots, and it's the Supreme Leader, of course. He's setting the tone for how they're going to act, and the replacements will come in with his tone and tenor, right?

But there are coming in, and the reason that they're weakened is because it's hard for them to know who to talk to, how to talk to, because they don't know who's listening and what the Israelis were going to do. So their main action arm is weakened, and that is, you know, therefore that overall weakens their military and overall weakens the regime to some extent, which, like I said, perhaps this is an opportunity. So who's calling the shots is the Supreme Leader? And what was the message that Iran intended to send with its retaliatory strike? I think the message they sent was the one that we all read into it right away. They didn't attack to the level that they could have.

They could have gone wider with the bases they have attacked. They could have attacked bases like the Fifth Fleet headquarters and other places that are around population centers, but instead they chose to attack Al-Deed, which is relatively isolated. There's no other population out there. And that barrage was able to be defeated. In other words, they set up a symbolic attack against the U.S. They knew would be blunted and repelled.

And that, I think, was to affirm to President Trump and the Israelis, especially though President Trump, that they are ready to negotiate. Now, we're going to see because it's very complex in terms of we don't know where they stand on that red line related to enrichment. When the vice president, J.D. Vance, said today in an interview that Iran's stockpile is buried, what does that mean in a real sense? I mean, what's your assessment of just how degraded, destroyed, and set back Iran's nuclear program? is? Well, first we know that the attack on Ferdot was successful. We even heard the UN make that assessment. And, you know, you have to give tremendous credit to those that were all involved in that operation to get into Fordeaux because that was one of the things that the Israelis had on their list as a must do. They'd believe this operation wouldn't be successful, and they were

vocal about it unless they were able to get it Fordo. And they did. What hasn't been covered in great detail and we'll maybe learn in the coming days is how much of the rest of the nuclear targets that the Israelis had on their list, did they get degraded to the amount that they want it to? I would suspect that they serviced them to the level that they wanted to, or they wouldn't be offering up or agreeing to stopping at this point. But time will tell on that, and as for the Vice President's remarks, I think, you know, they stand for themselves. Well, the president having announced this total ceasefire, we will see if the ceasefire is lasting. But what's the path back at this point to the negotiating table?

Well, so now, you know, the good news is that we have a path for how to negotiate with Iran. You know, for years we didn't have that path. And we've already now had negotiations that were direct between the United States and Iran. And that's what we all want to look for is, you know, just before the United States got involved in this. stack. There was a planned meeting again between both sides in Oman, and that got canceled. It was on Sunday. And so my expectation is that that'll get right back on the table very quickly. And then we'll find out pretty quickly where both sides stands in terms of those, the major issues we just talked about. You have been involved throughout your career and a lot of planning for war

with Iran. Did any of those scenarios for which you prepared have these many turns, these kinds of terms? You know, the one thing I've learned in 38 years of dealing with military operations is every plan you make fails at first contact with the enemy and first contact of putting it into execution. So the value that you put into your plan is in getting everyone to be aligned into what they need to achieve so as things change, they can adjust. And actually, you saw some of that with the Israelis.

as opportunity presented itself to get other targets, they took those opportunities. And it wasn't a sure thing that the U.S. would get involved to finish off Fordeaux. So I'm sure the Israelis had other options to do that. We saw some of them come to fruition today where they denied access to Fordeaux after the attacks. So to me, the classic military operation is that the plan isn't going to be the one that ends up being executed. But the plan is what aligns everyone and enables them the flexibility to adjust as things. change in the operation. Retired Vice Admiral Kevin Donagan now with the Middle East Institute. Thanks for your time this evening, sir. We deeply appreciate it. Thanks, Jeff. And for more on

Congress's role in all of this, we are joined by our Capitol Hill correspondent Lisa Desjardin. So Lisa, let's talk about the policy involved here. And who determines when the U.S. strikes another country? What's the debate in Congress right now? Yeah, it's basic civics. Congress has the power to declare war. But under Article 2, the president oversees military. operations. In reality, Congress has not declared war since 1942, and it has been presidents acting unilaterally, have been war actions for the United States. Now, members of both parties for a long time have had a problem with this in Congress, but it is usually only the opposition party that does anything about it or attempts to challenge war powers. And indeed, Democrats now

are about to bring war power resolutions to the floor of both the House and the Senate. The first one we expect to get a vote will be in the Senate. But in the House, Speaker Johnson said today to reporters that he opposes any efforts to check the president right now. I don't think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don't think it's necessary. Listen, for 80 years, presidents of both parties have acted with the same commander-in-chief authority under Article 2. But this is where the process matters. This is a privileged resolution, so Johnson may be forced to have a vote on the House floor, and we do expect a forced vote on the Senate floor on Iran this week.

And that's with the Democratic Senator from Virginia, Tim Cain, who introduced that bill. Tell us more about that and how this will play out in the Senate floor. That's right. I think the resolution speaks well for itself. Let me read you exactly what's in this proposal from Senator Cain. He would have this vote say Congress hereby directs the president to terminate the use of United States armed forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization. very clear. You cannot have military action against Iran without explicit permission from Congress. Now, it's interesting in the Senate, usually 60 votes required. In this case, only 51. So we will be

watching if indeed enough Republicans join Democrats to pass this. It's possible. We know at least one Rand Paul. It's also possible that happens in the House. But should this resolution pass, the President can veto it. So it ultimately is likely symbolic, but it is important. And what does that debate look like in the House? Right. I think it is a furious debate for Republicans looking at this, thinking about it. To me, Jeff, this may be the most politically risky move President Trump has ever taken. Now, with the ceasefire announcement, we see Republicans feeling a little bit better already about what was going on. But this is the breakdown.

He has on one side of the MAGA base people who wanted this kind of bold action against American enemies. People like Lindsey Graham, here's what he said this weekend over on some of the United States. Sunday shows. I thought it was bold, quite frankly, brilliant, militarily, necessary, and most importantly effective. So well done, Mr. President, to your team in our militaries and fantastic operation that has substantially degraded, I think, Iran's nuclear program. But let's contrast that with another Mar-a-Lago, a frequent visitor that's Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia. Here's what she posted today on social media. She wrote that Trump's MAGA agenda included these key promises.

No more foreign wars, no more regime change. She wrote, it feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons. She went on, writing, after the bombs were dropped, we were told complete success. And Iran's nuclear capabilities were wiped out. Then it turned to Iran's nuclear facilities partially damaged. Now we don't know where their enriched uranium is. Those are some sharp words, things you'd usually hear from Democrats. I will say, just in the past couple of minutes, Jeff, I've been watching members of Congress.

She just tweeted out because of the ceasefire, thank you, President Trump, for pursuing peace. So that is a wild 180, but it is still an interesting fracture in the Republican base we've got to watch. And do members of Congress have a good sense of how much damage the U.S. attacks caused? And if not, will they get some later this week? I believe some of them do. Speaker Mike Johnson received a classified briefing, but the gang of eight, the top Democratic and Republican leaders, I'm told, has not had a classified briefing, though Democratic leaders have requested it. A source tells me that Democratic House leader, Hakeem Jeffries, has asked for more information and has still not gotten it. Lisa Desjardin. Thanks as always. We appreciate it. You're welcome. In the day's other headlines, the U.S. Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to restart deportations of migrants to countries other than their own.

The case stems from an instance last month when immigration officials sent eight people on a plane to South Sudan, though they were then diverted to Djibouti. A judge in Boston found that violated his court order, giving people a chance to argue that they could face torture if deported. The Supreme Court said its order will remain in place while the government appeals the Boston judge, ruling. All three liberal members of the court dissented. Also today, the Supreme Court said it will not hear an appeal from the state of Virginia over its lifetime voting ban for convicted felons. That decision allows two disenfranchised would-be voters to pursue their challenge to the law, which is one of the strictest in the nation. Separately, the justices will take up an appeal from a former Louisiana inmate who's seeking to sue prison officials for forcibly shaving his head back in 2020.

Damon Landor is a Rastafarian who had not cut his hair for almost 20 years. The justices will hear arguments in that case in the fall. Turning now to the summer scorcher that's hitting much of the eastern U.S., a heat wave is stretching from the Gulf Coast to the upper Midwest and all the way to Maine, all told some 170 million Americans are currently under heat alerts. That's about half the nation's entire population. The heat plus humidity will make temperatures feel like they're above 100 degrees in many places. It's that

like walking through a swamp kind of feeling. My thoughts on the heat warnings are, you know, you've got to be careful. You can't, you've got to stay hydrated and. The sprawling heat will last for most of the week, leaving little relief in sight. Of course it's summer and that always

means higher temperatures, but meteorologists say not like this and not so early in the season. Some pockets of the country, the places you see in darkest red, are expected to see temperatures this week upwards of of 20 degrees above normal. The number of abortions in the U.S. rose in 2024 due to a growing number of women obtaining abortion pills via telehealth. A report out today found that one in four

abortions last year used pills prescribed virtually. That's up from one in 20 just before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago. The increase could explain why fewer women cross-state lines to receive abortions in 2024 compared to the year earlier. It comes amid a flurry of lawsuits and proposed legislation in Republican-led states aiming to restrict access to abortion pills. In Ukraine, officials say a Russian missile and drone attack overnight killed at least 14 civilians. Nine of those deaths were in the capital Kiev. Rescuers spent the morning pulling bodies from the rubble, including at this apartment building. Meantime, NATO chief Mark Ruta pledged continued unwavering support for Ukraine as leaders gather in the Netherlands for this

week's summit, member nations are expected to agree to a pledge to allocate 5% of their GDP to defense spending. Ruta said today there will be no opt-outs or exceptions. It is now clear what kind of investment it will take to effectively deliver what we need. And it is critical that each ally carries their fair share of the burden. This is a quantum leap that is ambitious, historic and fundamental to securing our future. Root's comments add a level of uncertainty to Spain's announcement over the weekend that it had reached a deal to be excluded from the new 5% target. Last year, Spain allocated just over 1% on its defense, making it the lowest spender in the alliance. President Trump's media company is buying back

$400 million worth of its own stock. Such moves often help lift a company's trading price. Shares of Trump Media and Technology Group, which runs the Truth Social Platform, have dropped more than 40% this year, the stock ended about a third of 1% higher following the announcement. As for Wall Street as a whole, stocks rallied after that relatively restrained military response from Iran. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added around 375 points. The NASDAQ jumped nearly 200 points. The S&P 500 also ended higher to start the week. The largest digital camera ever built has released its first snapshots of the universe. The Vera-C-Rubin Observatory in Chile

captured these images, showing stars, nebolas, and entire galaxies thousands of light years from Earth. The U.S. funded observatory will survey the southern sky for the next decade, with the goal of documenting some 20 billion galaxies. Just a few days ago, astronomers at the European Southern Observatories 's very large telescope also in Chile released this image of a nearby spiral galaxy.

And the acclaimed war correspondent, Rod Nordland has died. Over four decades, he covered most of the world's major conflicts for the New York Times and other publications. Nordland also wrote a memoir called Waiting for the Monsoon about living with glioblastoma. That's an aggressive form of brain cancer. He spoke to our Nick Schifrin last year about how the disease changed him for the better. The tumor made me look at the mistakes I had made in life and do things to correct them and really did bring me a second life, which was a tremendous gift, an opportunity to fix whatever I had done wrong in the first life. Rod Nordland was 75 years old. Still to come on the news hour.

New York City prepares to vote in a primary race that could forecast the future of the Democratic Party. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski discusses her new memoir, and Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the latest political headlines. 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. Tomorrow, voters will head to the polls for the primary that will determine which of the 11 Democrats running will take on New York City Mayor Eric Adams in November. The race has shaped up as a contest between a well-known establishment figure seeking a political comeback and a rising young Democratic socialist who has mounted an unexpected challenge. William Brigham has this preview.

Have you heard of Iran-Mondon before? It's a question many New Yorkers can answer affirmatively now. ever since Zoran Mamdami, the 33-year-old Assemblyman from Queens, surged to become one of the biggest surprises in this New York mayoral primary. We need a mayor who's going to fight to lower the cost of living for New Yorkers and actually stand up to Trump. The young Democratic socialist has risen dramatically in polls in the last few months, driven by an army of volunteers and a charismatic social media presence.

Who knew that policies like Universal Channel? care, rent-free and taxes on mega corporations were popular. We did. Me, Zoran, is the real deal. He's not just words. He's action as well. And does he get it right all the time? Nobody does, right?

But I think he is our best chance at having a New York City that is livable and affordable for everyone. But in Brooklyn, volunteers with the Service Employees International Union are knocking on doors for Mamdani's main rival. a candidate who needs little introduction to New Yorkers. What we're going to give her is this, saying that we support Andro Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo was governor of New York for a decade before resigning in 2021 after a flurry of sexual harassment allegations. The moment he entered the mayor's race, he was instantly the presumptive frontrunner, riding high on name recognition and support from many unions and local officials. because we know we can turn New York City around.

We have already showed what leadership and confidence and unity can do. Cuomo's message that he's got years of experience to bring to the office, starting on day one, resonates with a lot of New Yorkers. I saw the great job that he did during COVID and said, you know what, this is my guy. I got to go up there for him. You have different ideologies, very different backstores. stories between the two frontrunners, but also it's a reflection of what do voters as consumers

in the political market, what do they really want? Tripp Yang is a Democratic strategist in New York. He's not affiliated with any of the mayoral candidates. Andrew Quom was running on managerial experience. I know how to run a state. I can therefore govern the largest city. No training required. Right.

Zora Mendani is banking that New York City Democratic voters view an election for mayor as a sales pitch not a job interview. They want to be inspired. What is it about Mondami that you find appealing? I think he's very smart, and he's run a good campaign, and I think he has a kind of charisma that will unite the city. Who would you like to see when? Andrew Cuomo. How come?

Because I think he's a terrific politician. I think he understands how to run things. You know, he's a tough guy. In today's soft world, you're not allowed to be tough any longer. what's going on. Everybody has to just be milk toast. And Cuomo will never be milk toast. That reputation for toughness and experience also comes with a heavy load of political baggage, something Mamdani skewered him for in a recent debate. To put a person in this seat at this time with no experience is reckless and dangerous. To Mr. Cuomo, I have never had to resign

in disgrace. I have never cut Medicaid. I have never stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from the MTA. I have never hounded the 13 women who credibly accused me of sexual harassment. In many ways, they represent the two polls that are vying for the direction and the compass of the National Democratic Party. Patrick Gaspard has advised multiple New York mayors and served as political director for President Barack Obama. He says the argument that Mamdami is too and experienced. A critique Obama faced as well is cutting both ways in this race. Zohan Mamdani has attempted to make an argument about how that experience has it always served the interest of working people, right? Because this experience question is a double-edged sword.

I think that Andrew Cuomo came into this race and drew a picture of a kind of a dystopian New York that, interestingly, was not dissimilar to the picture that Donald Trump drew of New York. Everything's falling apart, and I alone can save you from it. And, of course, the specter of President Trump looms large in this campaign, with candidates weighing in on everything from immigration policy to the recent bombing of Iran. I know how to deal with Donald Trump because I've dealt with him before. I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in. Democrats, at large, but especially Democrats in New York, are looking for,

Pugilists against Donald Trump or outraged by the violations of the Constitution and Democrats want to see us fighting against him. Do you have a judicial warrant? That flight spilled overtly into the campaign last week when city controller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested by federal agents while escorting a man from court. You don't have authority to arrest U.S. citizens asking for a judicial warrant. Both Cuomo and Mamdani condemned the arrest. But Trump's fingerprints have also been on this race because of his intervention for a candidate who's not on Tuesday's ballot.

Mr. Mayor, you're going to go. Last September, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was indicted on federal corruption charges. Adams out now. But then the Trump administration dropped that prosecution as Mayor Adams agreed to help Trump's hardline approach to immigration. I wanted to run in a Democratic primary, but I have to be realistic. In April, facing plummeting of public. approval ratings, Adams said he'd run for re-election as an independent. It doesn't matter what happens in Democratic primary.

If it's Andrew Cuomel as the nominee and Zora Mamdani running on a third party or vice versa, Eric Adams has no shot. Party loyalty in November reigns supreme. But there's another major factor in this race, and that is that voters are using what's called ranked choice voting, which allows them to choose up to five different candidates ranked in order of their preference. If one candidate gets more than 50% of everyone's first choice votes, they win the election right away. But if no one hits that threshold, the lowest ranked candidate is eliminated, and anyone who chose that person will have their vote transferred to their next ranked candidate.

These rounds of tabulation continue until there are only two candidates left, and whoever has the most votes wins. The process has also led candidates like Mamdani and Lander asking their voters to rank each other on their ballots so that if one loses the other benefits. Let's do it together. We're cross-endorsing. But as the race has tightened with Mamdani's rise, a tidal wave of Super PAC money has come in to bolster Cuomo, including more than $8 million from billionaire and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. Zoran Mandani, a risk New York can't afford. Mamdani would be the city's first Muslim mayor, and he's been criticized for calling Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide. In recent days, Mamdani says he's received death threats, calling him a terrorist. Regardless of Tuesday's outcome, Cuomo says he'll also run as an independent in the general election, a move that Mamdani could also consider.

So a second round is possible come November. For the PBS News Hour, I'm William Brangham in New York City. Senator Lisa Murkowski, the independent-minded Republican from Alaska, often defied President Trump during his first term, breaking with him on key issues and nominations. She's now opening up in a candid memoir called Far From Home, which she discussed recently. with our Omnan Abbas. Senator Murkowski, welcome to The News Hour. Thanks for joining us. Great to be with you, Omni.

So the why behind someone writing a book always fascinates me. And in the very first pages, you really make it clear. You say, my hope is when you learn my story, my struggles and my fears. You'll realize that you can do this too. We need you. Only good people can get our government back on track. Why is it that you think good people, as you put it right now, don't necessarily want your job or want to join government.

I think, first of all, people think it's too hard. In order to be in elected office, I have to have some kind of a resume, right? I've got to have built my way up in order to get to this position, and I don't have that. Or perhaps they look at how you get there. Quite honestly, in order to run a Senate race, it's expensive. I don't want to deal with the fundraising. I don't think that I can and I don't have personal means to do it, and so that's a disqualifier. But I think even more important is the sense that it's just such an awful environment right now.

Is this fun? Is this rewarding when it seems like everyone is just bickering and we can't let those barriers get in the way of good people stepping forward to serve at any level. We've got to keep reinforcing that it is average people that are willing to make a commitment to service that do extraordinary things. You've been asked this repeatedly, but I have to ask, because people say, you know, this could be a pivot point, a launching pad for something else, and you've said, I do not want to be president. Oh, yeah, that's for sure. Why don't you want to be president? What do you think you couldn't do about that job or don't want to do? It's no accident that my book is named Far From Home, because when I'm here in Washington, D.C., I feel not only physically far from home, but just kind of I'm away from who I am, my identity, my roots.

And quite honestly, in order to be President of the United States, you need to love all parts of our country equally. I love my country. I am an American. I am a patriot. But I really love Alaska. and I don't know how I could be president and not give them preferential treatment. So I just have to be up front with it. Yeah. Your very own assessment of our current president of President Trump is pretty blunt in the book.

You write, quote, in your dealings with him that it was evident, he could not have planned his own rise or engineered the transformation of the Supreme Court. You write, he isn't that smart. Trump lacks the ability for strategic or linear thinking. He isn't able to form or follow through on complex plans. That's an incredibly worrying description of the man who's leading this nation right now. I mean, do you trust him to make strategically sound decisions?

So keep in mind that when I wrote that, we were in the first Trump administration. The idea of a second round for President Trump was not even being discussed at that point in time. And I think there's a very different Donald Trump between the first administration and the second administration. How so? In terms of his understanding of the operations of government, the role of Congress, the power of the executive, the check of the judiciary. And I think what you have seen that is different this time around is there is a lot more understanding of not only the process, but there is a planning that has gone forward. So you feel he's more effective this time around?

I think he absolutely has the potential to be far more effective because he knows where he wasn't able to be successful. He now has a clearer picture of it and a four-year roadmap in front of him. There's a theme in your book you return to again and again about finding yourself in the middle on issues often. And you write very strongly about the populists, as you described them in your party. You call their ideas empty calories.

You write, as the populists have gained power, they haven't succeeded in governing. They have slogans, but slogans are not solutions. I mean, you look back arguably, it's the populace who really propelled Mr. Trump back into office. And he now has a firm hold on the party. So is that populism now just a defining feature of the Republican Party? It is certainly a more dominant feature of the Republican Party. I don't know that I want to say it's a defining feature. And as I say that, I've had so many conversations with people about, well, what is the Republican Party nowadays?

Is it MAGA, the more kind of conservative, more pragmatic? Is it, do the moderates have a place in the party anymore? Do they? Is there such a thing as a Ronald Reagan, a Republican still alive and affiliated with the Republican Party anymore? I think the answer to that is it's just kind of a swirl right now. And what does that mean for life after Trump? Where does the party go?

Well, it depends. It depends because when you have a movement, I'll just say a movement that is really reliant on one person, on that leader, to define them. Because I think that MAGA movement is very much in alignment with President Trump. And so I think you're seeing some discussion about, well, who will carry that flag? Is it J.D. Vance? Does he personify that MAGA movement that? that is that Trump movement. Do you believe he does?

I don't know that he has that, what is it? It's not gravitas, it's not charisma, it's a magnetism. It's a magnetism that President Trump has with so many of his followers. Now, J.D. Vance is, I think he's doing a good job as vice president. He's got a strong core constituency as well. What I don't know is, is it separate from Trump, Or is it part of Trump? I don't know.

Your comments in April got a lot of attention when you talked about acknowledging, as you said, the fear in the room in the community, about funding cuts coming to Alaska. You said, we are all afraid. And then you went on to say, I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about it, about using my voice because retaliation is real.

Has that fear of retaliation kept you from saying something that you felt needed to be said in this administration, more so this time around than the last? As an elected leader, I know my words matter. I don't call people names. I mean, some of the passages that you have read there about my words towards Donald Trump were, I mean, they were critical. But I try not to say, you know, you're a loser or I want to make sure that there is a basis for, you know, a loser. or I want to make sure that there is a basis for the criticism that I have given

other than just the fact that, well, I didn't vote for you. And so, therefore, you know, I'm going to throw rocks. That's not who I am. You've had the backing of your husband, your two sons, every time that you've wanted to run again. And you said that you're going to evaluate in another two years, you said, whether or not you do so again. What are you looking to answer in those two years before you know?

You know, you have to have value to the people that you're serving. If you still feel that the work that I am doing on their behalf works for them, that is important to me. And so if people feel that my brand of politics, which is being more in the center, trying to be more collaborative, bringing people together to build things, rather than lining, up on party lines so that we can have our reconciliation votes where we just get the bare majority. And it may be that Alaskans say in two years, nope, that's what we want. We want somebody that is more clearly defined along those party lines. And if that's what the value that they're seeking, then I have to take that into account. The book is far from home. The author is Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Senator, thank you so much for your time.

Really pleasure to speak with you. Good to be with you. Come to Alaska. For more on the political impact of the conflict with Iran and negotiations over the Republican budget bill, we are joined by our Politics Monday duo. That's Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. Always great to see you both. Good to be here.

So the situation with Iran, this is a fluid, fast-moving situation. Just this evening, President Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, one that he hopes will become permanent. J.D. Vance, the vice president on Fox News, said that the U.S. had severely degraded Iran's nuclear program, which has been a goal, Tam, of successive U.S. presidents. We don't know what we don't know. We don't know how Iran will respond to all of this. But the White House will certainly spin this as a success. Certainly. And it is interesting that J.D. Vance sort of dodged the question of whether the U.S. got the uranium supplies or where the uranium even is. There are still a lot of questions about the success of this mission. But President Trump has been saying that he wants peace. And he is now announcing, and still a lot of details to work through, he is announcing a ceasefire. He is already naming the war that he is, He says will be the 12-day war that will be over.

So President Trump has been declaring victory at every turn since Saturday night when he said that Iran's nuclear program was totally obliterated. Again, we don't know if that's fully true. But if there is a ceasefire, President Trump can once again say that he is the peace president. He had said he was going to be the peace candidate. He had said that, you know, no war is under him. And for several days here, it looked like he had gone back on a campaign promise. Now, if this holds, he can say, look, peace through strength. I did it.

To Tam's point, the president ran against involving the U.S. in foreign wars. The administration was saying before this evening that this wasn't a war with Iran, that this was a war to quote J.D. Vance against Iran's nuclear program, that this was a limited and precise operation. still, I mean, what political risks does the president face here? Yeah, well, the political risks are pretty clear that we really don't know a lot about what the next steps are going to be. This is obviously a very volatile part of the world that we're talking about with the Middle East. But I do think, you know, the challenge for Donald Trump has long been trying to keep this coalition together of folks like Lindsey Graham, who very much interventionists, as well as people like a Steve Ban, who believe very strongly in the no further involvement of Americans overseas. He's kept that coalition together in this moment, thanks in part to its success.

This was a successful mission. You're right. We don't know what's going to come next. We don't know how much uranium was, and how much of the centrifuge was damaged. But we do know that every person who was involved in this mission came back safely. We do know that the bombs were dropped accurately. That is a success, and that's a pretty easy way to keep your coalition happy, is to succeed. The Democrats who are saying that President Trump exceeded his war powers, that this was really a prerogative of the Congress.

The Republicans, the few of them, who are questioning the intelligence used since the DNIs back in March said that Iran was not on a path to a nuclear weapon. Is any of that shaped the White House's decision-making going forward? I don't think it shapes the White House's decision-making going forward. The president, which is a required formality, sent a notification to Congress today that this mission had been undertaken, and he said he was doing it under his constitutional authority. Under his constitutional authority is a phrase we've heard a lot with the Trump administration, and his administration has an expansive view of his executive authority and his constitutional authority. I don't think that that is going to change.

And also, we should just be clear that members of Congress have from time to time complained about presidents going beyond what they believe they should be doing using authorizations for the use of military force that are deeply outdated. The fact is, Congress has not asserted its authority here. It just simply hasn't since the lead up to the Iraq war. And most of the time, members of Congress are kind of okay with it. They won't necessarily publicly say that, but the votes that they took to authorize the Iraq war have haunted members of Congress, have haunted American politicians ever since then.

And so they haven't been forced to take difficult votes because they haven't asserted their authority in this area. Well, in the time that remains, let's talk about this budget bill. This is the vehicle for most of President Trump's domestic agenda. And the most contentious issue right now, Amy, are these Medicaid cuts. Where is public opinion on this? And what's the risk-facing Republicans? Well, the overall opinion about the bill, there were a number of polls that came out the other week.

And just in looking through them, what you find is opposition to this legislation writ large is much higher than support for it. And that's really driven by two things. Committed and intense opposition by Democrats and sort of tepid approval by Republicans. It's not that Republican voters don't like it. They just don't like it as much as Democrats dislike it. Now, driving a lot of that, I think, is the fact that Republicans have been at odds internally about how far to go on things like these cuts. And so they've really not had a message to give to their base.

Democrats have one very clear message, and that is this is going to kick people off of Medicaid who need it. That message right now is winning the day. What we learned, actually, today, is that a number of Republican groups are actually up with advertising in some of these key battleground districts and states focusing attention on the tax cuts. So this is what we're going to see, Jeff, for the next few months here, is who wins this fight? Is it going to be a fight about, is it going to be defined by Medicaid cuts, or is it going to be defined, as Republicans would like it to be defined, which is it. actually, no, this is a bill that's going to help you, average, taxpayer, get some money back. And for now, Democrats are winning that fight. And it appears that the GOP intended cuts and changes to the food stamp program, the SNAP program,

are on the chopping block because of a procedural issue. Meantime, there are conservatives who say this bill doesn't go far enough overall. Will they be able to get this across the finish line by this July 4th deadline that the president has instituted? there are a lot of mathematical challenges that they're facing. However, in terms of the political math, when it comes down to it, this one big, beautiful bill, as the president has dubbed it, contains essentially his entire domestic policy agenda for his presidency. It includes money for immigration enforcement, and it includes money for the military, which he can point to this mission and say, look, we need this. And it also includes these tax cuts, which if it fails,

taxes would go up, not by as much as he says, but taxes would go up. And so in a lot of ways, for Republicans, it is too big to fail, too important to fail. They have to find a way to get to yes. That is what the White House is betting on. And they are insisting. I talked to a White House official over the weekend who said, oh, no, we're really serious about this July 4th deadline. We want it on the president's desk. I don't know how practical that is, especially given everything else that's happening this. Like, the president needs to be working the phones right now if he wants to get this through the Senate this week. And he's working the phones also to the Middle East. He has a lot on his plate. But certainly the White House is going to push this and they're going

to make it very painful for any Republicans who stray. Well, and Republican leaders, in Congress also want this done as quickly as possible. The longer it stays out there, the harder it is to bring those votes and we all know that. Time is never on the side of bills like this. Yeah. And the other is they want time to be able to package and message this legislation.

As I said earlier, Democrats have been on the offense and have defined this bill from the get-go. If you're a Republican, you're going into an election year, if you're in the House especially, many of you and the Senate are up for re-election as well. You

want to get ahead of this and get on top of it as quickly as you possibly can to wait until the fall is going to be tough. Amy Walter and Tamara Keith, thanks to you both as always. You're welcome. News Hour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.