PBS News Hour - Full Show - June 30, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: July 1, 2026

Tuesday on the News Hour, the Supreme Court rules against President Trump's order ending birthright citizenship, delivering a blow to his immigration agenda. Other major rulings uphold bans on transgender athletes in women's sports and strike down long-standing campaign finance restrictions. Plus, the death toll continues to rise in Venezuela as rescue efforts fade and the crisis grows. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Navaz. On the news hour tonight, the Supreme Court rules against President Trump's order ending birthright citizenship, delivering a blow to the administration's immigration agenda. Other major court rulings uphold bans on transgender athletes and women's sports and strike down longstanding campaign finance restrictions. It's now created an almost irregulated system where we'll be lucky if in the next five years we'll still have campaign contribution limits to candidates. and campaign disclosure rules. And the death toll continues to rise in Venezuela as rescue efforts fade and the humanitarian crisis grows. Welcome to the News Hour. The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its term today issuing major rulings and cases centered

on some of the nation's biggest political fights. The most high profile is a landmark ruling striking down President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. That's the guarantee of citizenship. to virtually everyone born in the United States. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, quote, citizenship, then and now was the right to have rights to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every freeborn person in this land.

We keep that promise today. The justices also issued two other major rulings today, including upholding state laws that ban transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports. And the court's conservative majority transformed campaign finance laws, lifting limits on how much political parties can spend on advertising and other expenses in coordination with the candidates. We're going to break down each of these decisions. And to start, we're joined once again by NewsHour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUS blog co-founder Amy Howe. Amy, it's great to see you. Hello again.

So the court's conservative majority has handed President Trump a number of victories this term. But today it ruled against one of his chief goals, ending the promise of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. What was Chief Justice John Roberts' reasoning? This was really a history lesson. He sort of walked us through, starting with early English history. He said, you know, in Great Britain, if you were born in Britain, then you were a British subject. He said, the colonists brought that rule over with them to the United States, and everyone accepted it as the rule until the notorious 1857, by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case in which the court ruled that a formerly enslaved person who was brought to this country was not a U.S. citizen.

And so he said, we enacted the 14th Amendment in 1868, both to ensure that formerly enslaved people were U.S. citizens, but also to enshrine the broader birthright citizenship rule. And then in 1898, in a case called Wong Kim Arc, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the idea that everyone who's born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. We were talking earlier about how this case actually started, and it was focused on a different legal question. The administration won that earlier fight. How did we go from that victory to the ruling against the Trump administration today? Yeah, so just about this time last year, we were here talking about a case involving challenges by the Trump administration to what's known as universal injunctions or nationwide injunctions, whether a single district judge could issue an order that bars the court. the government from enforcing a policy or a law anywhere in the country. And so here we had federal judges all over the country who were ruling that the Trump administration's

order, striking down birthright citizenship, was unconstitutional and barring the government from enforcing it. So the government came to the Supreme Court last year, asked them to rule that federal judges don't have that power. The Supreme Court agreed with them, but these cases then went forward in this case as class actions as groups of parents of would be children who would be affected by the birthright citizenship order or the children themselves. And so a federal judge in New Hampshire certified a class or temporarily and ruled for the children against the Trump administration. And then the Trump

administration appealed the birthright citizenship order to the Supreme Court. We're going to discuss the implications of this transgender athletes case deeper in a moment. but Justice Kavanaugh wrote that in the majority opinion, he said that states and schools, quote, may maintain women's and girls sports for biological females. So what did we learn from this decision and how could it affect students across the country? Yeah, so right now, roughly half the states have laws similar to the ones in West Virginia and Idaho that the Supreme Court upheld today. They rejected challenges under both federal law and under the Constitution.

But as Justice Kavanaugh said that the Supreme Court did not weigh, and on whether or not other states could have laws or have policies that allowed transgender women and girls to compete on women and girls sports teams. Now, some of the lawyers who were involved in some of the cases have said that they will bring litigation, challenging some of those policies. There is already some litigation in the lower courts challenging the policies of allowing transgender athletes to play, so we could see this issue back up at the same. Supreme Court soon. And on campaign finance, the court struck down the post-watergate limits on how much individuals can give to political parties and how much those parties can spend on their

candidates. So that means that parties can now both coordinate with candidates and raise unlimited funds. What was the reasoning behind that ruling? So the Supreme Court has said that when you're talking about campaign finance restrictions, really the only rationale for restrictions is to prevent corruption. And what the Supreme Court said in this case is that there are other tools in place, these base contribution limits, what's known as earmarking rules, and then disclosure obligations that go far enough to prevent corruption. And so we don't need to have this, what Justice Kavanaugh, in his majority opinion, referred to as really sort of severe restriction on speech that these coordinated party limits impose. Amy Howe, thanks so much. And we're going to hear

from you more and admit, so don't go anywhere. Okay, thank you. For more on the court's birthright citizenship ruling, we're joined now by Amanda Frost. She's a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and the author of You Are Not American, Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers. Her second book on birthright citizenship

is due out in September. Amanda Frost, welcome back to the NewsHour. Thanks for being with us. Thank you for having me. So the argument we heard by President Trump against birthright citizenship has been that the 14th Amendment was intended to be very limited, just applying to the children of enslaved people. What did the justices say today about that argument? So the majority rejected that argument. They said the language, which is universal and application,

doesn't limit itself to the enslaved or formerly enslaved, would apply to everyone. They noted that during the debates over that language, it explicitly came up, whether the was supposed to cover the children of Chinese immigrants. And Chinese immigrants at the time were a very disfavored and unpopular group. And the answer was yes, it was intended to cover the children of Chinese immigrants. So the reading of the citizenship clause is just applying to the formerly enslaved is wrong. Of course it applied to them. And that was a major impetus for the decision, but it was not limited to them.

We saw President Trump react to the ruling by posting this online in part. He wrote that it's too bad for our country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation. He went on to say no long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary. He's basically saying he can effectively end birthright citizenship through Congress. Can he? No, that's just wrong. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land on the first day of law school. You learn, if you didn't know it already, that legislation that violates the Constitution is invalid. So this executive order is invalid because it violates the U.S. Constitution said five justices, and any legislation Congress passed would similarly be invalid.

I want to put to you another thing we heard during this debate, which was that opponents of birthright citizenship talk about the incentives it provides to illegal immigrants, and we also heard a lot about birth tourism. How prevalent is that? Yeah, so a couple points about that. One is even anti-immigration groups estimate birth tourism to be fairly low, a small percentage of the overall births. But I understand that it offends certain groups or maybe a lot of people. And the answer is to target that. And in fact, there's laws on the books that allow customs and border protection officials to stop people from coming to the United States on short-term visas who are visibly pregnant and look like they're coming to give birth.

And the question is, you know, should we enforce that rather than end birthright citizenship for hundreds of thousands of children born to people who are in the United States for years? And there's a targeted enforcement mechanism that we could use to prevent birth tourism if that's the problem. We don't need to end birthright citizenship for everybody. As we reported, the decision was six to three. The majority was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Given everything you know about birthright citizenship, did it surprise you that three justices would have overturned this 150-year precedent? I was a little surprised, in part based on the oral argument where we heard more skeptical questions from Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch. It was clear Justice

Salito was very skeptical of birthright citizenship from the oral argument. But I think that the key point here is that, you know, by a vote of six to three, these justices said no. This signature executive order by President Trump, when he felt so strongly about that he tended the oral argument, is invalid either under the Constitution or Kavanaugh said, Justice Kavanaugh said, under federal law. Either way, President Trump cannot decide who is and who is not a citizen unilaterally. You've written so extensively on this topic and on its history. So after this decision, do you believe that the constitutional debate over birthright citizenship

has been effectively settled? I think it's been settled for the time being. I will say that we continue to have this debate as a nation over who belongs. And I think there's a reason for the 200 pages that the court wrote, and that's because they're debating who is an American and what the meaning of American is. And that's a debate I think we'll continue to have as a country. But I'm glad to say that for the time being, hundreds of thousands of newborn children in the United States will be secure in their citizenship. And all Americans giving birth going forward won't have to prove their status

to the federal government's satisfaction, which is what would have happened had this executive order gone into effect. That is Amanda Frost, Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law joining us tonight. Amanda, thank you so much for your time. Good to speak with you. Thank you. We want to dig deeper now on another major case the court decided today, upholding state bans on transgender athletes competing in girls and women's sports. For more, we're joined by Katie Barnes, who covers sports and gender as a senior writer for ESPN. They're also the author of Fair Play, Trans athletes, and the Fight for Fairness. Thanks for being with us. Thanks for having me. So help us understand how wide of an impact this ruling will have. Who exactly will it affect?

So I think the important thing is to say that it's not a nationwide ruling. The scope of the ruling is limited to the 27th states who have this legislation in place. Specifically, the cases in Idaho and West Virginia, the court held that those laws are allowed to stand. And so that applies that the other 25 states of similar legislation will also be able to keep their laws on the books. But it does not. go a step further by saying that not only did these laws not violate Title IX, but by having transgender inclusive policy that is a violation of Title IX. So for the remaining states that don't have such laws on the books, their legal outcomes, they're able to decide that for themselves and keep the perspective that they have had in place. And what does this ruling mean for the plaintiffs personally? A 15-year-old in West Virginia, the other is a former Boise State University student in Idaho.

So for the 15-year-old in West Virginia, you know, her career is effectively over in girl sports. If she wants to, she is able to compete in the men's category and the boys category, but she has said that she does not want to do that. So in terms of being able to move forward and finish out her high school athletic career in girls sports, this ruling effectively, you know, ends that possibility for her. In terms of the other plaintiff in Idaho, she actually had petitioned the court to remove herself from the case by saying she did not want to pursue any additional athletic opportunities at Boise State University and just wanted to finish out her academic career there and get her degree and move on with her life. And it's worth speaking to the fact that that particular plaintiff, I really spoke to the breadth of what types of sports are governed.

these laws. She originally filed her challenge on the basis of wanting to try out for the women's cross-country team at Boise State, did not make that team, and then continued her challenge on the basis of wanting to play club sports at Boise State. So it's not just competitive interscholastic athletics that are affected by this legislation. It's also club sports as well of intramural sports at the collegiate as well as the school sports levels. The states and advocacy groups that defended these bans, how are they interpreting today's ruling by the court? You know, I think for those who are in favor of this legislation, they are quite happy. You know, it's been a lot of celebratory messages.

I've heard from Barbara Ehart who wrote HB 500 out of Idaho, and she called it a significant victory. And so for folks who want to see transgender girls not able to play girls' sports, They are feeling very good about this ruling today. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who once coached girls basketball, he underlined the importance of the athlete's dedication. He tried to, it appears, to speak to the humanity of all involved. He wrote, no student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender deserves to be ostracized or vilified. What does fairness in competition look like now, both for the, the transgender athletes who want an opportunity to compete, and for the girls and women who

believe it's unfair to compete against athletes who are biologically male. Based on your reporting, is there a framework or an approach that can meaningfully account for both concerns? Interesting question, because prior to HB 500 passed to Idaho in 2020. And we should explain HB 500, this was the first law that was passed, and it banned transgender girls from competing in women's sports at the school and collegiate level. Yeah, that's right. And before that law, there was a really robust policy mechanism that was exploring those questions

and also allowed for the answer to be different at various levels of competition and through various age groups. And so there were high school associations with different policies from the Olympics, et cetera, et cetera. And even within national governing bodies, you saw different policies for different age groups and seriousness of competition. And with the passage of HB 500, that really reframed the context for where these battles would be fought

and started to really reshape the policy and legislative landscape around transgender athlete eligibility, a lot of that conversation has fallen away. And so to answer that question, it's very challenging because I think that, there are those who see any inclusion or allowance of a transgender girl or woman to compete in the girls and women's category as a functional failure of policy. And there are those who would like to see transgender girls, women be eligible under some circumstances. And those two perspectives are very, very hard to reconcile. And I think some folks would like science to answer this question for us. And it's very complicated. It's a small sample size when it comes to transgender athletes.

And the science is still new in terms of the effects of hormone treatments and at what age group, et cetera, and how that can impact or not athletic advantage in sports. And at what level we should care about having more restrictive or more inclusive policy. Katie Barnes, senior writer for ESPN and the author of Fair Play, Trans athletes and the Fight for Fairness. Katie, thanks again for your time this evening. Really appreciate it. For more on the court's six to three decision to lift limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with its candidates were joined by Rick Hassan. He's professor of law and political science at UCLA. Rick, welcome back to the News Hour. Thanks for joining us.

It's good to be with you. So Republicans were arguing the limits on these coordinated party expenditures amounted to limits on free speech. What's your reaction to the Supreme Court ruling of lifting those links? and along ideological lines. Well, this is more of the same. We've had the Supreme Court since the 2010 Citizens United case rule that campaign finance law after campaign finance law is unconstitutional.

Now, some of their earlier rulings, like the ones in Citizens United, helped to create super PACs, which empowered outside groups. But the limits on political parties, the Supreme Court, in its deregulatory phase, hadn't really tackled. And so what happened today is the court is giving court is giving political parties a leg up. So now they'll be able to compete for larger dollars

with those super PACs and can work more directly with candidates. And the majority says this is going to be good for democracy because strong political parties are good for democracy. I want to ask you more about the impact, too. But in terms of who it may benefit, I want to remind folks, this case is born of the then Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance's campaign who sued back in 2022 to challenge the limits. Republicans backed the case. We know the Trump administration when it came to supported it. Does this ruling end up benefiting Republicans more than Democrats? In the short term, the ruling probably benefits Republicans more than Democrats, simply because the Republican Party, the party apparatus like the National Republican Senatorial Committee,

which was one of the plaintiffs in this case, they've had an easier time raising money this election cycle than their Democratic counterparts. So they've got a head start, even if people start giving more to the Democratic Party. In the longer term, I think we're going to see more parity between the parties. So by the time we get to 2028, some of that super PAC money, certainly not all of it, but some of that super PAC money that was going to outside group supporting candidates will now flow through parties, and that will give candidates more control over the message and the communications that come from their campaigns. So in the more short term or medium term even, as you look to the lead up to the midterm elections, in a practical way, when and how is this going to show up?

Where will people see that? You know, the first people to see it are the for-profit television stations, because now the political parties are going to be able to get what's called the lowest unit rate. They're going to be able to get the cheapest advertising that candidates are entitled to. So we're probably going to see more campaign advertising. It's going to show up, you know, probably more Republican advertising because of that advantage I just talked about in the short term. But eventually, I don't think it's going to look all that different because already we have such a, deregulated system, thanks to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, there's so much money flowing into our politics today that it's hard to imagine that there's going to be even more

money. It's just going to get shifted from some outside groups to some political parties. It's worth reminding folks, it wasn't always that way, right? It was after Watergate that a number of campaign finance regulations went into place specifically to lessen the influence of money into politics. And then you've seen that erosion, as you mentioned, with the 2010 Citizens United decision over time. what is fundamentally changed about our campaigns and about our elections as a result of the erosion of those regulations? Well, I think what you're seeing now is a movement towards a plutocracy. In 2016, there were no individuals or couples who contributed at least $100,000, $100 million to political groups.

In 2024, there were nine such donors. So that's just nine donors alone were putting in $900 million into the last election. The Supreme Court, 50 years ago in Buckley v. Vallejo, said that independent spending can't corrupt. And you could only limit contributions to prevent corruption, which the court in more recent years has defined to be much more narrow like quid pro quo bribery. The court moved ideologically to the right, and it's now created an almost deregulated system where we'll be lucky if in the next. five years, we'll still have campaign contribution limits to candidates and campaign disclosure rules. Well, say more on that because there are still limits on individual contributions.

Do you see, based on what this court has shown, that those could potentially be challenged and go away as well? Well, so one thing I was looking for in the case was whether the court was going to signal that they were going to make it even harder for contribution limits generally to be upheld, and the court didn't do that today. So right now, the limit that you could give $3,500 directly to a federal candidate for office, that looks pretty safe. But the next thing I think that's going to be attacked are rules that were put in place in the McCain-Feingold Law in 2002, which banned so-called

soft money to political parties. Once that opens up, you're going to see political parties be able to draw in much, much more money. They're going to be able to spend that money, and I think we're going to be back to the system, I think, in some ways, worse than the pre-Watergate system, where the amount of money that's going to be put in to try to influence people's votes and influence what elected officials do once they're in office is going to continue to hit records. That is Rick Hassan, Professor of Law and Political Science at UCLA, joining us tonight. Rick, thank you so much. Thank you.

And for more now on how the White House has responded to today's rulings. And the relationship between the president and the nation's highest court, we are joined again by Amy Howe. And our White House correspondent, Liz Landers. So, Liz, as you all know, President Trump was personally invested in this birthright citizenship case. he even attended the oral arguments, which is rare for sitting presidents. I don't think it's, well, it might have happened before, but not in modern history. How is he responding to today's ruling? He's responding with disappointment.

The only thing we've heard from him so far is this truth social post that he posted this morning. And I know you all read that earlier, but in it he talks about the future and what he may be able to do going forward and a pathway he thinks to still overturning birthright citizenship. He wrote out that Congress should start today to work on ending this. And he posted earlier in the morning, actually right before this decision came out from the Supreme Court, a post from a website called Just the News, and the headline says, quote, Trump's efforts to reverse birthright citizenship may succeed with or without the Supreme Court. And this story suggests that Congress could change the law with legislation called the Birthright Citizenship Act. This was introduced by two allies of the president, Senator Lyndon.

Lindsey Graham and another House Republican on the day that he was inaugurated in January of 2025. And this piece of legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. I think we are probably going to see the president push members on this, but it is unclear how that would fare, given today's very definitive decision from the Supreme Court. There are other allies of the president's on Capitol Hill, like Senator Mike Lee, who is acknowledging that this sort of change would require an actual constitutional. amendment. And more broadly, though, Jeff, I think that this is an interesting moment when we're

seeing the president increasingly react and lash out at the Supreme Court. Back in February, I was in the briefing room when the tariffs decision came down and the president had a press conference, and he was very angry and upset with the Supreme Court justices in particular. Some of the justices that he had appointed to the court that ruled against him in that decision. There were more justices today who he had appointed to the court. who also ruled against him in the citizenship case. On this matter of birthright citizenship, how has the president's argument, how has it evolved over the years? And what does it mean now for his immigration agenda?

Honestly, the president has been saying the same thing about this since he announced his presidency, his presidential bid in 2015. I was looking back at some of his comments from that time. And he said that he did not think that changing the policy of birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, which is what he is saying today. which is, I think, questionable, and argued that Congress could do the same thing. And he has also had some of the same campaign aides now become top White House advisors and aides on this issue, like Stephen Miller, who is a very powerful top immigration advisor to the president. Miller wrote today on truth on X on that platform that this is one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court.

We know that Miller and the president were crafting a lot of this kind of immigration policy while the president was out of office for four years and they were teed up and ready to go with some of these policies on day one. President Trump signed this executive order on birthright citizenship on his first day back in office in his second term. And looking forward, we're also hearing from other members of the administration today who are talking about what they are going to do. The borders are Tom Homan came out and talked to White House reporters a few moments ago, and he said that the immigration agencies and DHS are going to triple and quadruple down on investigations into birth tourism. He framed this as a national security issue. And then right after he spoke, we saw a Department of Justice memo that was issued today directing Department of Justice prosecutors to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of these so-called birth tourism. schemes, Jeff. Amy, do you see a through line or a pattern to the cases that the court has

ruled in terms of victories or defeats for the Trump administration? The president, these are certainly the tariffs decision, the birthright citizenship case, were really some of his top priorities, as Liz said. These were also cases in which he was really swinging for the fences, so to speak. In the tariffs decision, the Supreme Court, the majority made a point of saying this was a power that no president since this law enacted had ever invoked in birthright citizenship. This was going against what everyone had understood the law to be since the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868.

And so, you know, to the extent that there's a through line, Lisa Cook, no one had ever tried to fire a member of the Fed's board of governors before. To the extent that there's a through line, I would say that this Supreme Court is willing to give this president quite a bit of power. They do have their limits when he really starts to do. test the boundaries, you know, as he did in the tariffs case, in the birthright citizenship case, and the Lisa Cook case, they may push back. It's the end of a term. We sometimes hear about retirements. There's been a lot of focus on the conservatives on the court because the Republicans

have the Senate majority. Any indication that there might be retirements upon us? There's been a lot of speculation recently, in particular, about Justice Samuel Lillito. But as you say, this is often the time when we hear about retirements, the idea being that the Senate could hold hearings over the summer and have a successor confirmed in time for the first Monday in October when the court starts to hear arguments again. We haven't heard anything yet. There's still a window certainly in which Justice Alito or Justice Clarence Thomas, who's the other really senior justice on the court, could announce their retirement, but nothing so far. Liz Landers, Amy Howe. Thanks so much for your analysis and your guidance over these

the last few days as you've walked us through these days now of major court rulings. We deeply appreciate it. Of course. Thank you. Hopes faded further today that more people will be found alive in Venezuela, six days after earthquakes slam the country. The government's official death toll is 1900, though that is believed to be a vast undercount. By one estimate, 50,000 people remain missing, and 60,000 buildings may have collapsed

across the northern coast. Stephanie Syre reports. Rescuers are still listening for signs of life. But six days in, the silence is deafening. Yet today, this Jordanian team heard something. Eyes fixed on the monitor, they snaked a camera through the layers of collapsed concrete. They spot him, a tiny arm, a toddler, motionless beneath the rubble. Amitiated and weak.

but alive. Wrapped in a blanket, the team rushes him to awaiting ambulance. These rescues are becoming rarer as time passes. Thousands of Venezuelans still have loved ones trapped beneath collapsed structures. The frustrations of these residents evident as they try to block a rescue truck from leaving the disaster zone. Demanding crews keep searching. They will not move. I have nothing to lose. I have nothing to lose. I have nothing to lose. They can kill me if they want. They're angry by what they see as a government that is failing them. They don't help us and they won't let us in. They don't give us any equipment, and we have families trapped there. Yulees Salcero waits outside a hospital in Caracas.

Just days ago, she was preparing to welcome her 21-year-old son home after he was deported from the United States. at 11 a.m. Then they went through all the migratory process. He called me at 5 p.m. and told me, I love you so much, Mom. See you tomorrow at home. Like any mother, I prepare to welcome for him with his blue, yellow, and red balloons. Anderson Salcedo spent his first night back in Venezuela at this hotel in La Guaira, shown in a satellite image. Hours later, the earthquake struck. This is what's left of the complex. He survived, but remains in intensive care. He was among some 140 deportees, including children. This video showed their arrival back in Venezuela

hours before the earthquake struck. Most are still missing. I want justice. I want justice because it's not fair that my son is lying in that bed, with respiratory support, with his legs amputated at the age of 21. I'm asking for justice because this government can do to us Venezuelans whatever they want. At the port of Liguayra, hundreds of coffins now lined the docks. The port has become a temporary morgue after local hospitals ran out of space. Across Caracas, families have pitched tents on sidewalks and city streets. After days of aftershocks, they're too afraid to go back.

Where are we going to sleep if it's shaking all the time? It's like we're dancing. And if we stay in our homes because we want to be. at home, then we're going to suffer just like the victims are suffering, and we don't want that. But the state, the country, is in shambles. The common denominator is great suffering and great distress. Stephanie Hoxstetter of the World Food Program spoke to the news hour from Liguira and described some of the suffering she's witnessed.

That struck me the most was a father walking along the sidewalks of destroyed buildings in Katia Lamar holding his two-year-old. his four-year-old and his five-year-old asking for help to return to Caracas because he had lost his building. He had no water. He had no food. His wife had been taken to Caracas to be hospitalized because she had her leg had been amputed and he didn't know where to take her his children. The WFP is giving weary quake survivors a single stop for their basic needs. to the people and not have them have to go to one place for a doctor or a medical emergency, another place to find a bathroom. Another place, you know, they need showers, they need to wash their hands, they need water

to drink. So the intention of putting everything together is that, to make this suffering a little lighter. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Sye. In the day's other headlines, a record-breaking heat wave is intensified. across much of the central and eastern U.S., pushing temperatures to what officials are calling dangerous levels. More than 200 million Americans were under alerts today for extreme heat. Temperatures felt well above 100 degrees across much of the Midwest,

and soon that same sweltering heat will peak in places like New York. Temperatures will climb into the high 90s and triple digits. With humidity, it will feel even hotter. With a heat index that could peak around a hundred 112 degrees. If the forecast holds, this could be the hottest 4th of July since 2010. As we look ahead to that July 4th weekend, forecasters say that starting tomorrow, it's going to get worse before it gets better for large portions of the Midwest, including Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit. The heat dome, as it's known, shifts east by the end of the week,

threatening record temperatures across New York, much of the Mid-Atlantic, and even New England. As the Supreme Court wraps up a consequential term today, it's set to take up a major gun rights case in the fall. The justices will hear arguments on whether bans on AR-15s and other assault weapons in Connecticut and the Chicago area violate the Second Amendment. Similar laws are in place in about a dozen states, including New York and California. A national assault weapons ban expired in 2004. This conservative-leaning High Court has significantly expanded Second Amendment rights in, including a ruling just last week that struck down a gun restriction in Hawaii. The Food and Drug Administration announced today that Zinn nicotine pouches can be marketed as less harmful than cigarettes.

The company can now sell 20 versions of its products with a claim that reads, quote, using Zin instead of cigarettes puts you at a lower risk of mouth cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. It's a win for Philip Morris International, the parent company of Zinn's Swedish manufacturer. But the FDA does not say Zin is safe, and critics fear the new designation could lure new users, especially young people. Turning now to Iran, U.S. diplomats touchdown in Qatar today for another round of indirect talks with Iranian officials. U.S. officials say Steve Wickoff and Jared Kushner will meet with Qatari and Pakistani mediators this week, as will delegates from Iran in separate talks. This latest diplomatic effort comes days after a new round of strikes

and with tensions remaining high over the Strait of Hormoz. Today, Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson said mediators will discuss the interim deal struck earlier this month, but there will be no face-to-face talks. What will likely take place in Doha tomorrow is a discussion regarding the implementation of provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding Therefore, I emphasize once again, we have not planned any meeting at any level with the American side for the coming days. The Memorandum of Understanding includes a 60-day window for the two sides to negotiate a permanent truce, as well as other issues like Iran's nuclear program. Russia says it shot down more than 400 Ukrainian drones nationwide in a wave of overnight attacks.

That includes near Moscow, where the region's governor says a six-month-old was killed and at least. least three people injured. Separately, Ukraine's president, Vladimir Zelensky, posted video today, saying a strike hit one of Russia's largest satellite centers. In the meantime, Ukrainian officials say at least 17 people were injured when Russian strikes hit civilian and infrastructure facilities in the Zaporizia and Sumi regions. Russia's military released video today, claiming it struck military targets. Also, today... The best way to avoid war is to prepare for for it. The best way to defend is to deter, to have the strength to make your adversaries, think again before they act, and that is what we are delivering.

Britain's outgoing Prime Minister, Kier Starmour, announced a roughly $20 billion hike to the UK defense budget to counter threats like Russia. The increased spending is meant to focus on drone technology and other elements of modern warfare. President Trump reported more than $1 billion in income from, from his family's crypto ventures last year. That's according to an annual financial disclosure released today. That includes more than 500 million from World Liberty Financial, which he and his sons co-founded,

and more than 600 million from Trump meme coins. The meantime on Wall Street today, stocks ended higher, thanks in part to a rebound in AI stocks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added around 130 points. The NASDAQ jumped nearly 400 points or about 1.5%. The S&P 500 also closed. in positive territory, though it was down for the month of June. And in World Cup news today, Norway advanced to the round of 16 for the first time ever,

beating Ivory Coast two goals to one. A late goal by Erling Holland sealed that victory, and after the match, the team joined fans in their now famous Viking Row. They will play Brazil on Sunday for a spot in the quarterfinals. Meanwhile, Paraguay fans celebrated last night's win over Germany with the country's president declaring today a national holiday. It was one of two upsets decided in penalty shootouts with Morocco sending the Netherlands home earlier than many expected. NBA superstar LeBron James says he won't be heading back to the Los Angeles Lakers next year and will instead play his 24th season elsewhere. Team president, Jeannie Bus, called James one of the greatest athletes in history, adding, quote, we will always be thankful

for his eight years with the Lakers. The 41-year-old can officially start talking with other teams as of this evening when his free agency period starts. But the NBA's all-time leading score won't be able to sign with a new team until July 6th. And tennis great, Serena Williams, played her first singles match in nearly four years today, thrilling the crowd at Wimbledon,

but coming up short on the court. The 44-year-old lost in three sets to a player less than half her age. Australia's Maya joint. who's just 20. At times, Williams showed the flashes of greatness that helped her win seven singles titles at Wimbledon. But Joint came up big when it counted for her first major win at the tournament. Williams still has a doubles match later this week with her sister, Venus. She left the court today with a wave and a smile. Still to come on the news hour, New Jersey

Representative Tom Kane returns to Congress after a mysterious months-long absence. And Barstool sports founder Dave Portnoy explains his tense relationship with the media. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of PBS News. Well, after months of speculation, the mystery surrounding a New Jersey congressman's absence is finally over. This morning, Republican Tom Cain Jr. addressed the House, saying he owed his constituents, his colleagues, and the American people an explanation. I was given the diagnosis of depression. Now, when people hear the word depression, many people think simply means feeling sad.

But depression is so much more than that. It is physical. It is emotional. And until you experience it yourself, it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be. That says other drama unfolded in the house as well. the chamber ground to a complete halt over an internal Republican divide. Are Lisa Desjardin is here to explain she was in the chamber today, including for the congressman's speech.

So what more did Congressman Kane have to say, Lisa? It was a short speech, but he also addressed this question of why he waited so long to talk about this. He said that at first when he went to a doctor, he was surprised that the doctor recommended that he be hospitalized. Then after he was hospitalized, he thought he would only be there for work. weeks. Obviously, it lasted much longer. Now, Kane has been gone or was gone for almost four months, though, Jeff. So in contrast, in terms of handling this, Senator John Federman of Pennsylvania

also was hospitalized for depression back in 2023. He publicly disclosed that the next day after he was hospitalized. So there are so questions about why exactly he waited so long to explain this. Are Kyle Medora caught up with the congressman today to ask about his pledge of transparency? Has this experience changed how you think about access to health care, mental health services more generally? Oops, sorry. When you committed to full transparency, was the extent of that always going to be one floor speech? Are you going to open up at some point, take questions?

Now, Kane rarely talks with reporters, and as you see there, he did not answer any questions, so it's not really clear if he is going to say more about this. And how is this being received on the hill? Right. It's amazing. I talk to Democrats and Republicans about this more than a dozen. And overall, they have sympathy for him. They're glad he's back. They're glad that he says that he's recovering. But there is this idea that perhaps members are not paying enough attention to their own personal health and to each other. There is some consternation over how long he was gone and the lack of explanation. As for his own personal political future, he insists he is fully committed to running for re-election.

But his district, Jeff, is one that Democrats are targeting. They would like to flip it. I don't think they will target his diagnosis, but his lack of explanation could be a target. Meantime, as we said, the House ground to a halt today over President Trump's Save America Act, his desired elections bill. So what happened and what does it all mean? All right, let's unpack this and try and do it without hurting our brains, because many members of Congress actually themselves don't quite understand what's happening there. As I just left the Capitol, members of Congress are flying out back home, ending their work week in Washington on a Tuesday. All of this, as you said, is about the Save America Act more or less and about hardliner

Republicans who want to take a stand in the House to try and force the Senate to push it. This bill isn't going anywhere in the Senate. As you said, it's about election and ID requirements. However, these hardliners today were trying to be aggressive with Speaker Mike Johnson. Let me talk a little bit about that more aggressive action and what he did to appease them. House leaders proposed attaching the Save America. Act to a must-pass defense bill known as the NDAA. But these 14 hardline Republicans just a few hours ago broke ranks rejected this idea. This was a way for them to get a vote on the SAVE Act.

They said it's not good enough. And thanks to the close margins, those 14 Republicans were able to shut down the floor effectively blocking almost all legislation. Now, it's an interesting tactic I've never seen used before where one chamber is shutting itself down in order to pressure the other chamber. Senators, I don't think, are feeling that pressure. I talked to Chip Roy, who's one of the hardliners, and he gave one of the most clear explanations for what he thinks is happening. You only have certain leverage points, and this town works on leverage points. Nothing else. I mean, it's going to be very clear. If you don't use the leverage points, they're going to roll over you. But for many other Republicans, this is actually too much. This is a tantrum, they think, and it's

inexplicable, even a nightmare. ourselves and making us look bad for because we're not happy with the Senate. And it doesn't make sense. It's low IQ thinking. Now for Democrats, this feeds their message that Republicans add to chaos. But for some, Brandon Boyle, who I spoke, who said, this isn't just a sideshow. This actually does matter. Obviously, it's a mess.

It's personally very frustrating as someone who wants to get something done. And it leaves us at a standstill to the point in which we, literally can't call up legislation on anything else until this gets resolved. House will not be back in session again until July 13th. So these members are taking a two-week break, although I know members of Congress always push back on that because they say they're working in district. Yeah. Yeah, there's so much for them to do here.

There's so much work for them left here in D.C. Right, that's right. Funding of government, the defense bill, all of the issues this country's facing, right now they're going home. Lisa Desjardin. Thanks as always. You're welcome. Dave Portnoy, the outspoken, unapologetic, polarizing founder of the media company Barstool Sports has written a book.

It's a memoir called Cancel Me If You Can, and it tells the story of how he grew Barstool from a free gambling newsletter to a multimedia Goliath today. I spoke with Portnoy for the latest episode of our podcast, Settle in. We talked about politics, culture, and the controversies he and Barstool have faced over the years. Here's a clip from that conversation. You seem to be someone who's sort of highly skeptical of institutional media. Is that fair to say? 100%. I couldn't say that loudly enough.

Which kind of begs the question, and I've been curious about this the whole conversation, because you don't have to talk to us. Like I said, I consume some of your media. I see how incredibly powerful and influential a voice you are. Obviously, I have questions I want to put to you. I was looking forward to this conversation. But why did you want to talk to us? So this is obviously promoting the book, which I have to do.

I. Are you forced into this? No, no. I know. Listen, anybody, and this has been my kind of MO, and I'm sure like your producers or whoever told you, anybody who lets me record as well. So what is said can't be twisted, which I learned early in interviews where I was seeing clips of mine.

It's like, wait a minute, you cut off the. second part of what I said to make me look like the devil. So anybody who's willing to sit down with me and says, hey, you can keep a record of it. I'm happy to sit down with. And a lot of you're recording on your end this whole conversation too, right? Because you don't trust anyone who you don't know. And we don't know each other, I should say. You're meeting for the first time. I don't trust anybody who agrees to that. So like some of my more checkered past, if you want to say, the things that be like, well, Dave did this, the Business Insider article, New York Times. I've begged to sit down with these people, like begged and be like you can record.

You're writing things that I know are false and I have definitive proof that they're false and you won't meet with me. You won't sit down with me. If you're willing to sit down with me and let me, as long as I know things are going to be twisted, I'm happy to talk to anybody. I actually, and maybe this on Eve, I don't think it is at this point. I think I'm a good person. I don't have anything to hide.

So if somebody's not coming in with agenda against me, I'm happy to sit down. And a lot of times I think maybe they'll walk away, be like, he's not who we thought he was. He's a lot more complicated or maybe interesting or whatever. So I never have a problem with sitting down. You know, for everything you've built from literally the ground up to this incredibly powerful company, this potent voice that you have, honestly, I have to say what surprises me most about the conversation is how you still very much seem to see yourself as like an underdog, like someone who people are coming for all the time who has to scrap to stay alive. Is that, is that a fair representation? I don't see it.

Like, even as we talk, my heart does start beating a little bit quicker, but it's not on the underdog because we've made it. Like, as we're talking here, your heart's beating faster? Because it brings up some of the stuff that drives me insane, like the business insider and things that have been said. Like, and it's never going to happen. But I have a passion. I don't know revenge like I know things have been done to me that's like so wrong and dirty with the mainstream media that I get like upset even talking about still it drives me nuts so it's not the underdog because I know we're not like and in fact even we'll maybe see with this book like I used to be able to drive people to go drink this go do this when we're more on the up now it's harder

because we've made it and people see my lifestyle and how it's like we don't necessarily need to support Dave. So it's not the underdog, but I don't like being done wrong. And it still upsets me some of the things that I feel I've been really wronged over the course of my career. And Dave, you have millions and millions of people watching your stuff every day now. Aren't you part of the mainstream media now? It's a great question. Yeah, but we're still like, if you say Barstool says something versus CNN and NPR, New York Times, well, Washington Post, that doesn't like hit. We're different.

I mean, we did start. I certainly do the politics, but the main barstool stuff is still generally 98% of the time meant to make you laugh. Like it is sort of a comedy brand. I've gotten bigger. Politics, I've said stay out of it. I get so wrapped up in it that sometimes I don't follow my own vice. And we're big enough.

I was going to say you don't stay out of it. And we've become big enough where it's like, okay, what's what's the worst can happen. But yeah, I definitely don't follow my own advice with it. But like when you say mainstream media, seeing a quote from Barstool still does not carry for most people the same weight I don't think as like established blue blood type news organizations, nor should it really. And you can watch that full episode of Settle In on our YouTube page or wherever you get your podcasts. And that's the News Hour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Omna Navaz. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team. Thank you for joining us.