PBS News Hour - Full Show - June 25, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: June 25, 2025

Wednesday on the News Hour, President Trump reveals new information that he says indicates the U.S. "obliterated" a key Iranian nuclear site. An upset in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary with a young, democratic socialist defeating the state's former governor. Plus, Judy Woodruff visits a Texas border region where voters have dramatically shifted their partisan patterns. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Nawaz. On the news hour tonight, during a NATO summit, President Trump reveals new information that he says indicates the U.S. strike obliterated a key Iranian nuclear site. An upset in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary with a young Democratic socialist defeating the state's former governor. And Judy Woodruff visits a Texas border region where voters have dramatically shifted their partisan patterns. Now the debate is not, hey, we have this problem, how do we solve the problem, is, well, wait a minute, are you with him or with us? Welcome to the news hour. President Trump again forcefully defended his conclusion that the bombing he ordered of Iranian nuclear facility, quote, obliterated them. And to further support the president's position, CIA director

John Ratcliffe released a statement late this afternoon affirming the administration's claims about the effectiveness of the strikes, saying the agency's assessment, quote, includes new intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source-slash method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years. Nick Schifrin again reports from the Hague tonight to start our coverage. Tonight, as the intelligence community examines the aftermath of dozens of Tomahawk missile hits, bunker buster bomb craters, and Israel's 12-day campaign in Iran, President Trump insisted the intelligence proves his case. We've collected additional

intelligence. We've also spoken to people who have seen the site, and the site is obliterated. He revealed Israeli agents reached Iran's Fordo enrichment site buried deep inside a mountain to conclude the U.S. strikes, quote, destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. U.S. officials describe new intelligence not just from the damage to facilities capable of creating weapons-grade nuclear fuel, but also the sites capable of converting that fuel into the form needed to produce a weapon, and capable of converting uranium into metal fitted with explosives had been destroyed. So in Esfahan, there was this conversion site, which is which how you turn this metal into something that's useful.

That's wiped out. Two officials told PBS NewsHour an initial defense intelligence agency assessment concluded the U.S. bombs dropped on Fordo, did not obliterate the site, and Iran could gain access to it eventually. That's a conclusion echoed today by UN Nuclear Watchdog Chief Rafael Grossi.

The reconstruction of the infrastructure is not impossible. First, there has been some that survived the attacks, and then this is work that Iran knows how to do. It would take some time. But today, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegeseth revealed that initial DIA conclusion was low confidence. Why is there low confidence? Because all of the evidence of what was just bombed by 12, 30,000-pound bombs is buried under a

mountain. And President Trump, who has long questioned intelligence. analyst's loyalty, said today he no longer wanted preliminary assessments. I would say, issue the report when you know what happened. In Iran today, the regime tried to display resilience and supporters rallied in the streets. But now the focus could turn to diplomacy. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff had been negotiating with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aranchi with Oman mediating.

Today, President Trump said those talks would resume. but did not need to produce a new nuclear deal. We're going to talk to them next week with Iran. We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary. The administration and its allies argue that they have set Iran's program back years

because of the damage done to each aspect of the program. But critics are concerned that the strikes have actually set back diplomacy, which could have bought more time on Iran's nuclear program, and Jeff could convince Iran once. and for all to pursue a nuclear weapon as the only way to defend itself. And, Nick, you're joining us from in front of the NATO summit. What were the leaders able to agree on today? The leaders announced a historic pledge to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP,

including 3.5% on weapons and 1.5% on what's called defense-related spending, everything from cybersecurity to infrastructure. President Trump did not disrupt this summit as some senior European officials told me that they feared that he would. In fact, Jeff, the same President Trump, who nearly a decade ago said that he would be okay if NATO broke up. Instead, today said that he was, quote, honored to be here

and happy to help NATO members defend themselves. And he also said that he would try and help Ukraine by sending more air defense, including in this interchange with BBC Ukrainian porter, Miroslava Petsa. We know that Russia has been pounded in Ukraine really heavily right now. Are you living yourself now?

Now in Ukraine? My husband is there. Wow. I can see you very, you know, it's amazing. And me with the kids, I'm in Warsaw, actually, because he wanted me to be. Is your husband a soldier, no? He's. He's there now?

Yeah. Well, that's rough stuff, right? They do want to have the anti-missile missiles, okay, as they call them, the Patriots, and we're going to see if we can make some available. That's a very good question, and I wish you a lot of luck. lot of luck. I mean, I can see it's very upsetting to you. So say hello to your husband, okay? This evening I spoke with Secretary General Mark Ruta to talk about President Trump, Ukraine, and NATO's new historic spending commitment.

What will NATO collectively be able to do with that spending that it wasn't able to before? Defend ourselves against the Russians. We can defend ourselves now, but there is a big risk in three, five, seven years from now without the extra spending. that you would not be able to do that. And I think it's also fair because it means that Europe and Canada will basically move to the same level of spending as the US is doing currently. And I think that's fair that the US is not paying more than the others. Let's talk about the United States.

With all due respect, some of your language to President Trump has been a little obsequious over the last few days. You called him daddy today? No, no. I can explain to you. In fact, right? And you wrote a note to him a few days ago that included the phrase, You will achieve something at this summit. This is a note that the president made public.

Do you fear that that language undermines your argument that these countries are not spending 5% in order to please a president, but in fact to actually face off against their adversaries? Well, half of the reason to spend more is to equalize with the United States. This is a consistent argument by President Trump. The other reason is that we need an extra spending, as I said, to be sure that we can defend ourselves. if the Russians would try something against us.

But is the language demeaning? No, not at all. I like the guy, we are befriended, President Trump and myself, and this is the way I communicate, and I had absolutely no problem that he brought it out. And again, you're saying that you will achieve something. You don't think that takes away from your argument that these countries are making the decision

not about Trump, but about their own futures. It's about both. It is about the future, make sure that you can defend yourself, but it's also because the US has consistently, and this president very effectively since 2016. We are spending now outside the US a trillion extra in aggregate, and it will equalize with the US. So both sides of the argument equalize with the United States,

being able to defend ourselves against the Russians, the Chinese built up, North Korea, these two reasons, both very important. Some senior NATO officials tell me that they want you to be more pressuring on Trump, that it's okay to use flattery, but they want you to pressure Trump specifically on keeping U.S. troops in Europe. Are you pushing Trump to keep U.S. troops in Europe in private? I'm always fascinated about some of our European colleagues, because first they were afraid that

he would leave us and that, and this is why I used daddy. I didn't say that he is daddy. What I said is it is a bit like a small child looking up to his dad and saying, Daddy, are you leaving the family? This was not me calling Trump daddy. But in that sense, I used it. Do you think President Trump considers NATO members' children? No, but there's some of the NATO members here in Europe, sometimes when they ask these questions, behave a big childish. The great thing about today is that we have 32 grown-up leaders at the table saying, we sign up to this, we have to do this. To that point, yesterday, when President Trump was asked whether he would defend Article

5, he said, quote, it depends on your definition. He and his top aides, as you know, have said that Europe was ripping the US off. But this afternoon, he said this. And I left here differently, I left here saying that these people really love their country, it's not a rip-off and we're here to help them protect their country. Do you think he was withholding an endorsement of Article 5 until NATO members today proverbially signed on the dotted line? No, no, not for a second. He is totally committed to NATO. He is totally committed to Article 5.

But this irritant is there, hey guys, you've got to spend more. It's crazy that we in the US spend so much. You are in this with a defense spending level which is too low and we have to equalize. Last year NATO declared Ukraine's membership irreversible. That language is not repeated in the communicate today, although you did use it twice in the press conference, but bottom line is Ukraine membership off the table? No, and the language has not changed. So this language on long-term threat on Ukraine having this irreversible path into NATO and all these other paragraphs from previous meetings are still valid. Today basically is putting an emphasis on three

elements. One is spending, second industrial production, third, the practical support for Ukraine to keep them in the fight and to get them as strong as possible after a peace deal. On that practical support, Russia continues to make small gains in eastern Ukraine, even though it takes incredibly high losses. The Biden era weapons that Biden administration sent to Ukraine are beginning to run out. The Trump administration has not committed to spending more money to send more weapons to Ukraine. Does that make Ukraine vulnerable, especially as Europe's only trying to catch up in terms of production of weapons? No, and what you see this year is that already Europeans and Canadians have pledged 35 billion in the first half year.

And the full pledge last year was over 50 billion. And I find it totally acceptable that the US is saying, hey to the Europeans, you should pay more here. But I'm talking about Ukraine. Is Ukraine vulnerable as American weapons reduce on the battlefield? No, no, no. We make sure collectively with the US that Ukraine stays as strong as possible. And finally, quickly, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland are planning to leave a landmine treaty to mine their borders with Russia. It's being called an iron curtain. What does it say about Russia's long-term threat beyond Ukraine to NATO and Europe? I think it is evidence and testimony to the fact that Russia is a threat today, is a threat long-term, and very much felt so all over the airlines.

Mark Ruth, Secretary General of NATO, thank you very much. Thank you very much. return now to the aftermath of the Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and what the potential consequences of those attacks might be. John Feiner was the Deputy National Security Advisor during the Biden administration. He's now a distinguished visiting fellow at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. Thanks for being here. Good to be here, Jeff. Thanks. So how do you interpret the way the administration is presenting the intelligence about the U.S. strikes? Today, the CIA director put out a statement saying that, that the agency has credible evidence that Iran's nuclear program was severely damaged. This is a day after the initial defense intelligence assessment that it was set back by a matter of months.

Look, Jeff, it's worth pausing just for a second on the extraordinary operation that our armed forces conducted in taking this strike. We are fortunate in the United States to have the most capable military in the world. We ask Democratic administrations, Republican administrations, the impossible of them, and they deliver time and again. And I have no reason to question that these planes did just as the administration reported, flew more than 30 hours from the United States, dropped their ordinance in a very small, very precise area, and hit the target. The question now is what actually is the impact of the strikes? And here, I think the administration has not done themselves any favors.

President Trump has had a degree of discomfort with the intelligence community going back to his first term, in part because I believe he likes to characterize the facts that frame a situation. And so even before he took the strikes, he took issue with his Director of National Intelligence saying that Iran was not seeking a nuclear weapon, which has been the position of the intelligence community now going back at least 15 years. And then in the immediate aftermath of the strikes, he came out and said the targets were obliterated, kind of minutes, it seemed, after the ordinance hit the target. Before it was really possible, I think, to know what is called the bomb damage assessment,

the assessment of what has actually happened. Then the intelligence community put out information, quietly leaked it. That drove us crazy when I was in the government, I'm sure it drove this administration crazy, suggesting maybe not as much damage had been done. And then today you saw the administration push back very strongly. The president, the Secretary of Defense, as you said, the director of CIA. So you now have the Trump administration seeming to be in an argument with itself about the outcome, which is not confidence-inspiring at a time when clarity is paramount.

And this detail that the Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered today, he said that Iran's nuclear capacity was effectively eliminated because the U.S. destroyed a key conversion facility, which is critical for producing bomb-grade uranium. From your vantage point, does that assessment hold up? I think the key question is not where some of these facilities destroyed. The above-ground facilities, I think, we never questioned, whether we or another administration would be able to destroy them militarily, if need be. Fordo, a harder assessment.

The real question is, how quickly could Iran, should it decide to do that, reconstitute these facilities. Our assessment always was that they could do that relatively rapidly, that this was not a durable and permanent solution, or at least not as durable as a diplomatic solution for exactly that reason. And the other key problem right now is we just have a lot less insight into what is going on with Iran's nuclear program because the inspectors who only entered Iran because of international negotiations, because of a nuclear deal, are no longer at these sites, no longer have visibility of Iran's nuclear stockpile and its enrichment facilities, and so we are flying a bit blind.

Could one of the unintended consequences of these strikes be that it only really accelerates Iran's nuclear ambitions? Look, I think it would be reasonable and rational to conclude if you are Iran, and I hope this is not the path they go down, because I think it would be very dangerous for them and for the world, that countries that have this capability, that have nuclear weapons, don't tend to get attacked in the way that they did. But because that is a very real and rational possibility, it puts an even bigger premium now than there was a month ago on a diplomatic negotiation. One of the things that's very interesting is a lot has happened.

There's been a lot of sound and fury and military action over the last few weeks. But we remain in more or less the same strategic situation in need of a diplomatic agreement to actually put shackles on this nuclear program. And without that, we won't have it. On the matter of diplomacy, you helped draw up the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the J. ACPOA, which President Trump withdrew the U.S. from. He said that he could strike a better deal. Today, he didn't appear very eager to reach an agreement with Iran. What do you make of his approach at this current moment? Well, look, I think whether or not he believes he has set the nuclear program back many years, which is the information they're now putting out today, there is a very

good reason separate and apart from that to want a diplomatic deal, and that is to get the inspectors back onto these sites. I don't think Iran is going to allow that to happen, absent some sort of diplomatic negotiation, and without that, we will not know what their intentions are except for whatever intelligence we're able to gather, which is good. The Israelis have extraordinary intelligence penetration, as we've seen into Iran, but is never going to be perfect if you don't have physical presence at these sites, which you can only get through a negotiation. John Feiner, thanks so much for joining us this evening. We appreciate it. Thanks again.

We start the day's other headlines in Kenya, where chaos erupted in the streets today as police clashed with protesters amid growing public anger over police brutality and corruption. In the capital city of Nairobi, demonstrators scrambled from tear gas and rubber bullets. A Kenyan rights group says at least eight people were killed nationwide and high. hundreds injured. Today's unrest comes one year to the day since at least 60 people were killed in anti-tax protests. Young activists say they have yet to see any accountability. Too many Kenyans are losing their lives in the hands of the police. So we want justice for everyone so that we can move forward as a country. Kenya's president, William Ruto, had reiterated his support for the police

and today urged protesters not to, quote, destroy the country. Many have called on him to resign. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the Israeli military says that seven of its soldiers were killed in Gaza today when Hamas militants attached a bomb to their armored vehicle. Family members and friends mourned one of the soldiers in the coastal city of Ashkenon. It was one of Israel's deadliest days and months. In Gaza, Palestinian health officials say Israeli attacks killed at least 79 people in the past day. More than 30 of them died while trying to reach desperately needed aid. Palestinians make up the vast majority of those killed in the conflict.

Israel says it targets only militants and blame civilian deaths on Hamas. On Capitol Hill, President Trump's nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put herself at odds with her boss, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. today on the issue of vaccines. During a Senate confirmation hearing, Susan Menares called the jabs life-saving, and she drew a contrast with Kennedy, who has suggested a link between vaccines. and autism, which is contrary to scientific evidence. Do you agree with the American Medical Association that there is no scientific proven link between vaccines and autism?

I have not seen a causal link between vaccines and autism. Today's hearing took place as a newly formed panel of vaccine advisors met for the first time. The group was handpicked by Secretary Kennedy after he fired all 17 experts from the committee earlier this month. Several of his replacements have outspoken anti-vaccine views. This new group says it will review the vaccine schedule for children, which could affect how and when kids are immunized in the U.S. Kilmar Obrega Garcia will remain in jail for at least a few more days as legal teams debate whether he'd be deported if released. Supporters rallied outside a Tennessee courthouse today after a judge had ruled that the Salvadoran National could be freed ahead of his trial

on two counts of human smuggling. But his lawyers worried he might be immediately detained by immigration officials and deported. Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported in March and was brought back to the U.S. earlier this month to face trial. Separately, the Trump administration is suing all 15 federal district court judges in Maryland over an order that blocks the immediate deportation of immigrants.

A judge said last month that those who file a petition in that state cannot be deported for at least one day. The blistering heat wave across the eastern half of the country has now been blamed for at least one death in the St. Louis area, that's according to local police. Nearly 128 million Americans remain under extreme heat warnings and advisories today along large portions of the East Coast. Already this week, dozens of daily temperature records have been broken across the Midwest and Northeast. New York saw its hottest day since 2012 yesterday. But there is some relief in sight. Forecasters say the heat will gradually weaken through the end of the week,

although that comes with the threat of severe thunderstorms across the central and eastern U.S. On Wall Street today, stocks took a pause after two days of strong gains. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped around 100 points on the day. The NASDAQ managed a slight gain of around 60 points. The S&P 500 ended pretty much unchanged. And an international team of astronauts blasted off early today on a privately-funded funded mission to the International Space Station. Three, two, one, mission.

A SpaceX Falcon rocket launched from NASA's Kennedy Space Center with U.S. astronaut Peggy Whitson on board, along with crew members from India, Hungary, and Poland. The two-week mission was organized by Houston-based company Axiom Space. Tickets cost $65 million per traveler. The crew is bringing dozens of experiments to the ISS, plus food from their home countries, including Indian curry, spicy Hungarian paprika paste, and freeze-dried Polish pierogies. Still to come, on the news hour, a Senate committee considers

the White House request to claw back government funding. One of President Trump's judicial nominees faces congressional scrutiny for his willingness to defy court orders. And acclaimed poet Arthur Zee reflects on his career bridging Western and Chinese traditions. This is the PBS NewsHour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. In a stunning upset, 33-year-old Zoran Mamdani won last night's Democratic primary for New York City mayor. Final results won't be official for several days, but his win has sent shockwaves through the Democratic Party. Mom Dhani spoke to supporters late last night.

If this campaign has demonstrated anything to the world, it is that our dreams can become reality. Dreaming demands hope. And when I think of hope, I think of the unprecedented coalition of New Yorkers that we have built. For this, this is not my voice. victory. This is ours. For more on his win and what comes next, we're joined by Errol Lewis. He's political anchor for Spectrum News, New York One, and host of the Inside City Hall program.

Errol, welcome back to the News Hour. Good to see you. Great to be with you. So this is being called a New York City miracle, a political earthquake. Mamdani went from being a little-known state assembly man to taking down the former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. How did he do it? Well, that's what we're all trying to figure it out today. But the short answer is that he represented a new generation.

He's less than half the age of Andrew Cuomo. He's a relative newcomer who has a lot of newcomers' problems, meaning it's hard to pay the rent in New York City. It's hard to get the cost of living under control. And he proposed some very basic, very straightforward solutions that a lot of people really like. He is a self-described Democratic Socialist, we should say. And some of the specific promises that he ran on include a rent freeze, free city buses, raising taxes on the wealthy.

If he wins, Errol, are those achievable or are they just aspirational? Some are easily achievable. When they say a rent freeze, what they mean is that there are about a million apartments in New York that are under tightly regulated control by something called the Rent Guidelines Board. And the Mayor makes all of the appointments to the board so he could influence the board sufficiently to get a rent freeze over the course. of a year or two. That he can do. Almost everything else he'd have to go back to his friends in the

state legislature. He'd have to ask for help from the governor. That help is not necessarily forthcoming, by the way. If he wants to raise taxes and do some other expensive stuff, it's going to have to be a joint project. So when you look at how he won, he referenced in the Soundbite we just heard the coalition that got him here. It's even more striking when you look at the map. He was able to win in progressive parts of Brooklyn, in working class parts of queens and affluent parts of Manhattan. How significant a redrawing of the map is this? Well, the question is whether or not we're seeing a complete realignment. The reality is, though, he really is taking advantage of some underlying demographic trends that all New York

politicians are going to have to at least recognize. For example, he himself is part of a fast-growing South Asian community. There are a lot of people here from India, from Pakistan, from throughout the Indian diaspora, that includes Guyana. These are people who want to see themselves reflected in government and in leadership. There are 750 plus thousand Muslims in New York City. He spent, apparently last week, his campaign says he went to 135 mosques. There are going to be some new ways that politics is done in New York, because Zoran Mamdani is proving that if you tap into these newer communities and you speak to people's needs,

needs, they will reward you with the polls. And obviously, it's gotten a lot of national attention. What are you seeing in terms of the Democratic Party across the country and what kind of lessons they're taking away from this win? Well, there's an active discussion going on all over social media. What I can tell you is that some heavy hitters, Senator Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffrey, the Democratic leader in the House, have all signed up on the dotted line. They've all congratulated him.

They recognize talent when they see it, political talent, and they recognize political movement when they see it. there's a lot of youthful energy that was turned into votes. We've seen a lot of youthful energy in the past. It's not always turned into voting power. And politicians understand that above all else. So I think Democrats around the country are going to look and see if this could be set next to the win of Michelle Wu up in Boston just a couple of years ago as part of the

new generation of 30-something Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who endorsed Sauron Mamdadi would certainly fall in that category. who are going to be the future of the party. Errol, we've also seen some pretty ugly attacks awakened in reaction to Mamdani's win. That includes attacks on his faith. He would be the city's first Muslim mayor if he's elected. And we've seen some Islamic vogue posts like this one from the prominent MAGA voice, Charlie Kirk. He wrote 24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9-11.

Now a Muslim socialist is on pace to run New York City. What does all of this mean for the kind of campaign you could see ahead? Well, look, hatred and division don't work. There were ads that fell only slightly short of that ugliness you just read that were paid for and projected by millions of dollars in this last campaign, and Democrats, at least in New York City, kind of shrugged and moved on. That, you know, look, people only resort to those kind of tactics when they're afraid, and people get afraid because they realize that the world is changing right in front of them

and they don't know how to react. that's really what this election has been about, and I think that's what the next cycle is going to look like between now and the next presidential race. Errol Lewis, political anchor for Spectrum News, New York One. Thank you so much for joining us. Always great to talk to you. Glad to be here.

On Capitol Hill today, Senators, Question President Trump's budget director, Russell, vote over the administration's proposed funding cuts to foreign aid and public media. Our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardin, was there and joins us now for an update. Okay, so Lisa, tell us what you learned today and remind us what's happening here, why this all matters. Right, it matters for two reasons. One, this is a first and key test of the Trump and Doge Elon Musk philosophy for cuts. Does Congress actually agree with the specifics here? Second, a lot is on the line here for foreign aid.

billions of dollars that would affect communities overseas, and also two years of funding for public broadcasting. We did learn some things today from Vote. We learned more about exactly what he thinks the administration is doing here. And he said the cuts that they're doing are broad on purpose because they don't trust the NGOs, the sort of nonprofits, that have been administering them. He said they're too liberal, and he says the point is that they need to be cut off.

We don't want to re-up the same spending to the same NGO with a different grant title. That's not success here. And so it will take some time for us to be able to find the types of groups that can dispense these funds in ways that are consistent

with this administration's priorities. And he argues they're also against American priorities. Now, part of this revolves around global health money, which includes PEPFAR and money for HIV prevention. That's very controversial.

Many senators want to keep it. He said there is no life-saving dollars or funding that's being cut here. But senators were skeptical and, in fact, raised examples that they say show he's wrong. Senator Susan Collins, the chair of the committee, said she was skeptical. I know for a fact that both of these products, which are made entirely in America, are being held up. This is, this peanut butter-based supplement, is in a warehouse. Now, vote didn't have a direct answer on that. He said, I think we're funding it.

But Collins and multiple other Republicans also raised concerns for local public broadcasting, in particular radio stations in Native American territory. So what are the expectations at this point? I mean, are these cuts on track to pass? It's hard to say, to be honest, the timing here matters quite a lot. So I want to take people through what's going to happen here. First, the Senate is likely to change this bill, I think, when it gets to the floor. Now, the Senate has to vote on this.

plan is after it votes on the so-called big, beautiful bill, the deadline for the recisions package is July 18th. So these deadlines aren't matching very well. In all, my reporting is that the committee is not going to take a vote. This will probably go directly to the floor after July 7th. There'll be a short window to change it. If it was a secret ballot vote, Jeff, I think this would fail. But it is a test of how people want to show in public their support or not for Donald Trump. It is close, and it's up to each of just a handful of senators. to decide. That July 18th deadline, after that it expires entirely? That's right, correct. Which is unlike the July 4th self-imposed deadline that President Trump set for the big, beautiful

bill. Correct. If it doesn't get through Congress by July 18th, the funding stays. Lisa Desjardin, what don't you know? A lot. Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. A top Justice Department official nominated by President Trump to serve as a federal judge faced tough questions from Senate Democrats in a hearing today. Emil Bovi, who worked previously as a criminal defense attorney for the president, has faced intense scrutiny for some of the DOJ's most aggressive actions in recent months, including the firing of prosecutors and FBI agents who investigated the president and the January 6th insurrection. In his opening statement, Bovi defended himself against recent critical. There is a wildly inaccurate caricature of me in the mainstream media. I am not anybody's henchman. I'm not an enforcer.

I'm a lawyer from a small town who never expected to be in an arena like this. Carrie Johnson covers the Justice Department for NPR and joins me now. Carrie, great to see you. Thanks, you too. So before we get into some of the hearing details, tell us more about Mr. Bowie's qualifications and why he's considered such a controversial pick for this role. Well, he has a long record working in and around courtrooms. He started as a paralegal for the Justice Department back in the day.

He graduated from Georgetown University's law school. He clerked for two different federal judges. And then he went on to serve as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York for many years, leading a unit that prosecuted drug kingpins and accused terrorists before going on to become the defense lawyer for Donald Trump. And since January, he's been basically running the Justice Department's operations day-to-day because the Justice Department has been engaged in a very aggressive campaign to both shrink itself and reorient its priorities, he stood at the center of a lot of controversies already.

So a number of issues came up at this hearing, among them, was he was asked about the decision to dismiss corruption charges against the New York City mayor, Eric Adams. That was as Mr. Adams agreed to cooperate with Mr. Trump's immigration. agenda, Senator Blumenthal asked Mr. Bovi if he'd spoken with Stephen Miller in the White House before making that decision. Here's that exchange. Did you talk to Stephen Miller? I'm not going to describe the participants in conversations. So you won't answer that question? No, I will not, Senator. Why? Because it is not appropriate for me to discuss. It is appropriate for you to tell us whom you consulted before taking action on behalf of the United States of America.

Carrie, the fact that he would not answer that question, why is that important here? It's significant because the allegation is that the Justice Department may have entered into a deal with Mayor Eric Adams, that Adams would help Trump with immigration priorities in exchange for dropping the criminal charges, the criminal corruption case against Eric Adams. Now, Bovi denied that was the case, but he refused to answer questions about his conversations with people in the White House, including Stephen Miller, for whom immigration is really the highest priority. And it gives rise to questions about why he refused to answer that question and whether there were potentially improper conversations around that deal.

Remember, many prosecutors quit over the move to drop the case against Eric Adams. And a judge ultimately found that it smacked of a bargain. Mr. Bovie was also appearing the day after this bombshell whistleblower report that accuse him of basically instructing DOJ staff to ignore judges' orders using an expletive, according to the report, if they ruled against President Trump's deportation agenda. Here's Senator Adam Schiff asking about that. Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting? Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind.

To the extent I use the... Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Beauvais, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers, maybe they should consider telling the court, fuck you, it seems to me, that would be something you'd remember unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently. Carrie, we saw a lot of tough questions from Democrats on this. What about from Republicans? Did they express any concerns about that report or anything else? No questions about controversial questions about the Eric Adams case,

about the whistleblower complaint. A couple of Republican members asked questions about Beauvais's judicial philosophy. But many of them actually congratulated him upon being nominated and seemed to suggest, he'd have a relatively smooth path to being confirmed. What is your takeaway from watching the hearing? Does it seem he will have a smooth path to be confirmed? Well, it's possible that new information could come out about some of Bovey's activities inside the Justice Department this year

or maybe even some information about his time in the Southern District of New York previously. But Republicans have the math. They have the votes if they all stick together to confirm him on a simple majority vote. So this is all taking place in a political arena. Right. Take politics out of it for a moment. Among the folks you talk to, are there others in the legal world, for example, who have concerns about Bowie's nomination? Yes. What's interesting about this is that some figures inside the conservative legal movement are worried about Bovi. They think that he potentially could be more loyal to President Trump personally than to the facts and the law, and that questions about his temperament as a prosecutor could carry over into his job as a judge if he's confirmed.

just have a lot of power, and they want to be sure that Bovey would exercise that power judiciously. So given what we've seen from Mr. Bovey's past, knowing what we do about his relationship with President Trump, what would having someone like Mr. Bovey in this role as a federal judge, a lifetime appointment we should underscore here, what would it mean for President Trump? Sure, so Bovey is 44 years old. Potentially, he could sit on the bench for 20 years or more. President Trump has cast Bovey as an ideal nominee for the president. bench and he could basically represent a pivot from federalist society, kind of conservative

establishment type judicial picks to ones with more personal ties to President Trump moving forward. And we're going to have to wait and see how Trump approaches the additional judicial nominations he gets for the rest of his term. NPR's Carrie Johnson. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks. The 2024 presidential elections saw dramatic shifts to the right in counties across the country. Shortly after the election, we brought you a story from the southern border of Texas, a heavily Hispanic area that flipped from blue to red for the first time in generations. Judy Woodruff returned to the area for a closer look at what's behind that shift

and what it means for divisions in the community. It's part of her series, America at a crossroads. Lou's Ramos was never much into politics. For most of her life, the 28-year-old didn't vote. But last year, she saw her community struggling. Just affording basic necessities was a big thing, you know, milk, eggs, you know, tortillas. Like, that's already a problem, you know, not just for me, but for everybody here. Over the summer, her young donut shop was on the brink of closing.

So with the presidential election around the corner, Ramos tried what she called a Hail Mary, selling donuts decorated with Trump and Harris icing. So the Kamala donuts, I only saw one Kamala donut. You only saw one? Yes, I only saw one. How many Trump donuts? Trump donuts, I probably refilled that day, like anywhere from three to five times. Around the same time, Ramos said she did more research about the two candidates.

She felt Trump would do more to help small businesses like hers. and cast the first ballot of her life for him. Trump went on to win all four counties in the Rio Grande Valley. A region Democrats had swept in almost every presidential election since at least the 1920s. Historically, the Rio Grande Valley has been known for its tight-knit working-class communities. But some residents say the recent political shifts here

have brought to light deep divisions. For Ramos, supporting Trump and selling donuts with his name brought backlash. Hostel comments on her shop social media, even death threats. One customer bought a donut and smashed it in front of the store. She ultimately had to get police surveillance. This election was probably the most intense one we've had in so many years that a lot of people, like, divided, like, like, I know people that don't even to talk to their best friends.

Like, I know a lot of my clients. They don't like to talk about politics stuff with their family because it turns into a fight. And President Trump's second term actions so far have done little to ease divisions here. He did make up promises, and they felt like he kept a lot of his promises. And that's why we voted for him.

You want to give the tech scut to the super rich on the back of the poor. Forapachino? Alexis Ouskanga's family is part of the Valley's political. the valley's political shift. He grew up in a household that voted for Democrats. Then, as he got older, he says he came to a realization. Every single seat, local seat, is held by a Democrat. Why are we having so many problems where people like myself, young people, wanted to leave the valley. So I faulted the Democrats for the lack of progress in the RGV.

Oskanga started supporting Republicans, and last year his parents joined him in voting for Trump. But his advocacy came at a personal cost. I was very politically silent on campus until 2023 when I started running for student government. And once that happened, people saw that I was a Republican. They started spreading all over campus that I am some danger. I don't openly run and say that I'm like pro-Trump everywhere I go. I let people know who I am first before they find out that I am a Republican. I think both sides have failed.

Including your own party. Absolutely, yeah. Richard Cortez is a Democrat and the top elected official in the Valley's biggest county, Eidalgo. He thinks his party lost here for a variety of reasons, the economy, a perception that they had lost touch on social issues, and the view that President Biden, fail to address the border.

You have the power to provide leadership. He should be screaming and yelling at Congress to say, hey, we're dealing with all of these immigrants coming here. We lost control because we had so many people coming here seeking asylum. Cortez agrees that politics have led to painful division in the Rio Grande Valley. He sees it even in his own family. In the past, we had both parties disagree with us, some things we're working together to solve, to solve American problems.

Now the debate is not, hey, we have these problems, how do we solve the problem? Is, well, wait a minute, are you with him or with us? In the city of Mercedes along the eastern edge of Edelago County, Skyler Howell and his dad, Jacob, are keenly aware of the split. The Howell family has been in Mercedes for over a century. Multiple generations have entered local politics. And for the most part, they've been Democrat. But last November, Jacob voted for Donald Trump,

while Skyler stayed with the Democrats and went for Harris. We've never really had a president that's been as vocal or been as non-careful with his rhetoric as President Trump. And I think you have the president of the United States that's kind of encouraging a certain behavior, kind of, you know, by nature. He was a businessman. He was on TV. He treats politics, you know, kind of like energy. That's where I would disagree, and I say, well, I don't think we ever had a president that's really been transparent and speaks his mind, truly.

Is he a little bit outspoken? Yes, but I feel like that's him just be speaking his mind, him being truthful and not playing, I would say, these political games. Another thing they differ on in this town, less than 10 miles from the southern border, is immigration. For me, what it's really become is how we are treating these immigrants and if we're affording them to do process that they are guaranteed. But it should have never gotten to that issue. It became an issue because of the open borders. A lot of times they're just people trying to flee the country for a better life. And so I think it's really important that us as a country, we view them as people that are seeking help. That's something that we do agree on.

There's issues where we need to help these people. Now, how they were processed, I feel like, again, closed borders, there shouldn't even been an issue. These people were almost invited over. You're saying too much as being done for them. Well, I felt that there's only so much, I mean, I'm all for the humanitarian, but we also need to take care of Americans as well, and Americans first. There's families that are struggling here in America, here in the Real Grandview Valley as well. The Howells do agree about the bitterness of the divide here and that it'll take time to resolve. You won't even see politics on anyone's social media anymore because they're too afraid of either the backlash or they're too afraid of the argument that's going to happen because of it.

We're not heading in the right direction. I think anyone can't see that. It's just delighted not only this nation but even the valley in general. I mean, you literally see hate and I don't see this. getting any any closer to unification. I really don't. I think right now there's just so much people that are still upset. But no matter what happens in the community

or nationwide, the Howells say their relationship will stay the same. Me and my dad, we never let politics ever get in between us. And so we're trying to see the other person's point of view. We're trying to take something from the discussion, right, rather than just try to debate each other. He's my son and I love him. We've had discussions and debates and there's some differences, but I think we could always agree to disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think that makes things healthy. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Judy Woodruff in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. named poets of our time is celebrated for exploring the natural world, the human condition, and connections between cultures. A second-generation Chinese-American based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Z's work invites readers to deepen their sense of place and reflect on the world around them. Our senior arts correspondent, Jeffrey Brown, talked to him there about his life and work for our arts and culture series, Canvas. When a black butterfly flits past. When you glimpse the outlines of apples,

trees. The poetry of Arthur Zee contains wonders and losses. When Bering Allute, Juma, Tuscarora, join the list of vanished languages. It's there in his latest collection, Into the Hush, in a poem titled Anvil. The natural world and our place in it, human dramas, history. When the time of your life is a time of earthquakes, when a woman hit by a car while crossing the street, recovers then slides into pain when a Matsutaki emerges out of the rubble of Hiroshima. I'm trying to like lay one world on top of another, on top of another. I'm hoping to make a reader see that or experience that that in that when, in that moment of time, so many different things can happen. For the young Zee, poetry happened in an unexpected way. The child of Chinese

immigrants, he was expected to go into science or medicine. And he did make a start at MIT. But then... It was a breakthrough in revelation for me to be sitting as a freshman at MIT in a calculus lecture, getting suddenly bored with it and turning to the back of my notebook and starting to write. I could feel a thrill of language that I think was latent there. So it just kind of erupted. You know, I don't think I've ever heard that sitting in a... a calculus lab at MIT is where poetry started for you. A year later, you know, I'm starting my sophomore year at MIT telling my parents, guess what, I'm going to leave MIT, transfer to UC Berkeley and pursue poetry.

How'd that go over? You can imagine. It was like, we can't believe you're doing this. Now 74 and living in Santa Fe, New Mexico with his wife, fellow poet Carol Moldau. Zee is one of the nation's most honored poets, author of 12 volumes of poetry as well as books of translation and essays, winner of the National Book Award and other major prizes. He first studied the Chinese language in order to read and then translate ancient Chinese poetry. Translation was his way into his own writing.

One of the amazing things about ancient Chinese poetry is how present tense they are, But you can read a poem by a poet such as Tao Yunming who died in 427 Common Era. He's got this great image of truth and he says, I wish to tell you but lose the words. He can't put it into language, he can't convey it. That sense of immediacy to me was astonishing as a young poet that someone who lived at that time period you can read the poetry and it could be happening today. Later, Zee would use that line in his poem in the form of a letter to the ancient Chinese poet. Another important influence, the Native American culture he encountered in New Mexico.

In his years of teaching at the Institute of American Indian Arts, where he worked with a number of young Native poets who've gone on to prominent careers. And a whole generation of Native students really have come through the Institute. Something you're quite proud of, I guess. I am. Zee writes often of the natural world. around him, Santa Fe's high desert landscape, his daily hikes through the hills.

This is how you get your water. Yes, and then it runs downhill. It's all gravity-fed. The Asakia, or community irrigation canal, that provides water to him and his neighbors and becomes subject of a poem. He plays over and over with the sounds, meanings, and order of each word in line.

He showed us a poem that resulted from some 88 drafts. And he gathers fragments and images images wherever he goes. I start to accumulate images that maybe don't necessarily appear to have anything to do with each other, and then that becomes really exciting. It's like the poem is emerging and taking me somewhere. I'm discovering something new.

Are others? In a time of divided attention spans and politics, does poetry still have something to offer? Zee says being at the margins might be the perfect place for an art form. My argument is that a culture is always growing from the margins, that the real creativity is where people are willing to take risks and make new things, whether it's with language in poems or in paintings or music. All of these endeavors connect in the human endeavor of trying to find, I'm quoting Wallace Stevens, what will suffice? what will sort of give us an existence that's meaningful and worthy. When under summer stars you have built a cabin in the wilderness. Here's how Arthur Z's poem Anvil ends.

When in our bodies we ride the waves of our earth. Here is the anvil on which to hammer your days. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Jeffrey Brown in Santa Fe, New Mexico. And join us here tomorrow evening when we'll speak with Cassina Carolina in her first interview since being freed from Russia. We'll hear about her experience after she was in prison for donating $51 to Ukraine. And that is The News Hour. For tonight, I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire News Hour team, thank you for joining us.