PBS News Hour - Full Show - June 23, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: June 23, 2026

Tuesday on the News Hour, despite Tehran's denials, the U.S. insists Iran has fully agreed to allow UN nuclear inspectors back into their country. A decade after Brexit, the United Kingdom takes stock of its vote to break from the European Union. Plus, how major changes to federal student loans could reshape repayment for millions. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Omnavaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, the U.S. insists Iran has fully agreed to allow U.N. nuclear inspectors back into their country, despite Tehran's denials. A decade after Brexit, the United Kingdom takes stock of its vote to break from the European Union. I actually voted to leave, but obviously we were never told the truth as to what the consequences were going to be. And now the consequences are out. And how major changes to federal student loans could reshape repayment for millions. Welcome to the News Hour. Iran and the U.S. are once again at odds today, this time over inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran says no deal is in place.

While for their part, President Trump and his aides said again today that the U.N. nuclear watchdog will inspect Iran's facilities. It was just one of several disagreements since the weekend meetings in Switzerland between the Americans, and Iranians, the first round of negotiations since a new ceasefire deal was struck last week. Nick Schiffin begins our coverage. In the Strait of Hormuz today, a new plan to evacuate ships stranded by war. The U.N. and Oman say hundreds of boats, including tankers stuck in the world's most vital oil chokepoint, will soon have free passage. But Iran says the ships must register with a new Iranian insurance company, setting the stage

for charging future fees in what Iran's chief negotiator called the new post-war order. Everyone should know that the administration of the strait will never return to the way it was before the war. But that was just the first example today of the U.S. and Iran's public disagreements. No country has allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. Tehran and Washington also publicly disagreed on access to Iran's nuclear sites. There is no plan to let international inspectors back into the country, said Iran's foreign ministry spokesman. We have not had a meeting with the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,

nor do we have any plans for an agency inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities. They're wrong. They know they're wrong. They told us inside, and we have it down 100 percent inspections. And if they were right, I'd cancel the meetings right now. But President Trump also today acknowledged the inspectors would not arrive anytime soon. When will those inspectors actually be on the? At the appropriate time. At the appropriate time. There's no rush, but they'll be on the ground at the appropriate time. And on whether Iranian frozen assets could only be used to buy American agriculture, as Vice President Vance said yesterday. If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going

to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people. Iran is the only country who will decide what to do with its assets which are going to. to be the frozen. There is a he said, he said aspect to these negotiations and an ambiguity about their direction. That perhaps most concerns the U.S.'s Gulf allies, who bore the brunt of Iran's wartime assaults. Tonight, Secretary of State Marco Rubio landed in the United Arab Emirates, offering reassurance and urging patience. All of our allies are on board with peace.

Obviously, it all depends on the details of that piece as we work through. It's a work in progress. Good groundwork was laid over the last 72 hours, but a lot of work remains to be done. And we want to hear from our partners. We want to make sure that their views are taken into account. Iranian officials also engaged in diplomacy today. President Massoud Peschkian visited mediator Pakistan, and Iranian officials insisted again, any deal must include Lebanon.

In southern Lebanon today, the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah appears to be holding, allowing many displaced Lebanese to return to their homes. Like Tarek Murua coming home for the first time in weeks. His house in Nabatiyah wrecked by Israel's assault. He saves what he can, but the outside, and much of the neighborhood, is destroyed. In the end, we have nowhere else. This is our home, after all. We want to fix it up again and live in it.

When the war flares up again, if it flares up again, of course, I will naturally take it my family to a safe place. But the point is, we now certainly have greater hope that the war will stop. There is hope that the war is over, but there's still disagreement over what peace might look like. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Nick Scherfer. Well, Congress never authorized the military action in Iran, but the U.S. Senate today voted to limit President Trump's Iran war powers in a rare rebuke. White House correspondent Liz Landers caught up with senators on both sides of the aisle. on this issue of the Iran war and joins us now. So, Liz, what are Republicans saying about this 14-point agreement with Iran signed by the Trump

administration and the ongoing talks? Yeah, so we've seen some fractures in the Republican Party on this conflict and on this agreement, and that was reflecting the conversations I had on the Hill today. I talked with Senator Tom Tillis. He's a lame duck senator retiring at the end of this year. He's sparred with the president. And I asked him about these sanctions that were lifted yesterday by the Treasury Department, And he said that if what Nick laid out in that piece is true, that Iran is going to buy U.S. agricultural products, he said, that's fine.

But he says that if the U.S. is lifting these sanctions on Iran that predate even the Obama-era Iran deal, that until that happens the U.S. or until the U.S. is closer to a deal, he does not think that that's a good idea. Here's more on him being asked about whether this conflict has been worth it. Estimated $100 billion spent today. 13 service members lost their lives. Over 360 people have been injured. That doesn't include the collateral and physical damage of our partners. If all we do is get back to the JCPOA, that would be an absolute catastrophe, in my opinion. In terms of the investment that we've made, I expect a much higher return than just getting back to where we were with different language.

There's another part of the Republican Party, though, that wants to give President Trump the benefit of the benefit of the, doubt and time to negotiate this. I also caught up with Senators Rounds and Kennedy, who were a bit more wait and see. He wants peace. He wants peace in the Middle East. He's made that very, very clear. We've got to give the president an opportunity to get his work done, while at the same time making clear that none of us trust the Iranians. We won't know for 60 days. I think it's clear that the MOU is two things. Number one, it was an agreement. to have the oil flow. And number two, it was a deal to try to make a deal.

Meantime, Liz, you have the GOP-controlled Senate voting today to cut off the U.S. military campaign against Iran. They are approving this anti-war measure, followed by the Republican-controlled House recently. Bring us up to speed. This passed in the House recently, and then today the Senate took this symbolic vote. Largely, it is a resolution. So the enforceability of this is in question. and there were some senators who acknowledged that on the Hill today, but it is a rebuke of the president.

There were 50 senators who voted against, voted for the measure, I should say, telling the president to end the war. And there were four Republicans that joined Democrats. There was one Democrat who voted against it, Senator Federman. But this did pass both of these chambers. Whether the president has any sort of enforceability on this, we'll see going forward. But this is a rebuke of. him nonetheless. You also spoke with heard from Republicans in leadership today? Yeah, I spoke with

Senator John Thune, who is the Republican leader. He too has had a few differences with the president of late. And I asked him about the congressional oversight aspect of this Iran deal. Here's what he told me. What is Congress's role in approving whatever comes out of this deal with Iran in 60 days? What do you hope the Senate will do? If there is some deal that is struck, I would expect at some point Congress would have some sort of vote on it. And whether that's a resolution of disapproval or something, I don't know the answer to that. I also caught up with Senator Wicker. He is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and asked him about that sanctions relief

that Iran is now experiencing. He paused for a moment and said, I don't think they're entitled to any sanctions relief whatsoever, and I'm disappointed, he said. What about Democrats? What are they saying about all this? Democrats have been largely opposed to the war since it started and also to this memorandum of understanding since this came out last week. I caught up with Senator Andy Kim and also Senator Angela also Brooks about these sanctions and overall their feeling of this MOU. Absolutely not a good deal. I mean, this is a good deal for Iran.

This is a good deal for a brand new Grand Ayatollah who is younger and more hardened, more in line with the Iranian Quds Force. This is a strategic failure, and this is something that we're going to have to, we're going to pay the price for. None of us trust. We cannot trust now and never trusted the leadership of this president who took us into a war without a plan, didn't know how to get us out of the war. And the people who are paying for this war are the hardworking people of America. Senator also Brooks acknowledged that as the party in the minority right now, the Democrats can't do too much. But she was encouraging voters if they don't like what they're seeing with these policies to go out and vote November. So a range of views among lawmakers, and this is as the Trump administration is asking Congress for $80 billion, an extra $80 billion, supplemental funding to pay for this war. There has been this reporting just that came out in the last 24 hours or so.

And I asked President Trump about this in a very short phone call. I just got one question to him this morning on the phone. And I said, why should the American people support spending more money on this conflict? And why is this costing so much? He told me, quote, because Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, it's simple. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. That's not costing much at all. That's very cheap compared to what we're doing.

Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Iran will never be able to use a nuclear weapon. And if you don't do it, then they will have a nuclear weapon and then you'll see real money. I asked a Democratic senator, Catherine Cortez Mastow, about this on the Hill. Will Congress approve $80 billion in? supplemental funding. And she said to me, look, she said, if the war is no longer on and there's this ceasefire that's in place right now, then why do they need the supplemental funding and more money? Jeff, I think that's a question we're going to hear on the Hill in the coming days.

Liz Landers, a busy day for you at the White House on Capitol Hill. Our thanks to you and our politics producer, Kyle Madura. We appreciate it. Of course. For more on the U.S. negotiations with Iran, we turn now to Ernest Moniz. Trained as a nuclear physicist, he was Secretary of Energy during the Obama administration and was a chief architect and the lead technical negotiator of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA. He's now chief executive officer of EFI Foundation, which focuses on energy policy. Secretary Moniz, welcome back to the News Hour.

Thanks for joining us. Good to be back. Thank you, Amna. So I want to start with your reaction to this back and forth on the issue of nuclear inspector. Yesterday, Vice President Vance said Iran had agreed to allow access to the IAEA to nuclear sites today. Iranian officials are saying that is just not true. What do you make of Vance's statement and the Iranian response? Well, first of all, the issue could not be more important, frankly. Frankly, since 2015, to this day, we've always said that the most important part of the nuclear dimensions of the JCPOA were, in fact, the extraordinary verification measures,

and those hinge entirely upon access by the IAEA inspectors. So when the vice president says that the inspectors can come back into Iran, that's not so special, nor is it special that they have access to the Iranian-declared nuclear sites. That's important. but even more important, which the JCPOA did have in it, is that the inspectors could go to places that Iran had not declared as nuclear sites, but that the inspectors had reason to believe may have had nuclear activity. So it's the covert sites. And furthermore, we're a long way from that stage, obviously given the exchange that you referred to.

But furthermore, I believe that this negotiation has to at least replicate what came out in 2015, namely that Iran agrees to the additional protocol. That means that the inspectors can go to sites that have not been declared by Iran. But furthermore, that there is a finite time window for granting that the access. It was 24 days in 2015. No other country has such a restriction. It is absolutely critical that the inspectors have access to potential covert sites and to have access to them quickly enough to prevent major cleanups of those sites before they inspect.

So to match the verification that was in place for the previous nuclear deal, they would have to guarantee access to even those non-declared covert nuclear sites is what you're saying. also on the issue of the highly enriched uranium, the essential ingredient for a nuclear weapon here, there was specific language in the memorandum of understanding that was signed that said the two nations had agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material. How can that be done?

What would you expect to see when the technical negotiations continue on this issue? There's two distinct issues here. One is that, first of all, Iran, in contrast to the situation, in 2015, had over the last few years enriched uranium to a very high level, 60%, to give you a scale, 90% enrichment is considered weapons grade, but I caution that you don't need weapons grade uranium to make a bomb. 60% uranium, 60% enriched uranium is in fact quite

adequate to make a bomb. You need a bit more material than you would with 90%. That's why the 60% enriched uranium is so sensitive, it's so critical, because that material actually was the last piece that Iran historically did not have in its possession in order to make a bomb if it chose to do so, which I don't believe they have, okay? But resolving that issue is the absolute, in my view, first order of business with regard to enriched uranium. Where is it? What condition is it in? What is the risk? Get rid of the risk probably by having the IAEA inspectors oversee dilution of that material back to a very, very low enrichment, which would not present a danger. As you well know, these talks are now being led by Vice President Vans, Special Envoy Steve Wickcoff,

Jared Kushner. There are, of course, technical teams involved in the details of these negotiations. But you have sat across the table from the Iranians. You know what it is to negotiate in the nitty-gritty. Are you confident that the right people are negotiating for the American side to see through these verification measures that you say are necessary to at least match the JCPOA? Well, I think the question, of course, is how they use the technical people who they will need to, answer various questions. I mean, those people exist, for example, in the Department of Energy National Laboratories. In 2015, when I was negotiating, we used the National Laboratory scientists very, very heavily. To be perfectly honest, we used the time difference between Switzerland and California very effectively in order to be able to have those scientists carry out all the

analyses that we wanted. Now, the place, so that's a question of the negotiators being skillful, not only in negotiating with Iran, but skillful in using the technical assets that are available to the United States government. Now, the advantage I did have being, of course, trained as a physicist, was that I knew which questions to ask. And that was a much more efficient way of carrying forward the negotiation, perhaps a more effective way. There is this 60-day timeline they have set with the possible extension if needed. But how confident are you that a detailed agreement can be reached within those 60 days? Well, I have to be very skeptical that a detailed agreement can be reached in that time.

And, of course, one can ask how important is it to have a detailed agreement? My answer to that would be it's very important. specifically because ambiguity is something that can be manipulated, skirted by the Iranians in particular. And that's why the agreement in 2015 was over 150 pages long. Sure, we had the same assurances up front that the MOU has, namely that Iran. committed to never acquiring or developing a nuclear weapon. But our mantra was, okay, fine, but we don't trust and verify.

So that's why the verification was so important, and that's why the don't trust was reflected in the fact that we followed every rabbit hole, basically, to block ambiguities. that could lead to the development of a weapon or at least to approach the threshold of having a weapon. And I believe that that is an essential element. And I do not see how that could be done in 60 days unless a lot of groundwork has already been done,

which I'm not aware of. That is former US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz joining us tonight. Secretary Moniz, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Amna. In the day's other headlines, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled against a former Louisiana inmate who attempted to sue prison officials for shaving off his dreadlocks. In a six to three ruling, the justices found that Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, could not sue for money even if his religious rights were violated.

Writing for the minority, Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson warned the decision could weaken federal religious protections and prisons. In a separate case, the court will allow ExxonMobil to sue Cuban state-owned companies over property on the island that was seized under Fidel Castro. And the justices cited today with the Trump administration in an immigration case, strengthening the government's power to deport green card holders accused of crimes. The Justice Department has reportedly withdrawn grand jury subpoenas to reporters at the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The Associated Press and others are reporting that the subpoenas were issued. earlier this year as part of the administration's broader crackdown on media leaks. A spokesperson for the Washington Post called the subpoenas a, quote, clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed press freedom.

Speaking to reporters after an unrelated press conference, acting attorney general Todd Blanche didn't say why the subpoenas were revoked, but he vowed to continue investigating what he called breaches of national security. In France, officials say an ongoing heat wave is responsible for a, at least 40 drowning deaths in recent days as people seek ways to cool off. The country recorded its hottest day ever today, with temperatures soaring above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas. That's affected schools and train service and even forced the Eiffel Tower to close early. Locals are rushing to buy electric fans and air conditioners as

temperatures are set to remain high for a few more days. Paris, when temperatures go high, is just hell on earth. It's kind of catastrophic. I'm worried for the coming years. We've known about climate change for a while, and not one government is making progress on this issue. The extreme temperatures are affecting millions across the region, including in Britain, where train service has been disrupted and hundreds of schools were closed for the day. British authorities issued a rare extreme heat warning, and forecasters are expecting all-time highs for the month of June. The NFL denied a bid by quarterback Brendan Sorsby to hold a supplemental draft this year, meaning he won't have a chance

to enter the league in the fall. That follows the 22-year-old's legal battle with the NCAA, which ruled him ineligible after he made thousands of bets during his college career. In a letter published by multiple media outlets today, the NFL said his petition failed to, quote, demonstrate accountability for your conduct or indicate whether or how you would adhere to the league's rules. The NFL instead encouraged Sorsby to try its regular draft next year. His lawyer called the decision unlawful. And turning now to the World Cup, Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo is now the first player to score a goal in six different World Cups. The 41-year-old set the mark with his first of two goals against Uzbekistan today as Portugal went on to win five to zero.

Ronaldo scored his first World Cup goal back in 2006 in a game against Iran. Separately, Today, the Homeland Security Department said it's easing travel restrictions on this year's Iran team. Players can arrive two days ahead of their next match rather than the day before, but they'll still have to leave the U.S. right after. They next plate Egypt on Friday in Seattle. On Wall Street today, stocks struggled on the latest sell-off in big tech shares. The Dow Jones Industrial average posted a small loss of just 45 points, but the NASDAQ shed nearly 600 points or more than 2%. The S&P 500 also ended sharply lower. Still to come on the News Hour,

why the U.S. student loan repayment system is about to undergo a major overhaul. Georgia farmers struggle with a major drought as climate change makes weather less predictable. And a new book details the hardships faced by Ukraine's LGBTQ community as they navigate the realities of war. This is the PBS News Hour

from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of BBS News. Today is the 10th anniversary of the most divisive day in Britain's recent history, Brexit, its vote to leave the European Union. Voters were promised a Britain free of European laws, decreased immigration, and a major boost to business without the EU's economic constraints. But as Malcolm Brabant reports from Blackpool in the northwest of England, leave and remain voters have one thing in common. They're not celebrating. June 2016 and Britain was split almost right down the middle

as 52% of the country demanded a divorce from the European Union. I believe England's better off by itself because we have the drive and tenacity to make up for any of the so-called benefits. Out, definitely out. Okay, do you want to talk about it? Shut that bloody tunnel up, Mike. There's too many of them, they're taking over.

Literally. Our houses, our jobs, literally taking over. Let June the 23rd go down in our history as our Independence Day. But one decade later, no one is cheering, especially in Blackpool, once Britain's leading seaside resort, whose residents distinguished themselves by generating the biggest pro-Brexit vote in north-western England. I wish she'd never have left, to be honest with you. The world's gone to pot, really.

I just got a feeling that we shouldn't have left and we should go back into it. For a long time now, ever since this change, I think we've gone downhill. Britain has totally gone downhill. Everything is over-expensive. It's absolutely crazy. Ten years after the referendum, Britain remains a painfully disunited kingdom. And a significant number of Brexit voters regret their decision on that day. One of Britain's leading polling companies says that 56% of the electorate would vote to rejoin the European Union if given a chance, and that includes 22% of those who voted leave.

Rob Benson is full of regret. Like so many, post-Brexit, Benson's business lost access to European markets as the EU punished Britain with a swath of bureaucratic obstacles. In these sandy shores north of Blackpool, Benson farmed shellfish, popular in Spain and France, generating $4 million a year. But after Brexit, the enterprise collapsed. I actually voted to leave. But obviously, we were never told the truth as to what the consequences were going to be. Now the consequences are out. It's too late.

How angry are you? Very. Oh, yeah, very angry. totally destroyed a business. The abiding face of Brexit is Nigel Farage, whose uncompromising campaign against the European Union catalyzed the referendum. It was about getting back control of our country, getting back control of our borders, and they've given us record levels of immigration.

We are literally living through a population explosion. History will also judge Boris Johnson's short-lived premiership as the driving force behind the legislation delivering Brexit. Now a newspaper columnist, Johnson is toasting Brexit's anniversary. Evening everybody, 10 years after that historic Brexit referendum, I feel more convinced than ever that the British people were heroic and magnificent and did the right thing in voting for freedom and democratic independence. I think prison's too good for them to be joyful because they just lied.

According to the Confederation of British Industry, the nation's economy has shrunk by about 8% since Brexit was enshrined in law. When we visited this Northwest Cheese factory before Brexit was sealed, the owners exported to 40 different countries and hoped to expand. But the business went bust and 30 people lost their jobs, thanks in no small part to the imposition of European tariffs. Henri Morrison is chief executive of a lobbying group called the Northern Powerhouse Park The economic evidence is pretty clear that our businesses have suffered from lack of access to European markets.

So having left the single operating economic model of the European Union, we now have more barriers to trade, and that has definitely held back businesses here. Brexit has been a tremendous act of self-harm. Political scientist Dimitris Papadimitriou is a vice dean of Manchester University. The political and economic turmoil that has ensued has definitely made people feel that Britain is not a first-class power anymore. For Europhiles, Blackpool embodies a self-inflicted wound, especially as it's one of Britain's most poverty-stricken boroughs. As the graffiti says, dreaming of better days. Brexit deprived the town of European funds intended to boost its economy. economy by, for example, restoring Blackpool's tribute to the Eiffel Tower and smartening up a

sea front that liars millions each year. That type of work costs an absolute fortune. So to lose access to that funding was a real major blow for us. And as a consequence, we're only now, 10 years on, starting the other necessary works to the promenade and the seafront. Lynne Williams of Britain's governing Labour Party heads Blackpool Council. striving to secure government grants to replace lost European funding. Blackpool's money troubles were exacerbated by lockdowns during the COVID pandemic.

And Williams believes that the trickle-down of economic hardship has fueled the rise of right-wing politicians. That was the start really of, you know, that kind of populist politics of, you know, we have to leave, we have to be an island. We want our country back. Ten years on, we are now seeing this particular rise of that type of politics, which is, I think, is a direct consequence of Brexit. Lynne Williams' Barb is aimed at the politics of Mark Butcher,

a foot soldier of Nigel Farage's right-wing anti-immigrant reform party. Butcher runs a soup kitchen for Blackpool's poorest, including homeless military veterans, whom, he says, are treated worse than illegal immigrants. We never really got Brexit in the first place, So it was a betrayal from the Conservative Party. They didn't deliver the Brexit that we signed up for. And Butcher fears that 10 years on, Brexit is still insecure.

They're now wanting to get us back into Europe, completely ignoring the 17.4 million people. You know, we wanted out and out meant out. Regrettful leave voter Rob Benson survived his shellfish company's Brexit-induced collapse, by servicing offshore wind farms instead. In the marina where he moors his new boat, there's a mock-up of the Titanic. Benson likens Brexit to an iceberg

and hopes that growing aspirations to reconcile with Europe will gain traction. I'd love to rejoin because if we're rejoined, you know, we've had a taste of what it's like trying to do it without. It doesn't work. Not for us. It really doesn't.

To the dismay of Brexiteers, the Labour government has been working to repair ties with the EU. But following yesterday's resignation of Prime Minister Kier Stama, it's unclear just how much closer Britain and Europe will become. We now come to Andy Burnham, member for Makerfield. Newly re-elected MP Andy Burnham, who's expected to succeed Stama, is vague on what kind of relationship he wants. But Burnham has been explicit about ending the divide between England's richer South.

and poorer north. And that's good news for this seaside resort. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Malcolm Brabant in Blackpool. Federal student loans will undergo major changes starting July 1st. The changes will not only restructure the loan system, but also repayment options for millions of Americans. Stephanie Sy tells us more. Jeff, some borrowers might see higher monthly payments. Others will have to deal with stricter caps on how much they can borrow, and there will be fewer loan forgiveness options. Four key revisions include an increase in interest rates for most loans. One benefit, a discount of 1% for eligible borrowers who enroll in auto pay. The elimination of the Biden-era save plan, which affects 7.5 million borrowers and new borrowing caps for graduate

and parent-plus loans. For more on how all these changes will further impact folks and their finances, I'm joined by Danielle Douglas Gabriel, National Higher Education Reporter for the Washington Post. Daniel, welcome to the news hour. So let's jump right in with this new discount being offered to borrowers. Is 1% going to make a dent for a lot of folks? What should we know about that benefit? Certainly over the lifetime of the loan, it does make a difference in terms of how much you end up paying. Unfortunately, this is only good for two years for people who are hoping that this is for the life of their repayment cycle. But it could make a significant difference for people who have higher interest rates and for people who have larger

loans. So it's worth looking into. So a big question is what happens to the seven million folks that were on the Biden-era save plan. That ends on July 1st. Critics of this plan, of course, said it over-promised. It was too generous. But millions of borrowers planned their budgets around it and saw those monthly payments skyrocket. Do the new replacement options out there help those folks out? For some borrowers, it won't be that much of a difference in their repayment plan. But for many borrowers, it could be a pretty significant jump in their bill. Keep in mind that almost half of the people who were on that save plan had incomes low enough that they qualified for zero monthly payments. That's not going to be the case on the payment plans that they'll have to switch into.

Even with the new repayment plan that's coming online July 1st, you still have to pay $10 a month. And there are a lot of borrowers I've spoken to who said that they certainly cannot fit another payment in their household budget at this time when they're dealing with inflation. in grocery prices, gas prices, and the like. So it's going to be a tough road ahead for some borrowers who are on the lowest income of the safe plan. So would you expect that you would continue to see defaults on student loans go up, as we've been seeing for the last few years anyway? I think there's a real risk of that right now.

We have a pretty high delinquency and default percentage at this stage. I think there are about 9 million people who are in default on their student loans, who are behind by several months. And a lot of economists are worried that switching all of these borrowers out of save and just people moving into some of these new repayment plan options could increase that spike. Certainly the Department of Education is trying to get the message out. They have been emailing borrowers. They have been notifying them of these coming changes.

The need to switch out of save for several months. I do think that this interest subsidy that's in play for two years, the auto pay is another way to try to encourage borrowers to go back into consistent repayment and to stay current on their loans. Will it be successful? I think it's too soon to tell, but it's certainly something worth watching as over the next six months as we start to see borrowers migrate out of some of these plans into some of these newer options.

Danielle, I'm hearing a lot of borrowers online, especially expressing their frustrations, that they really don't know what to do next, that they don't really trust the system anymore. and that they feel like the rules have changed enough that they're not sure what to do. Here's what one woman said on TikTok. I have no idea what the heck I'm supposed to do. I'm going and looking at some of these repayment plans, and some of them look a little insane. Some of them, not terrible, but I don't know what I'm committing to.

And then I'm trying to get online and get more information. None of this stuff makes sense to me. So this new repayment assistance plan, or rap, has been, described, as you know, by the Department of Ed as a simpler income plan. Is it simpler, income repayment plan? Is it simpler? And will the new system help or further hurt low-income borrowers? I think that's debatable. You know, certain features of the RAP plan, there has been research that shows, especially I think coming out of American University, that some lower-income borrowers because of an interest subsidy that's attached to the RAP plan,

where if you make consistent monthly payments on time, the government will pay. whatever unpaid interest is still accruing on the loan. That could help some low-income borrowers pay off their loans faster. But there's also a great concern that because of the structure of the plan, you could see a rise in defaults and delinquencies for low-income borrowers who simply cannot even keep up with a $10 payment, which is a possibility and a reality for many Americans. So it's difficult to say if it's so much easier than what has existed.

It is certainly not as generous. as what SAVE was offering, which was much lower monthly payments and a much faster path to forgiveness. But this is effectively the government trying to split the difference to help people, but we certainly could see a lot of people repaying their loans for longer. Keep in mind that under this new income-driven repayment plan, it'll take 30 years of payments before you see the remaining balance forgiven. That's different than the 20 or 25 years that currently exists, And that's definitely different than the decade's worth of payments that Save was willing to let borrowers off for them if they had low balances in total. So this is not quite as generous as what we've seen in the past.

In some ways, it is very beneficial to some populations, but it could be very detrimental to others who have in the past and may continue to struggle in repaying their student loans. Quickly, Daniel, can you talk about loan forgiveness and where that stands? It still exists, certainly for public servants through public service loan forgiveness. The existing income-driven repayment plans also have a forgiveness feature that is still in play, oftentimes after 20 or 25 years of repayment. So that is still an option for borrowers, just not quite as widespread as what we'd seen in the past. That is Danielle Douglas Gabriel with The Washington Post joining us. That was very helpful. Thank you.

You're welcome. More than half of the continental U.S. is facing drought. Meanwhile, in just the south this year, tens of millions of people have been under flood watches. These extreme weather conditions can have major impacts on farmers and their crops, at a time when they're already facing high production costs. Paul Solomon recently traveled to southern Georgia to hear from some of those farmers. It's part of our continuing series, Tipping Point.

In southeast Georgia, the Berry family, farming for generations, their grandpa, a sharecropper. But this spring, drought. Your dad said you've never seen a drought like this before. Right. Have you? No, not in my lifetime. I haven't. Never heard stories of a drought this bad either.

If we were to plant on schedule in the heart of the drought, we pretty much would have lost all those crops. 170 miles west, the opposite problem at the 2400-acre long-leaf Ridge farm, run by sixth-generation farmer Casey Cox Kerr. I wanted to come back and build on the foundation that my parents had built. She, too, faces drought, though her part of Southern Georgia finally did get rain a few weeks ago. But it was a downpour that menaced the crops. Not only does it drown some of the plants, it also creates disease and pest problems.

We're seeing wet or wets and dryer dries, and that can be a big challenge with what we're experiencing on the farm. Wet or wets, dry or dries. You won't be surprised to hear this has something. to do with climate change. It's affecting precisely those things that people depend on for their livelihoods, their food, their water supplies. These are essentials. Rachel Cletus of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Climate change is making these more frequent, both the short duration kinds of droughts that we're seeing in some places, but also the longer mega droughts like the Southwest is experiencing. The unpredictability of it, you know, the extremes, both the droughts and then. and the whiplash with extreme rainfall events. That makes it very difficult to plan for these kinds of conditions. During drought, Ag professor West Porter of the University of Georgia says, the local soil compounds the problem.

If you look in our region where we're at now in southern Georgia, we have a really sandy soil. So sandy soils can't hold a whole lot of water. So what that means we actually evaporated out significantly higher amounts of water than what we had received back in. So we were looking negative. Meanwhile, those farmers now face punishing costs,

like diesel, spurting up almost 50% since the end of February. And some seven in 10 farmers say they now can't afford rising fertilizer costs. I mean, now we would normally be at market already, and we haven't been. Things just aren't ready. Now, both guys work full-time jobs. Tony at the Port of Savannah, Cedric's an electrician. How much time do you get to spend here as opposed to on your regular jobs? For me, two to three days out of the week.

And for you? Evenings and weekends. They helped finance the farm with their salaries. The drought up the cost. The berries usually sell hay, for example, had to hold some of it back to feed their cattle. Their own pasture parched dry, $10,500 in lost sales. Fertilizer, fuel, those things like that. That money would have covered that for sure.

Is that $10,500? Is that a substantial hit? Yes, sir. I mean, if you want to give me $10,500, and I ask you that question. Tony Berry grew up a city boy in Savannah and never dreamed he'd wind up down on the farm. But with cousin Cedric... We just naturally came together and it's like, okay, well, let's follow the family tradition and do this. Back across the state, tradition brought Casey Cox Kerr back to.

Like most things, a little bit of time and perspective, made me realize how unique this farm is and how special it is that I get to do this. But with a changing climate, what hope is there for family farmers? This technology is very vital to survival. Technology. Like precision irrigation at the University of Georgia Research Park,

BJ Washington and team are helping farmers conserve their water. You can program how much water you put out. You can program where it needs to start and stop in the field, you can speed it up or slow it down within the field to put out more water or less water. You can do all that from this panel. Those big circles you see from your airplane window seat created by center pivot irrigation rigs like the ones here. Sprinkling water over crops slowly and evenly instead of spritzing it all at once. And these soil moisture sensors let the ground itself signal just how much soaking

it needs so farmers don't overwater. Given the drought, it's a huge deal because we want to be as efficient with irrigation as possible. We don't want to waste water. We don't want to irrigate if we don't need to. We could not grow what we grow without irrigation because of just the frequency of drought. The new irrigation systems, new technologies, we're doing, we're taking the steps that we're able to take to mitigate the risks that we can. We have to focus on what we can control.

Which made me wonder, why isn't everyone doing this? One obvious answer, it's not cheap. The irrigation rigs cost at least $90,000. The sensors up to $2,500 each. But says Professor Porter, It looks like a big cost, but it's costly for us to misapply our irrigation. It's costly for us to lose yields because of that, right? And so I have a lot of return on investment data that show that anywhere from on the low end,

$20 to $30 per acre, all way up to $150,200 per acre return for utilizing advanced irrigation scheduling. acre. So maybe data will get the nation's farmers to change their ways, and maybe farm tech will stay ahead of further climate changes. Man, we've got this. We can adapt, we can change. We've been doing it for a long time.

The way we farm today might look different in the way we farm in 100 years. But I'm hoping that the work we're doing today is helping build a foundation. And in the long run, Rachel Cletus says, there are policy steps worth considering. We should, as a nation, not leave farmers on their own to deal with this, whether they can afford it or not. We've got to invest. We have to make sure that farmers are aware of the options that might be there and that they get grants or low-cost loans that they can maybe install some of these technologies on their farms that they need them. Meanwhile, the berries keep on pushing, without pricey technology, leaning on a tradition older than the farm. We do put faith in our good Lord that he will provide a way because he has done that all these years before us.

And I'm a strong believer that he will continue to do that. We're doing the job that's important, you know, providing the food for surrounding communities, you know, letting people know where the food actually comes from. And we need that and, you know, just feel like if we're serving that purpose, you know, he will provide. Well, he moves in mysterious ways. Definitely. For the berries, though, mystery or not, wet or wets and dry or dries are an all too present reality. For the PBS News hour, Paul Salman.

It has been more than four years since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and while the war has affected the daily lives of nearly all Ukrainians, life has been especially challenging for members of its LGBTQ community. Author and photojournalist Jay Lester Fader's recent book chronicles some of those lives. Here's our conversation with him. My name is Jay Lester Fader. I'm a reporter that's primarily been a foreign correspondent, and I'm the author of The Queer Face of War, Portraits and Stories from Ukraine.

LGBT people have been targeted in wars of well-documented ways going back, at least as far as World War II. But we don't have a lot of stories about what actually happened to them, because in most wars it hasn't been safe for LGBT people to speak publicly. So when the war in Ukraine began, I was immediately went over there to begin interviewing people to find out what issues they might be having. And we were particularly concerned because Russia had used so much anti-LGB propaganda that they might be targeting queer Ukrainians on the ground. I did not plan to do a book or to do a photo project. I assumed, like the reporting I'd done in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria, that people would not want to be. photographed or even necessarily share their full identities. And I asked people if they could be

photographed really as an afterthought. But people started saying yes. And when a number of people had said yes, I realized that I was building what I think is the first visual history of a queer community in war. So there isn't one LGBT experience of war. There are many. And one of the reasons why I chose to do the book as a series of vignettes of individual people was to capture this range. I talked to one guy who was in the army as a cook. I talked to drag queens in the military administration supporting armed forces. And then there are the soldiers that are in the trenches and really fighting directly. And that's everything from Victor Pilopenko, who founded the LGBT military organization, has spent most of the war on the front lines and has been quite accepted

and celebrated for his work to a woman named Amelia, who was transgender. joined the military initially because she thought it was the only way that she could afford gender-confirming surgery. And then when she did finally start transitioning, after being an intelligence officer and spending 10 years in the armed forces, her commander stripped her of security clearance, and ultimately she was forced to leave the military altogether. And this made me think a lot about the fights over gay people being able to serve in the military when I was a teenager. and today the Trump administration's efforts to remove trans people from service. It's really important for marginalized groups to be able to serve in the military

because it is a way of demonstrating that there is an ability to bear the full weight of citizenship and therefore they're entitled to the full rights as citizens. And that denial of service is saying that marginalized people are somehow less than other citizens. They're not truly equal and therefore can't make those demands. And it's not just the queer community that has recognized this, but I also think about the civil rights movement and African-American soldiers coming back to the United States and that being a real spark that helped mobilize the civil rights movement here.

The treatment of queer people, like the treatment of all marginalized groups, is a real measure of the health of a democracy. One of the values of democracy and pluralism is that it has room for many different kinds of people and everybody can still be full citizens, even though they're not the same. Ukrainians are not different from Americans or Europeans, and that the fight that they are having to remain safe as a queer community in a democracy that supports their rights is a global struggle because the model that Putin has perfected of using homophobia to attack democracy is something that we are seeing in otherwise healthy democracies all over the world right now.

One of the activists that I spoke to said, you know, there's really only two options here. Either Ukraine will be a democracy and LGBT people will have rights or it will be a dictatorship and no one will have rights. And I think that really captures the stakes for today. As always, there's a lot more online, including three things Judy Woodruff says she learned from speaking with Americans across the country ahead of the USA's 250th birthday. That's at pbs.org slash news hour. And join us back here again tomorrow night when we'll have the latest on primary battles

that could shape control of Congress. And that is the NewsHour for tonight. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the NewsHour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.