PBS News Hour - Full Show - November 10, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: November 11, 2025

Monday on the News Hour, a group of Senate Democrats breaks with party leadership and makes a deal with Republicans to end the government shutdown. During a meeting with President Trump, Syria's leader announces his country is joining an anti-ISIS coalition. Plus, we speak with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary about the agency's decision to lift warnings on hormone replacement therapy for menopause. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, a group of Senate Democrats breaks with party leadership and makes a deal with Republicans to end the longest-ever U.S. government shutdown. From Al-Qaeda to the White House, militant leader turned Syrian president, Amel Dalshada, announces his country is joining an anti-IS coalition during an historic meeting with President Trump. Syria itself, which was under the influence of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, is now coming and wanting to be an ally of Western democracies. And we speak with FDA Commissioner Marty McCarrick about the agency's decision to lift warnings on hormone replacement therapy for menopause. Welcome to the NewsHour. At 41 days and counting, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history is not over yet, but the end could be in sight.

A group of Democrats and one independent crossed the aisle last night to make a deal with Republicans. It still needs final approval, but the government could reopen as soon as this week. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin has more. In the Senate today, a question of time. Majority Leader John Thune pushing for speed. Mr. President, after 41 days, I'm grateful to be able to say that we are close to getting the government reopened. And again, I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle of both parties to make it possible for us to quickly pass this bill. This after a breakthrough last night.

On this vote, the yeas are 60 and the nays are 40. A shutdown deal getting exactly the votes needed to get over a Senate hurdle. Seven Democrats and one independent voted with Republicans to advance the idea. It was our judgment after six weeks, going on seven weeks of this shutdown, that that a path wasn't working. We can open the government and we can still fight to address this looming health care crisis. The deal is multifaceted. It funds most of government through January 30th, but funds some things like Veterans Affairs, the SNAP Food Program, and Congress itself through next four. fall. The deal reverses thousands of mass layoffs ordered in the shutdown and blocks more

until at least February. But it does nothing on expiring health care subsidies, instead promising a Senate vote on the issue next month. And that's why most Democrats, including leader Chuck Schumer, were hard-nosed. I cannot support the Republican bill that's on the floor because it fails to do anything of substance to fix America's health care crisis. We wanted to fix it, Republican said no, and now it's on them. This has been the longest federal shutdown in history. In the past week with air traffic controllers and TSA agents calling out sick, thousands of flights have been canceled with social media capturing one pilot's plea this weekend.

I don't really care what your political persuasion is, but you should really call your senator. More than a million federal workers have been without pay, some turning to food banks. Furloughed NIH researcher Teresa Kim used her time to volunteer. This charity called Comfort Cases helps foster kids. She has wanted the shutdown to end, but as a private citizen, sees this deal, in her word, as a betrayal. I don't view this as a victory when something is promised, even though it was already a law. And then when I hear stories such as we won't have any more furloughs or, sorry, or riffs until the end of January, again, I find that to be such a low bar. All eyes remain on the Capitol as lawmakers work out exactly when this shutdown ends.

Today I followed up with a large number of other federal workers who have been keeping in touch with. They are sharply divided. One of them said to me, frankly, this was the worst way, in her words, for Democrats to cave. But another said this was 100% a smart move by the eight who broke ranks. Still a third said their feelings about this are complicated. Lisa, I know you're talking to your sources up on Capitol. When it comes to the shutdown and the deal to end it, what's the latest? Yeah, the news is happening.

Let's take a look at the Senate floor. This is what we see at the moment senators voting. This is the moment that we've been waiting for in the U.S. Senate. This is a series of eight votes. Senate procedure is complicated, so they're going to compress all of that procedure. They're able to speed this up because all senators agreed. That especially includes Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. He had a decision to make.

Was he going to string this out over a couple of days? He has a problem with a provision about the hemp industry in it, but he's agreed to let this go forward more quickly. So what this means, Omna, is we expect these votes to make it through the Senate, the entire deal through the Senate tonight, then the House must pass it. We don't expect the House back until Wednesday, but if everything stays on track, if members are able to make it back in town by Wednesday night, this shutdown could end Wednesday night, and Thursday we could have government open for the first full days in well over a month. Lisa, what about all the things that were disrupted during the shutdown, like air travel, as you reported. When can those get back to normal? Right. Transportation Secretary Duffy said today that it will take days to possibly a week for air travel to normalize again. Now, as for worker pay, that could be flowing more quickly. But as we saw with the Doge disruptions earlier this year, there could be some technical glitches because we're talking about massive payment systems, not only for federal workers, but for things like Head Start. and snap, all that have been rung up for a month, so all of those things could get started

quickly, but we just don't know where there could be some problems. We're also watching the Democratic Party, of course. There are a lot of questions about Senator Chuck Schumer, his leadership through this, but he will have another chance because there will be a vote on something on health care in December, and it will be the next test for Senate Democrats. All right, Lisa, Desjardin, reporting from Capitol Hill tonight. Lisa, thank you. Welcome. And as Lisa mentioned, the vote to end the shutdown. has divided Senate Democrats.

Tonight we'll get two views. I spoke earlier this afternoon with Virginia Senator Tim Cain. He's among those voting in favor of the deal to end the stalemate. Senator Tim Cain, welcome back to the News Hour. Great to be with you. So why deliver your vote to end the shutdown at the very moment many Democrats believe they're winning the politics of this fight? Even President Trump acknowledged the other day

that Republicans, as he put it, were getting politically killed over this shutdown, Why give up what many Democrats believed to be the moral and strategic advantage and make a deal now? Well, Jeff, politics is one thing, but I represent eight and a half million Virginians, and the vote that I cast was very good for them. When we got into this shutdown, it was because President Trump ordered the Republicans to write a bill without us and then refused to engage. And when presidents don't engage, you get into a shutdown. During October, I was very focused on the Virginia elections, and I was talking. to the negotiators about my particular issue, I wanted protection for federal employees. After we delivered a big win in Virginia last Tuesday night, President Trump had a breakfast

the next morning and realized this shutdown was hurting him, and they were blaming him, and at that point he engaged. I looked at the lay of the land that day, and it was obvious there was no path for it on health care unless we opened the government. The Republicans that's had no discussions on health care unless you open government. And we had tested them 12 or 13 times with my support, and they hadn't backed off on that. And I also knew that SNAP recipients, America's most vulnerable people, 45 million, one and eight Americans were losing benefits with the money in the contingency account scheduled

to run out before Thanksgiving. So no path for it on health care, SNAP recipients suffering, we needed to change the equation. And what we ended up getting is full year funding, robust funding for SNAP recipients, repairing some of the reconciliation bill damage, a path for it on health care. And then what I negotiated into the bill, dramatic protection for 2 million people who are federal employees who are tired of getting kicked around. On the issue of the Obamacare subsidies, the very issue that triggered the shutdown, there isn't much in this deal that delivers tangible relief. Of course, Senate Republicans promising a vote in the future isn't the same as Senate Republicans promising a result.

So how do you explain your support? Would there have been a tangible relief in a week? Would there have been tangible relief in a month? Would there have been tangible relief in two months? There was zero evidence to suggest. This was my assessment. Some assessed it differently. There was zero evidence to suggest that Republicans would even talk about health care.

until the government was open. While there was complete certainty that there was pain every day of a shutdown, people losing paychecks and their credit being impaired, people losing SNAP benefits, air traffic control, in chaos. So what we had, Jeff, look, what we had last Wednesday, I got involved in the negotiations Friday, was no path forward on health care unless we open government

and the absence of an open government punishing America's most vulnerable. That's why I negotiated for, provisions to protect federal workers and then embrace the path of full funding for SNAP and other safety net programs and a path forward to a health care vote, which I think we can win. In supporting this deal, you're breaking ranks with most Senate Democrats to include the Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. Should that be read as a message about your view of his leadership? No, look, I love leaders, but I'm not a good follower. I voted for Chuck to be leader and I want him to be leader and he will be leader. But I don't need a permission

slip from anybody to do what's best for Virginians because Virginians gave me that permission slip when they reelected me for a third term last year. This agreement sets up a new funding deadline, January 30th, if this passes both houses. What's the plan? Is there a plan to ensure that we're not back here again in January? Here's so ensure if you want if you want guarantees, The United States Congress ain't the place, but here is the plan. The good news is we've gotten three of the full-year appropriations bills done and included in this bill. So that means about a third of the work is already done. And in the remaining bills, much of those bills are already done too.

So the appropriators go back to the table to find the deals on that remaining work. Meanwhile, in December, we will have a high-stakes debate on this health care tax credit. issue. And Jeff, the debate will take place without the background noise of the shutdown, snap benefits going away, people losing checks, air traffic disasters. The background noise of shutdown won't drown out the very important battle about people's health care. We'll put a good proposal on the table that will protect people's health care and make it affordable and be appealing to the Republicans who are hearing the same thing from their constituents I'm hearing for mine. Then we'll have a debate and vote.

There's not a guaranteed outcome, but I'll tell you this, if the Republicans don't fix this problem of their own creation, the midterm election next November will be a lot worse even than the November 25 elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Democratic Senator Tim Cain of Virginia. Thanks again for joining us this evening. You bet. On the other side of the debate, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is one of the Democrats who voted against the deal. I spoke to him earlier today. Senator Murphy, welcome back to the News Hour. joining us. Thanks for having me. So as you just heard there, Senator Kane laid out his reasons for supporting the deal. He says it ends the pain that Americans are feeling. It gets a path to a health care vote. And he says previously there was no evidence Republicans would even talk

about a health care vote without the government back open. Is he wrong? Well, Tim and I just have a disagreement about this. I think we actually lose leverage in our fight for Americans now that we have capitulated Donald Trump without any real protections for people's health care or or our democracy in the short-term funding bill. The fact of the matter is these premium increases were just being noticed to Americans. The pressure was going to mount on Donald Trump and Republicans over the next few days and weeks

to do something about this oncoming catastrophe. Premium's going up by 75%, 100%, 200% on many Americans. I think the problem here is that the old rules don't apply. President Trump is likely to be emboldened by winning the action. acquiescence of eight Democrats. His illegality is likely to grow. We were split on this vote last night, as we will be again later today or later this week when we vote, but we're going to have to find a way to come together because we're going to have even tougher, more important fights

ahead of us on health care, on the president's unconstitutionality, on his illegal warmaking overseas, and I'm sure Senator Kane and I will be back on the same page fairly soon. The deal does extend SNAP funding, WIC funding, it prohibits the mass firings of federal workers over the next few months. Is it fair to say the Democrats did get some of what you wanted in this? Well, I mean, SNAP funding just starts when the government reopens, so that's not a special provision in this budget. I mean, listen, what did we say when this fight began? We said that we were only going to vote for a budget that stopped these health care premium increases from going into effect. Eight Democrats decided to change their position, and now these premium increases are likely going to go into effect.

I'm rooting for my eight colleagues. They believe that Republicans are going to now come to the table and engage in a good faith negotiation to try to prevent these premium increases from going into effect. Anything that I can do to try to help make that a reality, I will. We just had a disagreement. I just don't really believe Republicans when they say that they are going to sit down at the table. table. I think that they were just using any excuse to try to get a handful of Democrats to vote to reopen the government. But again, I'm rooting for this to be true and I'll do whatever I can to get that agreement. But it sounds like you don't trust Senate Majority Leader John Thune to

hold up his side of the bargain. What do you do then? Are Democrats prepared to shut the government down again? That's a question for my colleagues who are voting now to reopen the government. I mean, listen, I just don't believe that our party has an obligation to vote for an immoral, corrupt budget. This budget, in my view, especially if it becomes a long-term budget, remember, we just voted to reopen for two months, if this budget becomes permanent and there's no relief for health care consumers, and it funds Donald Trump's illegality, it literally funds the Department of Justice's work to try to lock up Democratic United States, senators, that would be an abdication of our constitutional responsibility. So I know that there was a lot of pressure on some of my colleagues to temporarily reopen the government, but I hope that we are

united to say we are not going to vote for a full year budget that doesn't have real serious checks on Donald Trump's corruption of his power. Democrats did draw the line at the health care subsidies being extended. Why wasn't Leader Schumer able to hold Democrats together on this? Well, listen, I think we have a lot of work to do. This is not an acceptable way for our caucus to operate. Just a handful of eight or nine or ten Democrats crossing over regularly with Republicans. We've got to show some solidarity if we are going to save this republic. When we are divided like this, it accrues to the benefit of someone like Donald Trump who is trying to destroy our democracy. So I know that Senator Schumer has a hard job, but this can't happen again.

We have got to find a way to stay united. We aren't this week, and that doesn't help anybody except for President Trump. Are you worried it could happen again? Do you have confidence in Leader Schumer? Well, I certainly do worry that it is going to happen again. And I think we have to have a hard conversation inside the entire caucus to come to some conclusion on how to make sure we stay united. You know, people came out last Tuesday and said loud and clear, we want Democrats to stand and fight. We know the shutdown is hard, but we don't want you to sign onto a budget that doesn't protect our health care. So I think especially when we get these mandates from the public, we've got to listen and we've got to try to stay together inside the caucus.

To be clear, is that a conversation among Democrats that could include a change in leadership? Well, I think right now that conversation just has to happen behind closed doors amongst the 47 of us. I think we can come to a conclusion. My hope is that we can come to a conclusion that keeps us together the next time we hit a really important moment like this. That is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy joining us tonight. Senator Murphy, thank you. It's always good to see you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. As President Trump continues to push the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, he's taken a new step to protect former administration officials

and his allies who've been accused of working to overturn the election that Joe Biden won. White House correspondent Liz Landers reports on a series of pardons the president has granted. The Justice Department announcing late Sunday evening that a slate of people involved in the alleged scheme to overturn The 2020 election results have been pardoned by President Trump. Special attorney Ed Martin posting on social media that the list of people, including Trump's former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and attorney Sidney Powell, were pardoned Friday.

In it, President Trump grants a, quote, full, complete and unconditional pardon to nearly 80 people in order to end a, quote, grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people after the 2020 election. They were being shut down. They were being silenced and why. And the question was, what happened in the 2020 election? The president continues to maintain, without evidence, that the 2020 election was rigged and he won.

After the 2020 election, Trump allies allegedly worked together in a coordinated effort, according to the House January 6th Select Committee, to submit alternate electors in key swing states like Arizona and Georgia that falsely certified Trump won the election. One of those pardoned, Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department lawyer who pushed to keep Trump in power. He was indicted in Georgia in August 2023, along with Trump and more than a dozen others in an election racketeering scheme. He took to social media on Monday morning to say Trump had personally called him to tell him about the pardon, but also acknowledged his legal woes were not over. Presidential pardons only apply to federal crimes, making Trump's move largely symbolic.

Giuliani, Clark, and others still face charges at the state level. These are very unusual pardons because the way they're written is very broad. Liz Oyer served as the Department of Justice pardon attorney appointed during the Biden administration. Oyer says it's about the message Trump is sending. They've all been charged with crimes under state law. That's actually an area where the Constitution is very clear that the president does not have pardon power. So do you think these pardons really matter? The thing that's very concerning and alarming about them is that the president is clearly messaging to his supporters that if you commit crimes in the name of Donald Trump, Trump will have your back.

It is essentially a call to MAGA supporters and Trump loyalists to do whatever it is that they feel that they need to do in the interests of Donald Trump. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Liz Landers. Also today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to revisit its 2015 decision that legalized same-sex men. marriage. The justices, without comment, turned away an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky County clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses on religious grounds. Separately, the High Court today agreed to hear a challenge over Mississippi's counting of mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day. More than a dozen states in the District of Columbia allow such votes to be counted, a practice long criticized by President Trump. The outcome of the

case could have a major impact on next year's midterm election. The U.S. military has carried out two new strikes on alleged drugboats in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing six people. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted video of the strikes saying they were carrying narcotics in traveling along a known narco-trafficking route. This brings the total number of known attacks to 19 since September. At least 75 people have been killed. The Trump administration has provided little evidence to back up its claims about the boats, and some lawmakers have pushed for more information on who's being targeted and why. President Trump's lawyers are threatening the BBC with a $1 billion lawsuit.

That's if the broadcaster doesn't retract a documentary that includes an edited portion of his speech to supporters on January 6th. The BBC's chair apologized today for what he called an error of judgment in omitting a section where Mr. Trump called for a peaceful protest that day. The documentary aired in the lead-up to last year's election. The legal threat follows the resignation last night of two top BBC executives following criticism of bias at the BBC. In the Philippines, officials say Super Typhoon Feng Wong killed at least eight people and forced over one million to evacuate. The storm's fierce wind and rains isolated several towns and swamped one of the country's biggest. rice-producing regions in low-lying areas rescue trucks transported residents as most roads remained flooded. The typhoon comes on the heels of a separate storm that caused widespread

damage last week and killed more than 200 people. Locals described a terrifying night as the storm passed. I was not able to sleep last night. I told my grandchildren to pray for our safety. I was just sitting the whole night waiting for the storm to pass. The typhoon has now cleared the Philippines and is heading north. It's expected to hit Taiwan later this week. Global climate talks got underway in Brazil today, with the U.S. notably absent from the proceedings. The meeting, known as COP 30, comes during another year of record heat and extreme weather around the globe. The absence of top U.S. officials, along with nations like China and Russia, mean that this year's talks will likely end with no major agreements. Instead, attendees are aiming for smaller goals to help address.

climate change. On Wall Street today, stocks rallied to start the week. The Dow Jones Industrial average added nearly 400 points. The NASDAQ jumped more than 500 points. The S&P 500 also ended sharply higher on the day. And three-time NBA Hall of Fame inductee Lenny Wilkins has died. Wilkins was a nine-time all-star during his 15 seasons as a player and is widely considered one of the finest point guards of his era. He then transitioned to coaching, racking up more than 2,400 games as a coach, a record that still stands. And the Supersonics win their first ever NBA championship. The ball sails high in the air. Wilkins brought an NBA title to Seattle in 1979 and also coached the U.S. to gold in the 96

Atlantic Games. He is one of only five men to be inducted into the Hall of Fame as both player and coach. His family says Wilkins was surrounded by loved ones when he died yesterday. He was 88 years old. Still to come on the News Hour, the head of the FDA discusses new guidance around hormone treatment for menopause. Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the deal to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. And paintings by the late PBS legend Bob Ross go on sale to help fill funding gaps for public broadcasting. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubinstein studio at W.E.T.A. in Washington. And in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University.

Syrian president, Amel Del Shada, met with President Trump today, the first White House visit by a Syrian leader since the country became independent nearly 80 years ago. And as Nick Schifrin reports, today Damascus joined the Global Alliance countering ISIS, and the Trump administration extended temporary sanctions, Today in the Oval Office, a once unthinkable partnership. Ahmed al-Shara, former prisoner of U.S. forces, welcome to the seat of U.S. power. His path from Warrior to the West Wing, praised again today by President Trump. We want to see Syria become a country that's very successful, and I think this leader can do it.

I really do. I think this leader can do it, and people said he's had a rough past, we've all had rough pasts. Just one year ago, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani led Hayat Terir al-Shahm, a U.S. designated terrorist group with a $10 million bounty on his head. From 2005 to 2011, he was detained by U.S. forces as an insurgent in Iraq. But last December, HTS toppled Syria's half-century of tyranny, ending 14 years of bloody civil war, In beginning Al-Shara's transformation of jihadi soldier to statesmen to sportsmen of sorts, with the U.S.'s top Middle East officer in the background, this weekend Al-Shara shot hoops

with the men who, a few years ago, would have been responsible for his rest. It's historic in its own right, right? This is the first Syrian president to ever enter an American White House. Mouaz Mustafa leads the Syrian emergency task force that advocates for Syrian democracy and met al-Shara as recently as this weekend. Syria itself, which was under the influence of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, is now coming and wanting to be an ally of Western democracies and the first Syrian president ever visits the White House ever. That, I think, is the big story. Today, Syria announced it would become the 90th partner in the global coalition against ISIS.

Already, U.S. troops train with Syrian forces to try and ensure Syria can help prevent an ISIS resurgence. And a U.S. official tells PBS NewsHour the U.S. has, quote, advised, assisted and enabled 22 operations against ISIS over the past month with Syrian forces. This weekend, Syria's Interior Ministry announced a massive raid targeting ISIS militants. And Syria enables U.S. airstrikes. This year, the U.S. military has targeted an ISIS or al-Qaeda leader in Syria at least eight times. These joint counter-terror, counter-IS, sometimes counter-Qaeda operations are

ongoing and have been successful. But they've been going on kind of under the table in a way. Today, both the U.S. military and the Syrians will have the tools, the ability to publicly and privately work and coordinate on counter-terror operations. But what is not being announced today, the repeal of punishing sanctions on Syria known as the Caesar Act, imposed against Bashar al-Assad, for waging a war of brutality and torture against his own people. Today, the administration extended its suspension of the Caesar Act implementation for another 180 days. And a senior administration official tells PBS NewsHour, the Trump administration supports the full repeal of the Caesar Act. Removal is key to allow

U.S. business and regional states to operate in Syria. But only Congress can do that, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has resisted. But Syria has much to prove to me in the region before that can happen? Millions of Syrian refugees want to go home, and they can't rebuild as long as Caesar is even a shadow of being snapback sanctions or existing as an authority. And if Caesar remains, it is shattering to the Syrian economy, despite all the other things. And we don't want to see a failed state in Syria. That's bad for the whole world. Also not announced today a de-escalation agreement with Israel, whose soldiers continue to occupy strategically important land in southern Syria after a series of airstrikes on Syrian military and government targets.

The goal here is to, if anything, stop the bombardment and the incursions that have happened by the Israelis. And he also did say that this would open the door for a permanent peace with Israel in the long term. There is also no peace yet inside parts of Syria. Bedouin in the South accused the government of committing violence and making sectarian clashes worse. Syria's Christians blamed the government for failing to protect them. Kurds in the north are worried about government pressure, and former ruling Shiite Alawites accused government forces of a sectarian massacre. The only actually reason these people were killed because of the fact they were

Al-Wites. Dr. Morhoff Abrahi is the president of the Alawites Association of the United States. It's just an al-Qaeda mentality and Islamic jihadist mentality as well, that if you believe in different God or if you believe in a different God, or if you put a al-Qaeda mentality. practice your faith in different way you have to be killed. And this is the background of Ahmad al-Shara and his government. And this is why U.S. government should be careful in dealing with this guy. But today outside the White House, Al-Shara received a hero's welcome. They celebrated a man who's come a long way, even if others say he's got a long way to go.

For the PBS News Hour, I'm Nick Schifrin. Today, the FDA announced it would begin asking drug companies to remove so-called black box warnings for hormones prescribed to treat symptoms of menopause. The FDA says the warning has dissuaded generations of women from taking advantage of the medication that could help them. Ali Rogan digs into the details. That's right. Companies added this warning in the early 2000s, following a claim from researchers in a large women's health. study that the drugs carried an increased risk of breast cancer. Many experts say that risk does not exist for many menopause hormone therapy candidates. To help explain today's announcement, I'm joined by FDA Commissioner, Commissioner McCarrie. Welcome back to the news hour.

I'm going to be with you. Thank you, Ali. Why is the FDA making these label changes? Well, the fear machine that started 23 years ago with this tragic, misinterpreted study and the results, has resulted in a distorted perception of risk. And about 50 million women, since that time have been denied, never offered, or convinced out of hormone replacement therapy, including all of its short-term and long-term benefits. And some of those benefits are profound, including reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and heart attacks. That's the number one cause of death in women.

And no study subsequently has ever found, no clinical trial has ever shown that the risk of breast cancer mortality is increased with hormone replacement therapy. So women deserve all the facts, and women's health issues have historically not gotten the attention they deserve. In this administration, we are working hard to make sure issues of women's health get the attention they deserve. Now, in terms of a perception of risk, I want to break it down. There's two types of estrogen, broadly speaking. There's local, which can be a cream. It's applied directly to an area.

And then there's systemic, which takes the form of a pill or a patch and works its way through the bloodstream. This announcement today is going to apply to label changes for both. Some experts say that that is too broad of a move because the risk-benefit ratio for systemic estrogen is a little bit more nuanced than that for local and that actually these two types of estrogen should be classed completely differently. How do you respond to that? Well, that's right.

Tragically, the black box warning was placed on all estrogen products, be it local or systemic. Now, for the systemic estrogen products, there is an important nuance that will be in the package insert, and that is if you start it more than 10 years after the onset of menopause, that risk-benefit ratio inverts, and most doctors do not prescribe it after age 60 or after 10 years after the onset of menopause. And that's an important distinction, because maintaining a continuous level of intrinsic estrogen or exogenous estrogen through these hormone replacement products is probably critical to maintaining a high

of nitric oxide that keeps the blood vessel wall soft and healthy. And that may be why we see such a dramatic drop in heart attack rates long term. In one study in circulation from two years ago, a 48 percent decline in heart attacks that were fatal and a 30 percent decline in all-cost mortality. Also, a significant reduction in the rate of bone fractures later in life and a reduced rate of cognitive decline. Those are the long-term benefits on top of alleviating the short-term symptoms of menopause, the hot flashes, night sweats, mood swings, and wake gain. Right. And there's broad agreement that all types of estrogen do affect the side effects of menopause. But some experts will point out that the preventive elements of it are

less well established. There are certainly studies that point to it being indicated. There are some that point against it. So what do you say to folks who say that why not just put the applications where there is the clearest evidence. Why not highlight those and not the other ones? Look, there's an old guard in the medical establishment. They got hormone replacement wrong. They created the fear machine. Remember, we got as a medical field, opioids are non-addictive, wrong for 15 years. We got saturated fat causes heart disease wrong for 50 years. We got kids should avoid peanut butter until they're eight, three years of age, wrong for 13 plus years. And so the group think really got this so tragically wrong.

This is maybe one of the greatest mistakes in modern medicine. The data are overwhelming. The systemic meta-analyses are in. They've been published. Women who are treated by OBGYN doctors who are more comfortable understanding and prescribing hormones in women, they have been really at the forefront of the correct understanding of the literature. But there's an old guard dogma that links.

And if you talk to primary care doctors today, some of them will still say, I don't ever prescribe it because of that breast cancer risk, even though no clinical trial has ever found an increase in breast cancer mortality. The FDA is moving to remove these warning labels from hormone replacement therapy, citing the needless fear that it instilled in women. But the FDA is also calling for a label change to acetaminophen, also known as Tylenol, citing an association between use in pregnancy and autism and children, although no causal relationship has been established, does the FDA have a consistent standard here in the application of

these warning labels? And how do you respond to people who might see those two examples as contradictory? So, first of all, no comparison whatsoever. We, in the pregnancy section of the package insert, include all the information that's known about a medication and pregnancy. And so there are different studies about acetaminopin in pregnancy. The dean of the Harvard School of Public Health has stated very clearly. He believes there's a causal relationship with neurodevelopmental disorders like autism. There was a study out of Mount Sinai and Harvard that did show an association. So all of that information is going to be there. There'll be references to studies that support and studies that don't support that association in the label. But hormone replacement

therapy for post-menopausal women is at a totally different level. There has been a black box warning which scares women out of taking it even after they get the prescription. And if you look at the long-term, profound health benefits for women, there may be no other medication in the modern era except perhaps antibiotics or vaccines that may improve the health outcomes of women on a population level more than hormone replacement therapy. I want to, I want to just say, that you've cited Harvard, you've done it on several occasions, saying that the Harvard Dean cited a causal relationship. He has not said that. I reached out to Harvard to confirm that. What he said was, quote, this biological evidence lent support to the possibility of

a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminopin exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders. He said that later in 2018, he said, quote unquote, there's a causal relationship. They said this is the most accurate reflection of the science. This was two months ago. However, whatever, what is the basis on which the FDA is making these decisions? It seems like you're making one decision based on ending fearmongering, and you're making another that increases the risk that women might perceive and go to their doctors and call and be worried about it. Well, over 20 studies have shown an association, and the dean of the Harvard School Public Out,

this is important to get this correct, has stated that there is a causal relationship. He has not. You can call the communications office at Harvard, and they'll tell you some party lines. But we'll send you the reference, and it is a very clear statement in 2018. I can read it to you now if you give me 30 seconds to pull it up. But he has said there's a causal relationship. Once it was said recently, then he ran for the hills and was hiding behind a fig leaf and had no public statement except the generic statement that you're reading.

So look, I don't know whether or not there's an association, but he clearly is on record saying there is. And he was one of the authors of the Mount Sinai. Harvard study that said there is a relationship and association between prenatal acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental disorders. Well, the hormone replacement therapy announcement was changed because of the warnings of one doctor with the women's health initiative. And now you're citing one man in making the acetaminopin reference. FDA commissioner, Dr. Martin McCarrie. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you.

Well, it has been a busy Monday here in Washington following a late-night vote to clear a path to end the longest-ever U.S. government shutdown. We're joined now by our Politics Monday duo. That's Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. It's great to see you both. So, Tam, how do you interpret this deal by the seven Democrats and the independent senator who caucuses with the Democrats? to join with Republicans and ultimately reopen the government. So as Senator Kane put it, he was sort of factoring in what they could possibly get. And these moderates seem to believe that there wasn't much more that could come from a longer shutdown, but there was a lot of pain happening. So that's, that is what they're out there saying.

I will note that all of them who signed on to this, all of the Democrats who signed on to it, are either retiring or don't have an election in, in the coming. year. So that is also a significant marker that they felt that they could go out on this limb in a way that others could not. And the wrath of the party, the rest of the party, has been pretty immediate and quite strong. That there are just a lot of Democrats out there up and down from, you know, leadership in the House to people who are potentially running for president to just normal people, regular people who are saying, what did they get? What was the deal? And I think that that is something that is roiling Democrats. You know, Dems were in total array

last week when they were winning, and now they are back in disarray this week. Well, we'll pick up on that point, Amy, because the message from the Democratic base has been clear. They want to see a fight. And there's a recent poll by NBC, which shows why Democrats, broadly speaking, or take issue with the way this all came together. When you look at these numbers, what do you see? Right. So this is back in Trump's first term. Most Democrats tell the NBC poll,

we think that Democrats should work or compromise with Donald Trump over sticking on principles and potentially doing, you know, more damage. Now, we're going to put up the next slide. The next slide you'll see is in 2025, those numbers have completely flipped. And so now 65% of Democrats saying Democrats should put up a fight no matter what, and only a third of Democrats saying, we think you should compromise with Donald Trump.

We talk a lot about how much the Republican Party has changed in the 10 years since Donald Trump has come on the scene. We don't spend as much time talking about how much the Democratic Party has changed in the years since Donald Trump hit the scene. And this poll is a great reminder of that. this is a party that is much less interested in giving the benefit of the doubt to this administration. They're much less interested in believing that there is compromise to be had and they want that fight, which is why the roiling is going to continue for some time. And it is kind of remarkable. It's across the ideological spectrum. It's not just liberals who are upset. You saw moderate groups like the third way come out with a statement also saying they shouldn't have done this.

that those eight Democrats shouldn't have compromised or given their votes to Republicans. I think the bottom line, though, Jevin, all of this is that in the short term, what Democrats are seeing is they lost a political fight that they thought they could win. And they come away after 40 days with nothing tangible to show their base.

There's no extension of the ACA credits. However, for Republicans looking at this, I don't think they should feel entirely comfortable saying they won. Because if we learned anything from Tuesday's election and looking at the polling up until then and continuing, the number one challenge for Republicans in 2026 is this issue of affordability. And without a vote, I mean, one way to fix their affordability problem

is actually to take a vote on extending Obamacare subsidies. That doesn't look likely to happen in the House, but Democrats are still going to make that affordability issue a top one in their campaign next year. And that was my next question for you, Tam, in fact, that Democrats did come out of this 41-day shutdown and counting and the election this past Tuesday with this clear, consistent message on affordability, which they hoped, they would say, to use as a cudgel against the president. Yeah, and I think that they, Democrats who were upset about this deal, take some solace in the fact that the issue of these Obamacare subsidies is front of mind

for a lot of people. The shutdown extended through the start of open enrollment and people seeing what their health plans would cost without these subsidies. And so some of the Democrats I'm talking to say, well, they did tee up this fight to potentially hurt the president and Republicans, making it clear who would be responsible for these costs being higher. And you see President Trump pivoting to affordability in a big way. He is literally using the word affordability far more in the day since that election than he did in the weeks and months before it. He is now talking about affordability in sort of a different way than a lot of people absorb it. But it is clear that the White House realizes that that that,

is an issue and that is a problem. It's also why you see the president trying to offer some sort of health care solution, not one that health care experts would say is particularly practical, the idea of just giving people money. However, the fact that he's offering that is a sign that it is an issue facing Republicans remarkably eight years after they failed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Yeah. And that, and that I think gets to the heart of it, I was texting with the Republican source after the Tuesday elections, who said, boy, this seems like a really good opportunity for Republicans or a wake-up call for Republicans on what to do with this health care issue, take a vote on Obamacare subsidies. There are plenty of Republicans

who would like to say that they voted for something that reduces cost for people. Amy Walter and Tamara Keith are thanks to you both. Thank you. Welcome. More than 30 years after his death, the work of artist, educator, and public television icon, Bob Ross, continues to engage audiences in the U.S. and around the world. So when Congress rescinded $1.1 billion allocated for public broadcasting this fall, Bob Ross, Inc. saw a chance to fill some of the funding gap by selling 30 of his paintings.

The first three are set to be auctioned tomorrow. Dima Zane has more on this most unusual pledge drive for our arts and culture series, Canvas. You may never guess that hidden in a warehouse in northern Virginia sits some... Happy accidents. A small fraction of the 30,000 paintings Bob Ross is estimated to have created in his lifetime.

Many made famous and valuable by his TV show, The Joy of Painting. Let's do the reflections here. Which originally aired from 1983 to 1994. My mom took a class with him when he was nobody, and she thought he was so remarkable that she went home at night and told my dad, we need to help this guy because it's really amazing.

Joan Kowalski is president of Bob Ross, Inc., founded in 1982 by Ross, his wife, and Joan's parents, Annette and Walt Kowalski. The company says it's committed to keeping his legacy alive through the sale of all things Bob Ross, and now through an auction. Took me a couple weeks to decide which were just the best paintings. We caught Kowalski at the warehouse packing up some of the paintings to be shipped for sale by the auction company, Bonhams. But not before. PBS NewsHour is going to see them first. Selling Ross's work was something Kualski had never thought to consider.

until Congress clawed back the corporation for public broadcasting's funding last July. In the middle of the night, when I was sleeping, it just occurred to me. Bonham's had auctioned off a couple of Bob's paintings that were privately owned, and they raised a lot of money, and I thought we could do something like that. And then the funds from those auctions will then trickle down to all the local TV stations. And why was that important to auction for public television specific? It's where Bob started. Let's get crazy.

He was fiercely devoted to public television. He loved the way it was set up, where it's really just him and the viewer. Honestly, if he had been here, it would have been his idea, I think. Born in 1942 in Daytona, Florida, Bob Ross grew up loving the natural world. But it was as a young airman stationed at the Air Force base in Alaska that he first learned to paint the beauty he saw around him. And this is another one of those big decisions you have to make. Having discovered his signature wet-on-wet style that utilizes layers of wet paint to softly blend, bleed, and diffuse colors, and passionate in his belief that anyone could learn to paint.

In 1982, Ross recorded the first episode of The Joy of Painting at Falls Church Virginia Public Television. station, WNVC. There we go. Just let him wander around play and have fun. They're just all mixed. Over the course of 12 years and more than 400 episodes, Ross's soothing voice... Barely touching the canvas here.

Took viewers on a step-by-step journey of creation. A formula combined with a distinctive perm that led to fame. Transcending public television, even into shows like Family Guy. And we're going to put a happy little bush right down over here, the corner there. corner there. And that'll just be our little secret. A little roll of pain on the knife. Now, more than 30 years after Ross recorded his last episode, 100% of net proceeds from the upcoming auctions will be donated. It's just velvety. So local PBS stations can continue to air programs like America's Test

Kitchen, Julia Child's French Chef Classics, and this old house, as well as the original and remake of The Joy of Painting. How did you choose the 30 to donate and then the six that are here today? Actually, our appraiser told us that the ones that will likely raise the most are the ones that Bob did on television. I was careful to make sure that most of them were the exact paintings that he did on TV. And so you'll have a painting hanging on your wall and you'll be able to see Bob painting it stroke for stroke. This is a man who's got a voice of a God who can paint little happy tree. make you smile. And it translates to his art.

Mark Boltinghouse is an appraiser of art and antiques who works with Kowalski. How much are you expecting to raise from the collection of 30 that are being donated for this auction? Hmm. Because I want to say $5 million. How are you coming up with that? It's based on what I've seen in the market, especially the last Bonham's auction. One of them sold for $118,000. These are paintings that have not seen the light of day.

A little more of the color, and off we go. What do you think Bob Ross would have made of this auction? I think he would have been kind of giggling. I don't think he realized that his paintings would ever become this big of a deal. You know, he was more interested in the process of painting, so the idea that we're all hovering around his paintings would crack him up, I think. He would be laughing. You don't realize how gorgeous they are.

Surrounded by happy, and it turns out valuable mistakes. But just taking a twig here and there. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Dima Zane. Shoot, we got to finish painting. And there's more online from Dima and Joan about Bob Ross, his iconic hairstyle, his favorite hobby outside of painting, and a few more fun facts. That's at pbs.org slash news hour. And be sure to join us back here tomorrow night

for the kickoff of our series, Rethink. in college with a look at how universities are navigating unprecedented demands from the Trump administration. And that is The News Hour for tonight. I'm Omna Vaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at The News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.