PBS News Hour - Full Show - June 27, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

Friday on the News Hour, the Supreme Court severely limits federal judges’ ability to block presidential policies nationwide in a massive legal win for Trump. Congressional Republicans wonder if Trump’s “big bill” can pass as it gets slimmer. Plus, we hear from Venezuelan immigrants in Chicago who are now living in fear after their temporary protected status was revoked. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Omna Navaz on the news hour tonight. I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling. It's a giant. A massive legal win for President Trump. The U.S. Supreme Court severely limits federal judge's ability to block presidential policies nationwide, including an effort to end birthright citizenship. Congressional Republicans wonder if the big bill can pass. as it gets slimmer with provisions on school vouchers and guns struck from the legislation.

And we speak with Venezuelan immigrants in Chicago who are now living in fear after their temporary legal status is revoked. In my country, there is no legal process. And now living through this situation, it feels the same as what happened in Venezuela. Welcome to the News Hour. The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major decision today, one that will limit federal judges' power to block the president's agenda nationwide. The decision which resulted from a case related to an executive order on birthright citizenship rules that individual judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions to block any policies coming from the White House. The court ruled six to three along partisan lines.

In her opinion, Justice Amy Coney-Barritt wrote, no one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law, but the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation. In fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so. The justices did not rule on the merits of the Trump administration's restrictions on birthright citizenship, but the president welcomed the ruling during a press briefing today. Thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship,

ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people. The Justice has also ruled on four other cases today, one upholding a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, another upholding a Texas law requiring age verification for pornography sites, one related to internet and phone service to rural and low-income communities, and a case involving LGBTQ-themed books in schools. For more, we're joined now by our Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUS blog co-founder Amy Howe,

and Amanda Frost, Professor of Immigration and Citizenship Law at the University of Virginia. Thank you both for being here. Thank you. So, Amy, the Supreme Court siding with the Trump administration on nationwide injunctions. Walk us through what that means in practice. Yeah, so it's a huge win for the Trump administration on the issue of these nationwide injunctions. The idea that you can't go to one federal court, and often the plaintiffs, and this was something that was a thorn in the side for both the Trump administration,

the Biden administration before that and then the Trump administration before that, you could go to one particular district court and find a federal judge that you thought might be a friendly one and block a policy or a law throughout the entire country. And so the Supreme Court today said that federal judges don't have that kind of power. As for the issue of birthright citizenship, which was the context in which this case came to the court, the Supreme Court didn't address whether or not the president's executive or, which he signed shortly after he was inaugurated, ending birthright citizenship was itself constitutional.

And that battle is going to go on. And Amanda, on the matter of these injunctions, some might assume that class action lawsuits would solve the issue here, but that risks overwhelming the lower courts with potentially thousands of identical lawsuits that, to Amy's point, could result in a patchwork of resolutions.

And this is also coming at a time when the Trump administration has cracked down on law firms that take on issues, it sees as opposing the Trump agenda. So there might not be a coordinated legal challenge. Yeah, so there's a couple of issues, a couple of consequences of this decision. One is, of course, that for individuals to get relief,

they now all have to sue as individuals to the degree that they have the resources and the wherewithal to get lawyers and do that. And that, of course, will add to the already overburdened lower federal court's dockets. Another solution would be potentially class actions. And of course, we're not just talking about the birthright citizenship executive order,

or talking about the fact that the court ended universal injunctions across the board. In all of the cases under this administration, which has had a record number of universal injunctions, stopping its policies from going into effect, and any future precedent. So class actions are a potential mechanism by which groups of individuals can band together

and get one judge to issue universal relief, but not every case is eligible for classified relief. And the Supreme Court knows that well, because it issued the decisions have cut back and restricted class actions. And Amy, as we said, this ruling fell along ideological lines. And in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution.

It continues, rather than stand firm, the court gives way. A number of lower federal courts, six, I believe, said that President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship was not constitutional. So lower courts ruled on the merits. Why didn't the Supreme Court do the same? It didn't do the same because the Trump administration didn't ask the justices to block the orders in their entirety. And Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, said that the reason that the federal government didn't come to the Supreme Court asking the justices to block the order in their entirety is because if to do that, it would have to show that the president's executive order, she said, was likely constitutional. And as she said, six judges, six courts had found that the order was unconstitutional.

And she said, so this was gamesmanship, was what Justice Sotomayor said, by the federal government coming on this narrow ground just on the issue of universal injunctions. And she sort of chastised the majority for playing along with it. And she said essentially that the Supreme Court shouldn't endorse this idea that somewhat along the lines of what Amanda just said, when you have these policies that she believes are plainly unlawful, you shouldn't have to wait until the issue sort of winds its way all the way through the courts before you can get relief from it. Amanda, as Amy mentioned, this ruling comes after years of frustration from both presidents

with these nationwide injunctions. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the propriety of nationwide injunctions. The court said no, and now five months into the Trump administration, the court weighs in, Does this ruling reflect the interests of the executive more broadly, no matter who was president? Or is this another case of this conservative-leaning court, again empowering the executive authority of Donald Trump? Yeah. So this ruling applies, of course, to Donald Trump's presidency and any future president. And it empowers the executive branch.

And so every president, whether it was Obama, Biden, or Trump, didn't like these universal injunctions because they stymied executive branch policies. So this decision by the Supreme Court expands the power of the executive. I will say, though, that I think it is particularly interesting. They issued this ruling during Trump's presidency, not during Biden or Obama's when these issues came up to. And also, it has to be said, President Trump has issued more executive orders, engaged in more unilateral rewriting of law than his predecessors. So he would benefit from the absence of universal injunctions more than them. Well, our team spoke to a number of immigration advocacy groups, including the plaintiffs in this case, a group called and they really hammered the decision today. Take a listen.

Well, I would say because there's a, we have allowed a significant part of our society to normalize hate, to normalize an outright strategy to dehumanize our immigrant community as evidenced by today's ruling, to normalize the stripping of constitutional rights. These are scary times, but we are not powerless. So there is this unresolved question here, Amanda. I mean, could we end up in a situation where a child is recognized? as a citizen in New Jersey, let's say, but not in Alabama.

Yes. I mean, this creates a potential for patchwork citizenship. And, of course, Americans, all of us inhabiting the United States, are free to move from one state to the other. There's no borders. There's no passports.

And now you're a citizen if you're born in one state or not the other, potentially. It would inspire potentially pregnant women to leave one state, to give birth in another. I think this would be very chaotic. I'll note that at oral argument,

Justice Kavanaugh asked solicitor General Sauer, How would this be implemented? What is the plan? And Solicitor General Sauer said, we'll have to figure that out. They have 30 days to do so. And Amy, the justices, as you well know, they also ruled on four other cases today, including a major case out of suburban Maryland involving storybooks that feature LGBTQ characters. The court ruled in favor of a group of parents who argued those books violated their religious beliefs. And their team spoke with Rosalind Hansen. She's a Maryland parent who opposed the books, and she's also with the group Moms for Liberty. As a parent, first and foremost, I am a Catholic, and so our beliefs are fundamental and rooted in our Bible and our Catholic upbringing. And so I want to make sure that when I'm sending my son to school, that our religious liberty is protected.

So what impact does this ruling in particular have on schools across the nation? Justice Sonia Sotomayor predicted that this was going to lead to chaos in the sense that you could have parents pulling their children out of instruction based on their religious beliefs. Obviously, there's a variety of religious beliefs, and then parents may want to pull their children out of instruction for other reasons. Her other criticism of the majority's opinion was that really sort of has the potential to undermine what she called the core premise of public education more broadly. the idea that children who go to public schools all receive sort of the same education, the same sort of societal values, and that if everyone who goes to public school is not, in fact, receiving the same education, it will undermine that public education experience. The other side, there are states who already do these opt-outs that the Montgomery County parents in this case were seeking,

and that was, in fact, one of the reasons that the majority in this case pointed to when it, It was valuating whether or not this opt-out policy or the failure to allow the parents to opt their children out of instruction was likely constitutional. Amy Hal, Amanda Frost, thank you both for being here. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. long conflict. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington

today. The Trump administration mediated the deal. The African nation's top diplomats put pen to paper at the State Department alongside Secretary Marco Rubio. Experts doubt it will end the fighting right away, but Rubio hailed it as an important first step toward peace. For all the things that make life worth living, those things become impossible when there's war and when there's conflict. So we're grateful to have played the role we've played. We acknowledge and recognize there's still more work to be done. Today's agreement follows decades of conflict that has its roots in Rwanda's 1994 genocide. It's been driven by fighting between two ethnic groups, among other factors.

Analysts say millions have lost their lives. The deal also comes as the U.S. competes with China for influence in Africa and access to minerals that are critical for much of the world's technology. In Pakistan, a surprise flood swept away dozens of tourists as they picnicked along a river, killing at least eight people. It happened in Pakistan's northwest Swat Valley. The annual monsoon season begins in July, but much of the country has been hit with heavy rain all week. Local residents looked on at the still-swollen river as nearly a hundred rescuers searched for the missing. At least 58 people have been rescued so far.

Eyewitnesses say the deluge came out of nowhere. The flow was so fast that a regular person could not dare enter the river. Then the water flow got so strong that it got difficult for even rescue personnel to enter it. Officials say at least 18 people have now died in rain-related incidents across Pakistan in just the past day. Back in this country, Minnesota's former House Speaker Melissa Hortman lay in state today at the Capitol Rotunda in St. Paul. She is the first woman ever to be afforded the honor in Minnesota. Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot and killed in their home earlier this month in what authorities called a politically motivated attack. Their golden retriever, Gilbert, was also shot and had to be euthanized.

Governor Tim Walts and his wife were among the hundreds of mourners who paid their respects. Meanwhile, their accused killer appeared briefly at a federal court just a mile away, though proceedings have been delayed until next week. California Governor Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News for alleged defamation over its coverage of a phone call he had with President Trump earlier this month. He's seeking $787 million in damages. That's the same amount Fox paid Dominion voting systems to settle its defamation lawsuit. Newsom also wants an on-air apology from Jesse Waters, saying that the Fox anchor accused him of lying about the call on his show.

Newsom and Trump did speak around the time of the recent protests in Los Angeles, though they disagree over the timeline. Fox News dismissed the lawsuit as a, quote, publicity stunt. The U.S. military is officially stripping the name of gay rights activist Harvey Milk from a Navy ship. We are taking the politics out of ship naming. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the move on social media earlier today. It's part of a broader Trump administration push against diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts or DEI. Harvey Milk served in the Navy before entering politics, where he became one of the nation's first openly gay elected officials. He was assassinated in 1978.

Hegsetth says the ship will be renamed for Oscar V. Peterson. a Navy chief who posthumously received the Medal of Honor for Valor during World War II. Don Wall Street today, stocks closed at record highs. That's despite President Trump saying he is canceling trade talks with Canada over its plans to tax technology firms starting on Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added more than 400 points, or exactly 1%, the NASDAQ gained around 100 points on the day. The S&P 500 topped its previous records set back in February.

Still to come, on the NewsHour, the president of the University of Virginia resigns under pressure from the Justice Department. The increase in state laws banning pride flags on government buildings. And David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the week's political headlines. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubinstein studio at WETA in Washington, and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. Well, it's looking like a make-or-break weekend for the president's big budget bill and his hope of passing it by July 4th. Republican senators have not yet posted text of their proposal, but PBS News Hour has learned they hope to start voting tomorrow.

Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin was again back on the hill today and joins us now. Good to see you, Lisa. Hello. So bring us up to speed. Where to things stand with this bill? that the president calls the big, beautiful bill. Still big, I would say right now more uncertain than anything else. My sources are telling me that Republicans and the Senate hope to post their text tonight. It sure would be nice to see ahead of the vote, which they are hoping to have tomorrow.

But hope is the right word here, because across the Capitol in both chambers, this bill has hit a number of snags. I want to look through just some of them. These are the major ones. First, a few with Medicaid. There you can see there are issues with the timeline. Some senators want to delay the Medicaid. cuts. There's issues also with rural hospitals. And increasingly, we're hearing from House members, they are concerned that undocumented immigrants can still get coverage through

states. The parliamentarian ruled that out, but they want it, they want to make sure that provision comes back. There's a state and local tax deduction. There's green energy tax cuts. But wait, there's still more snags that they have to deal with here. And you see the federal land sales and also artificial intelligence regulation. All of this in play, trying to get these through the parliamentarian and through both chambers. really means that the Senate leader and House Speaker have their work cut out for them, but they're trying to move forward as soon as tomorrow. And we know the President Trump is pushing hard for this.

He wants it done by July 4th. He's made a lot of big statements about the bill in the past couple of days. I know you've read through the latest version that's out there. You've gone through the numbers. What do we know about what he said? Well, let's start with what he said about the biggest benefit that's in this bill. It's a great bill. It's a massive tax cut.

If it's not approved, your taxes will. go up by 68 percent. Think of that. 68, a record, the highest in the history. This needs some context. He is right. Myself and producer Doug Adams, check this out, that this would be the largest tax increase in history, but only by dollar figures, not by percent of GDP. That other number, 68 percent tax increase? That's not right, Alma. I think Republicans would say that's a conflation. The actual number is that 64 percent of Americans could see a tax increase. Okay. And you also, I know, have been talking about the changes to Medicaid. The president has been talking about that as well. What has he said?

What do we know to be true? That's right. I want to look at a specific way that President Trump put this today. We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it. And your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same. Okay, specifically, let's go back over what he just said there. Here's a checklist so we can go through it. He said there are 100, 1.7 trillion in cuts. You won't feel any of it. and Medicaid is the same as it is now. Let's start by you and I talking about that first one. Are there $1.7 trillion in spending cuts in this bill? By one estimate, the Penn Wharton estimate?

Yes, there is. So when you look at that and try and talk about if it's accurate or not, you can check that off the list that indeed, that one, that first one, the 1.7 trillion, that's accurate. Let's look at the next one. You won't feel the cuts. Omna, this bill contains cuts across many sectors,

not just Medicaid, but also student loans, for example, things that hit a wide run. in American life. Well, some Americans may not feel it. By congressional budget estimates, millions of Americans will. So when you look at that checklist again, that is something we have to put an X on. That's not accurate. Finally, let's end with that last one, that Medicaid will be the same. This one is also a bit simple. I think even Republicans would say, no, that's not right. They want to change Medicaid. And when you look at the idea here, is it being cut or not, Republicans will say, well, we're cutting the rate of growth, not necessarily cutting,

there will be more spending on it. But that cut in the rate of growth is significant. It would be a cut in spending. Lisa Desjardin with some important clarifications tonight. Thank you, as always. Welcome. The president of the University of Virginia is resigning following a pressure case. campaign by the Trump administration, marking what appears to be the first time the White House has successfully forced out a university leader. James Ryan announced his departure today amid a Justice Department investigation into UVA's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. In a statement, Ryan said he could not fight for his job in good conscience since that would knowingly and willingly

risk federal funding, student aid, and jobs for the university. For a closer look at the impact, and President Trump's broader battle with higher education, were joined by Peter McDonough, vice president of the American Council on Education. The group represents nearly 1,600 colleges and universities. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. It appears James Ryan resigned earlier than planned

amid this pressure from the Trump administration and a DOJ investigation into UVA's DEI policy. So what does this say to you about the Trump administration's influence over university governance? Well, first and foremost, I think we all can agree that universities should be receptive to thoughtful criticism and they should be accountable when they fall short. But Congress has mandated certain types of processes. We tend to call them due process that we're supposed to be imagining everybody follows. But in terms of control over a university by the executive branch of the federal government and using the purse strings that, Congress is essentially holding in terms of federal funding, there are specific rules or specific

requirements or specific types of due process that is supposed to be respected and utilized when there is a question about whether a college or a university public or private has complied with federal law. There's nothing in our federal system of government that enables the executive branch to micromanage all aspects of a university. certainly nothing that enables it to force out a leader of a college or university, public or private. Does Mr. Ryan's resignation? Does this represent a tipping point in higher ed autonomy? Well, I hope it doesn't, but we should all be concerned that it may. I wouldn't have seen this coming, but frankly, I should have, and maybe more of us should have. Back in 2020,

the vice president appearing at a national conservatism conference said, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country. He said it in a speech titled, the universities are the enemy. That should worry us all. That should worry us on all ends of the political spectrum. It should worry us whether we are in state houses or state legislatures, whether we are on the boards of public universities, or whether we are on the boards or in leadership positions. private colleges and universities because we don't have a federal system of higher education. We have a mosaic that's made up of publics and private, small and large, religious base than not. And I think we can all agree that over the decades, this mosaic of higher education has really truly been the envy of the world. It's why people come here to go to college.

And it's produced the economic vitality that we've experienced here. It's enabled us to to have a level of national security and health benefits. It allowed us to address some of the largest problems in medicine with a power that, frankly, starts in most instances in the research labs on our college campuses. And all of this is at risk. There are those who argue that James Ryan's resignation was necessary because UVA didn't fully comply with efforts to dismiss.

its DEI programs. Our team spoke with Ilya Shapiro with the Manhattan Institute, and he makes that point. The school pledged to dismantle its DEI structures and programs, and there's some doubt about whether they did that. So the Justice Department was investigating and wanted to make sure that people weren't being treated differently based on race and ethnic background and all these other issues that this school, among others, had been having. So it told them what needed to be done. And one of those things, I think, because President Ryan was deeply involved

in DEI programming, including in his previous job at Harvard, that having new leadership made sense. So do you believe the university was being transparent, or was this more a matter of rebranding rather than real reform on its part? Well, let's start with the realization, which I believe is accurate, that there has been no outcome to any investigation of the University of Virginia at this stage.

The clip that you played sound as if there'd been a verdict without a trial. If they have a branding of DEI or a branding of inclusion or a branding of equity or even a branding of equity that doesn't make them illegal, and it certainly shouldn't make it a mandate that the president of one of the major research universities in this country, one of the major universities in this country, part of that mosaic must step down before there is a conclusion of an investigation. Peter McDonough with the American Council on Education.

Thank you for joining us. Thank you. The Trump administration announced, today that starting on September 2nd, Haitians cannot remain in the U.S. under a special temporary protection status they'd been granted. About half a million Haitians in the U.S. could now face deportation. The U.S. government says Haiti, which has been racked by gang violence, is now safe enough for residents to return home. That's despite State Department warnings that advise Americans not to travel to Haiti. It's part of a broader change by the administration to

revoke legal protections for citizens of several unstable countries, including Venezuela. Many Venezuelan migrants ended up in Chicago, where special correspondent Fred DeSem-Lazero reports about a community on edge. It's part of our series, Race Matters. Here in Chicago, two successful entrepreneurs have carved out a piece of their American dream. They were proud to invite us into their thriving business with two dozen employees, as Immigration raids intensified in Chicago, though, they asked us to hide their identities. We have a community that is very afraid. Anna Hill Garcia runs the Illinois-Venezuelan Alliance, an organization that since 2017

has provided a variety of services to the growing community in this state. We were receiving phone calls that they needed food because we don't want to go out. And then one of the things that really is the saddest part for me is, is This is the last week in the school system. The children have their recitals. You know, the children have their graduation. And parents, they don't want to take the children. They're afraid that they won't return.

Yeah, they are very afraid. Are these people legal? I mean, they actually have a right to be here based on TPS. Yeah, they have the right to be here. 11,000 people that were giving TPS. TPS or temporary protected status for up to 18 months is given to individuals from designated countries beset by armed conflict or natural disasters.

It shields them from deportation and enables them to obtain work permits. There are currently more than a million TPS holders in the U.S. from more than a dozen countries. The Biden administration granted some 230,000 Venezuelan's TPS status in 2021 and expanded protections in 2023 as Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro cracked down on opposition as inflation spiked and as food prices soared. They emptied their jails into our country.

The Trump administration moved quickly to end those protections, the president singling out Venezuelans in particular. They sent their games, probably the worst gang anywhere in the world. As bad as MS-13 may be worse. They came out of the jails of Venezuela. Unfortunately, this is a community that has been criminalized. Anna Hill Garcia says the vast majority of Venezuela newcomers are not criminal. The general thinking that we have is that all those executive orders about immigrants is about us.

It's not about the other immigrant. It's about, you know, more about the Venezuelan. And Chicago, a so-called sanctuary city, has also been drawn into the National Congress around immigration. It's quiet now, but it's to this spot called the landing zone, the tens of thousands of migrants began arriving in Chicago, beginning in 2022, bused here by Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Some two-thirds of the new arrivals were from Venezuela. August 2020, I got a phone call from the mayor's office telling me, are you aware that there are four buses coming from Texas, And three of those are Venezuelans. And I said, no clue. Hill Garcia's group and other Chicago non-profits sprang into action. We have done many different things from clothing drive, furniture drive, TPS clinics, asylum clinics, and we were the primary providers of the interpreters and translators.

And still, we're working with them. Working with TPS holders like Tino, an IT specialist, and Milan, a teacher who fled Venezuela and asked us to hide their identity for fear of deportation. He tells me, sir, you'd better leave, because they're going to take you to jail. This is what a member of the Venezuelan National Guard told Tino when he protested the scarcity of gasoline under the Maduro regime. The person who protests, the one who raises his voice, becomes a target. So he fled, made Chicago his new home, and was granted TPS.

For immigrants, you feel the same as other person in Chicago. Because, you know, the law in Chicago, you are the same, whatever person with paper or not, you are the same, you have the same right, and then you feel safe. There's ice on your block. But as federal immigration raids across the city increased in recent weeks, sparking massive protests, the level of fear has also gone up for this couple who've been together ten years. It is worrying because we left one unstable situation for another.

What is your biggest concern today? My level of concern is enormous, because we came to this country with a purpose. We didn't expect this. We were running away from the impunity of Venezuela, and the purpose was to work to achieve our goals. We support the legal immigrant. Chuck Hernandez is chair of the Chicago Republican Party. There's not really an appetite to support those who come here,

whether it be illegally or under a temporary program that was put in by Biden. He says the Trump administration has a right to enact its immigration policies. He says the arrivals from Venezuela have strict. train Chicago's resources. We're having right now in Chicago a real crunch financially, and then the amounts of Chicago taxpayer money going towards many of these groups, it's money that could be used towards citizens that should not be going towards these people that are here on a temporary type of basis.

How do you respond to people who say T is for temporary? The issue here is know that they're dealing with kinds, they're dealing with huge, human beings. And when a human being is afraid to go back, and that really why the situation is here, that people have been told that Venezuela is getting better. Venezuela is not getting better. Venezuela is getting worse. I sympathize with them, but this was the fault of the Biden administration by giving people false hope that you can come here. For their part, Venezuelans we spoke with said they feel a sense of deja vu. In my country, there is no legal process.

The United States was the first country to guarantee those freedoms. And now living through this situation, it feels the same as what happened in Venezuela, because they are not respecting the due process of the people. In the meantime, many will continue to stay in the shadows afraid of what lurks outside their front door. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Fred de Sam Lazaro. in Chicago. This year marks a decade since same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, but in several

Republican-led states, efforts are underway to ban pride flags from public schools and government buildings, sparking a wave of local resistance. Dima Zane has the story. In Salt Lake City, a historic flag raising. You are welcome here because in Salt Lake City, you belong. The city adopted a new official flag called the Sego Belonging Flag, featuring LGBTQ colors underneath the city's Sago flower. What we're doing today is about the dignity and the worth of every single person in this

community. No matter who they are, no matter who they love. The move coming just hours before a new law took effect in Utah, banning public schools and government buildings in the state from displaying any flags that aren't officially approved. Utah was the first state in the nation to ban pride flags from public buildings, but not the last. Idaho and Montana have adopted similar bans in recent weeks, and at least eight other states with Republican-controlled legislatures are considering the idea. Members who... Orion Rumler covers LGBTQ issues and politics for the 19th news. Republican lawmakers have framed these bans as a necessary way to make state houses

and government buildings and schools, depending on the language of the ban, neutral places. But some cities are pushing back, like in Boise, Idaho, where a pride flag has flown for several years outside City Hall. We have a motion in a second, clerk. Last month, the City Council voted five-to-one designated as an official city flag, which they say will allow them to continue to fly it and not violate the new state law. Removing the flag now, after years of flying it proudly, would not be a neutral act. Boise Mayor Lorne McLean arguing, We know that that's not just a flag.

We know it says who we are. Just two blocks away sits the Idaho State Capitol, where the legislature voted overwhelmingly to pass HBFRA. 96, a bill that bans, quote, governmental entities from displaying any flags other than the U.S. flag, state and local flags, the P.O.W. flag, or those from military branches and native tribes. Schools may also display their own banners. Idaho's Republican Attorney General warns Boise's mayor to take down the flag or face penalties when the state legislature comes back in session. It's going to cost the community and the city money for violating the

law, and she doesn't pay it out of her pocket, it's going to cause the citizens of Boise, and I think that's shameful. In neighboring Montana sits the city of Missoula. Earlier this month, city leaders voted to adopt the pride flag as its only official city flag. Despite a new Montana state law that prohibits flags on state property that, quote, represent a political viewpoint, including but not limited to flags or banners regarding a political party, race, sexual orientation, gender, or political ideology. The Republican governor of Montana, Greg Gianforte, called the move divisive.

Posting that Missoula City Council should be ashamed for imposing a pride flag on schools and dividing their community. This is more than, you know, blue dots rebuking the culture war policies of their Republican-controlled legislatures. Choosing to fly those flags as official city flags sends a message that the city wants to stand apart from the rest of the state as, you know, a beacon of inclusivity. A challenge that for now hangs in the air. And now we are joined by Salt Lake City Mayor Aaron Mendenhall.

Thank you so much for joining us. I want to jump in first and ask your reaction when you heard about Utah's legislation bill banning all non-official flags at schools and governmental buildings. Well, it didn't make a lot of sense as an urgent topic for our legislature to address

and yet they chose to do so. And we worked really hard to figure out how we could both abide by that law and continue to represent the values of Salt Lake City. You adopted three other flags, amending them as official city flags, allowing you to fly them. Can you dig in a little deeper here and talk about what these flags symbolize to you and to your community? They symbolize the values that have been here in Salt Lake City for generations, diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. They do not exclude. These are are flags of inclusion. We've raised two of them in the month of June with the Juneteenth flag

raising and pride. And we've heard from hundreds, even thousands of community members who've said, I see myself being represented in these flags. I feel seen and valued and wanted and understood. And that's what these flags are about. Utah Governor Spencer Cox didn't sign the bill, but he also did not veto it, which allowed the law to go into effect. He was asked about Salt Lake City's pride flags. And here's what he had to say. I'm sure they feel great that they got around this dumb law and they did it with dumb flags. What do you think should be done? The whole thing's dumb. What do you think should be done? Well, I already said what I thought should be done. We should raise the American flag and let's unify around that. They are dumb flags

and it was a dumb bill. What's your response to the governor? It's fine if he wants to say that about the decision that I made to bring these flags forward for approval with our city council. That's my role as the mayor. I take that responsibility. But I don't think it's the right way to address community members who feel validated, seen, heard, and wanted in their community because they see these flags flying. Have you felt or have you had a sense, a bigger sense of the state seeking more control over your city's ability to function? I think that's a pretty consistent dynamic, especially in a blue dot capital city in a red state with a supermajority Republican legislature. That's not a new experience for us, but it's something that we're constantly navigating.

My administration has a pretty good relationship with state leaders. We talk to each other, even when we disagree. And I think we're going to be able to keep talking through this. I don't think this is the end of what we'll see from the legislature regarding the flag. but neither is at the end of our ability to represent our values and we'll keep finding ways to do so. Could the ban have an economic repercussions for your city or state? And are you worried that your city will suffer from this? You know, Salt Lake City is an inclusive, loving, welcoming, proud city.

We're proud of our diversity. United communities are not afraid of our diversity. We celebrate it. We recognize our differences. and we recognize that those differences make us stronger. I think asking for sameness across the board is probably the biggest threat to our economic potential as a state. And Salt Lake City's willingness to display our values in cloth

through the adoption of these official flags has had waves of response from other cities across the world that have reached out and said, thank you for standing up like this. Do you think other cities around the country should take your at least? on this? And if so, what advice do you have for them? My advice to other cities is to represent your communities and stand by your values. When we're in the minority, sometimes we have to compromise

on our vision to some extent, but we should not compromise on our values. Salt Lake City is proud to have been able to find a way to keep our values at the forefront, literally be able to hang them on a flagpole. That might have to change in the future, but we're up for that. To keep representing your community and your community's values, and I think we'll find our way through this. Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall, thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for having me. At the end of this busy week, capped off with today's Supreme Court decisions, let's turn now to the analysis of Brooks and K-part. That is, New York Times, columnist,

David Brooks and Jonathan K. Part, associate editor for The Washington Post. And we should say that you are both joining us tonight from the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. Your beautiful backgrounds make me wish I was there with you guys. It's great to see you. But let's jump right in to those Supreme Court decisions today. Big wins for the president, one on allowing religious parents to opt their kids out of LGBTQ learning and storybooks in school. The other severely limiting lower court's ability to issue nationwide injunctions. We heard President Trump very happily thank the justices who ruled in his favor earlier today.

Take a listen. I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly as well as Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice is Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas. Great people. Jonathan kick us off here. What's your reaction to those rulings? What do you take away from that? Well, on the injunction ruling, you know, I reached out to a former senior official,

in a Democratic administration just to get their take on it. And the response back was mixed bag. And it's mixed bag because on the one hand, you know, Democratic presidents and Republican presidents never liked it when a lower court judge reached in and, you know, stopped them from doing something with a nationwide injunction. I'm thinking particularly of President Biden

and, say, student loan, student loan debt forgiveness. But when it comes to what the court did in terms of birthright citizenship, The ruling has stayed, the injunction is still in place for 30 days, but after 30 days, we're going to be in a situation where children born in the 28 states that weren't a party to this ruling could be born, not be citizens in those states, the chaos that the Supreme Court has unleashed on the country with this ruling, I just think is unfathitable. when it comes to the LGBT school ruling, you know, for that to come out the day after the 10th anniversary of the Obergefell ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage, made it a constitutional right, is really, you know, it's painful. It's also speaks to the court's willingness to, you know, be a party to erasing a whole community. But then on the other side, flip side, in the same Supreme Court made it possible.

or said that it is okay for the Affordable Care Act to cover treatments such as PrEP and HIV medication. So that is, you know, a good thing for the LGBTQ community. David, what's your take on that, a mixed bag as well? And in particular, this idea that we're moving to like a patchwork of potential citizenship here based on that injunction ruling. What's your view? Yeah, I think the patchwork argument is the best argument that people in favor of the national injunction have, that where the Constitution's interpreted differently in different regions. That doesn't seem to make sense. Nonetheless, I hate to say, I think the court decided rightly on the national injunctions.

I remember back in the Biden administration, there was a judge in Emerald of Texas who decided to ban an abortion pill. And I thought it was just crazy that a single judge can set national policy on a fraud issue that should be settled by democracy. And Democrats were rightly outraged. Now, I am all in favor of judges stopping what the Trump administration is doing, but you've got to be consistent for both parties. And I think if people want to challenge what the Trump administration is doing or any administration, they can file class action lawsuits. But we should not have this shopping where liberals go to a Northern California liberal judge, conservatives go to an Amarillo, Texas judge, and they can set national policy through one person. That just doesn't seem to make sense. I agree with Jonathan on the birthright

citizenship. The case they were dealing with wasn't specifically about the question of birthright citizenship, but the Supreme Court, they can do whatever they want. And And they should have expanded the question and settled the birthright citizenship right away. It's written right there in the 14th Amendment. There should be no objection about this. And they left open the realm of chaos. I do want to ask you both, too, about the big news from Iran this week because the president was asked about that earlier this morning as well. And this is a week in which we saw both President Trump and the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegeseth continue to insist that Iran's entire nuclear program has been completely destroyed, obliterated as a result of the.

those U.F. strikes. That's even as the results of a preliminary intelligence assessment that was leaked, said that some of the highly enriched in radium could have been moved, could still be safe. Experts have told us that as well. Senators got their first intelligence briefing as well. This is what Democrat Senator Chris Murphy had to say after that briefing. I just do not think the president was selling the truth when he said this program was obliterated. They were certainly damaged under the program. But there is the significant, there's still significant remaining capability. David, even Republican Senator Mike Rounds said to us yesterday

that there's no question there's still uranium there. Why the insistence from the president that this was completely destroyed, the program was completely destroyed? It's hyperbolic to say it's completely destroyed. But we have evidence from a report from David Albright's think tank, leading scholar on this, that the enriching capability is basically gone. We have the IAEI, the IAEA, the International Agency, International Atomic Energy, whatever that thing is. Bush could never say those initials either.

And they say it's completely destroyed. And so I think it's severely degraded. And the main feature is Iran has to know that any time Israel and the U.S. want to go back, and if Iran decides they want to reconstitute their nuclear program, the U.S. and Israel can take care of it. And the bigger story here is over the last 10 months, Israel in particular, has degraded Hamas, degraded Hezbollah. They've made the Iranian regime look weak and decrepit. And they've established deterrence. And that 10-month stretch, and I detest Bibi Netanyahu.

But he's did a good job of making the Middle East safer over the last 10 months. It's the IAEA, for those of you following along at home. And Jonathan, what about you? What's your take on this? You know, it's in situations like this when, at least I would hope and expect that a president of the United States would be small C conservative in the way they talk about a mission so consequential and so big. To step out there within hours to say that the program had been obliterated when, you know, we didn't even know what had really happened, I think was irresponsible. And that, you know, the leaked intelligence briefing on the initial assessment is one view. But as we have seen over time, that initial assessment will probably change as time goes on.

And so I just think it would be best for everyone involved to take a wait and see attitude. But we're talking about President Trump. I'm, you know, wishing against all the wishes. He'll never do that. I got to ask you both, too, about Tuesday night's events in New York City, the Democratic mayoral primary contest the entire country was paying attention to when Zoran Mamdani was a little-known state assemblyman went on to beat the former New York governor, Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani is 33 years old. He's a self-described democratic socialist. And his win, we should

point out, has really fueled a hateful response from some on the right. There's a major MAGA voice named Charlie Kirk who posted this. 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. Tennessee congressman Andy Ogles actually called for Mamdani. He was born in Uganda as a naturalized U.S. citizen to be denaturalized and deported. Jonathan, what does Mom Donnie's win tell us about Democrats and their message, if anything? And what does the response tell us about Republicans and theirs? Well, the response, I'll start with the Republican response.

It's shameful, it's hateful, it's disgusting. It also tells me that Republicans are deathly afraid of their prospects, in the 26th midterm elections, especially if they're going after a guy who just simply won the primary in a municipal election. And the other thing folks need to understand, the reputation of New York City is of a liberal bastion. And it's a city where there's a 6-1 Democratic registration

advantage over Republicans. And yet this city that has a reputation of being a liberal bastion elected Rudy Giuliani twice and Mike Bloomberg three times, the first time as a Republican, the next two times as an independent. And so what I take from Mamdani's win, above all else,

is that he went out there and he asked New Yorkers for their votes. He did not do a Rose Garden strategy. He asked people for their votes, and he gave them something to vote for. And that's the thing I think Democrats should emulate. Ask people for their votes. David, what do you make of Mamdani's win

and the response we've seen so far? Yeah, people hate the establishment these days, and the Republicans have found a way to tap into that, and now Mandani has found a way for Democrats. And so if moderate Democrats who don't think the party should go Democratic Socialists want to win, they should be as bold as he was, as much vision, as vibrant as he was, he ran a great campaign. And the problem with the more mainstream Democrats is they're looking old and tepid these days, so be more like Mandani without the socialism. David Brooks and Jonathan K. Part, great to see you both. Thank you so much. Have a great weekend. You too, Amna. You too. Thank you. And be sure to watch Washington Week with The Atlantic tonight on PBS.

Jeffrey Goldberg and his panel will discuss the U.S. attack on Iran and what's left of the country's nuclear capabilities. And on PBS News weekend, we talked with a vaccine expert at the CDC who resigned over concerns about changing vaccination. standards. That's tomorrow on PBS News Weekend. And that is The News Hour. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Omna Nawaz. On behalf of the entire News Hour team, thank you for joining us. Have a great weekend.